从客观上来说可以给到4.6左右的评分，从整体上来说本番属于轻松搞笑治愈（致郁）类，以主线公路旅行类为基础，每集多为或与主线相关的小故事，或单独的小故事。本番的主要优点是其相比于同类型番剧（比如混沌武士）更轻松愉悦，以魔女为设定的世界观下主角配角全为美少女，但这些人物的塑造都可以看出是下功夫打磨的，并非为了创造美少女而产生的模板化角色，互相之间的感情线或明或暗，在剧情和许多小故事的推进中加深塑造起来。同时有争议的就是这些小故事与主线的关联程度。在本番中可以说主线并非十分明确，这场旅途的终点不明，进度不明，有些故事就是一些单独的故事，将其摘除也全然没有违和感。这种不统一性和割裂感是有所欠缺的地方，但同时也是因为如此，很多故事能真正的天马行空放飞自我。缺点明显的就是有的故事塑造度不够，有的一集双故事的地方就略显仓促，本该有足够铺垫后的反转更为震撼，但由于铺垫或描述不足，结局也就显得冲击力不足。总的来说副线对主线的推进或明或暗，反而更显出故事的核心——一场没有目的的魔女之旅，谁也不知道下一站是什么，会遇到陌生或是熟悉的人，结局是否美好或注定，不确定的惊喜也许恰恰就是旅行的乐趣之一，在广袤的世界并非一切都与伊蕾娜有关，但又总能找到自己一路追寻的足迹。

什么你问我主观多少分？我给满分，百合厨已经要被甜死在这里了，拿我的胰岛素来。

追剧可真累人，大概五天的时间看完了。今年的“含kido率”好像有点儿高，一共看了七部剧，三部都有马思超。回想了一下，最开始知道他是在《恋梦空间》和《亲爱的客栈》，当时就觉得这男的真真儿踩在我的审美点上，太韩了。年初看《我在他乡挺好的》发现有他，人设太讨喜了，又迷了一阵儿。看到有人推荐他演的《我才不要和你做朋友呢》，于是发现了这部我今年最喜欢的宝藏剧。后来关注到同一位导演要拍《冬夜》，上映的时候错过了，最近想起来开始补课。马思超还是那么招人稀罕！虽然感觉他演的这几部戏好像都没太有突破，甚至觉得现实中的他大概就是类似这样的一个人，但就是因为他那张脸我就可以接受一切啊啊啊。乔欣是真没啥女主脸，是咬字发音问题还是什么，台词很让人出戏。米兰和老严的脸很优越。慕子希有点面瘫。老丁胖啦，都有点不敢认了。王秀娥也来客串了哈哈哈。因为有《朋友》的光环，对导演和铁原都很有期待，但还是觉得剧情一般，有种强行“平行空间”的感觉，逻辑也不太能经得起推敲。看得出是小成本制作吧，场景很少。不够温情，也不够深刻。竟然整部剧下来没哭也没笑，超级平淡。倒是后面那几个彩蛋看得我嘿嘿乐，感觉乔欣在剧外好像比剧内要有人格魅力的多。总之是一部无功无过的剧吧，期待下一个马思超。

我想问问这个警察单位里的刑警、尤其是那个女法医，你们都是从那个警校三产肄业的？听说个啥消息，就能把受伤同事扔下十来级台阶？骑车带人本就是违反交规、明知故犯，看见条狗直接把自行车和后架上的乘坐者扔下，直眉瞪眼去抱狗，也不管狗身上有没有异常····警局里的刑侦女队长见不得尸检，新调进来的警员居然是她表外甥？请问她是怎么坐上队长职位的？我可栓Q了，哪个不长脑仁儿的混子写的破玩意儿！你自己傻缺吃屎就认定观众一定是等你们喂屎的傻儿吗

首先我是《神兽麻将馆》粉来的。真的七生七世这个名字只是个巧合。毕竟《神兽麻将馆》开播的时候，还没有《三生三世》这部戏。之前神兽开播的时候女主就因为太丑被水军骂惨。后来惨被官方打了马赛克。当时很多人盼着当女二的茯苓小姐姐能转正演主角。终于美梦成真，茯苓小姐姐真的从做了女主。其实对我们神兽粉来说是一种小幸福。小愿望被官方满足了。

在影片里，谭儿最后一世被分为江元和斯年。一个延续了前几世的容颜，一个带有前几世的记忆。茯苓在一开始是不敢相信斯年，并且很排斥的。试想有一天你的爱人换了个灵魂，那他还是那个你爱的人吗？你们共同的回忆和相爱的感觉都在另一个素未谋面的人身上。

我是猜测茯苓会选择斯年的。因为在《神兽麻将馆》里，谭儿是被判生生世世为女儿身，即使如此，茯苓还是深爱着谭儿，不论他这一世是什么样子，只要他还记得他们的故事，他就是她心里的谭儿。

原文出自《影像之书》官方press kit，此处刊载美版press kit中的译文。

Dear Jean-Luc,

Thank you for your invitation to see The Image Book (...)

You have recreated pictorial matter from various sources and formats. Deformed, re-colorized, enlarged by the grain, and re-framed.

Blocked all seduction of images, text also, stuttering, quavering, interrupted, covered up.

In the constant interruptions, being split between what is represented and the machine of the cinematograph, with its unspooling, its perforations, its decomposition.

Rediscovering discontinuity by digital means.

The beautiful and accurate definition of counterpoint gives a key.

Waves, flames, bombardments, armies, history and the world as a thundering spectacle à la Dovzhenko, or Vidor.

A great symphonic surge. But not to tell as story. Not longer truly ‘cinema’. As per the first reader of Moby Dick (according to Giono):

- This is not a book - No, said Melville.

This is not something to make you popular, in the face of digital, digital that shows all, and nothing behind. (I experienced this on Vigo’s films, and hope to have avoided it in the end).

That’s assuming that what you say is heard. That is what is astonishing in your film. “It is becoming necessary to draw attention,” in fact. But it hasn’t been shown like this; said, occasionally, with Victor Hugo’s “government of wild beasts.”

Marx invented remakes with his Louis-Napoleon. History repeats itself, but here, not as farce. Moral errors get confused with crimes of the States. There are criminals who exist only because of war. Humanity is destroying itself. For years now, war has been everywhere, more and more literally, in the sense of Goya or Joseph de Maistre’s (this is how we explain the presence of the latter). Habituation follows.

To say that The Image Book is an act of courage, that it is unprecedented, is a platitude. But this is the feeling that keeps coming back to me.

It is true, as the young people who write to you in Lundi matin say, that you are the only one who, etc... (They don't know how right they are, I’m curious for them to see this one).

You have always been “in” history, since you consider that that is what cinema should serve.

From Histoire(s) on, this was what it was always about, first and foremost, more than cinephilia telling its little stories (not bad!)

This time the matter itself, is history. In fact you’re not turning away from cinema, it’s simply no longer a dominant love. It is as useful as the printing type case from which Fuller’s illiterate typesetter finds the characters, at top speed.

And you, you keep the character, the hieroglyph of which Eisenstein dreamed. (He too, his three apparitions are magnificent: the owl, the hands on the bible and the Teutonic knight. He wanted to build his cathedral of the Arts, all by himself. His resistance was already that of hope, and his solitude too)

You find all the images in films, and shabby newsreels. It’s only justice. All the better if Ridley Scott serves to fill a printing type case. And to not have turned your back on cinema, the two long shots from Le plaisir suffice, where we see moving bodies, giving a definition of precisely that. Thought evolves through images and sound ("a thought / will come / to be continued"), as in a collage a friend had made using texts from the screen of Histoire(s). It is a bloc, and it is articulated like the five fingers... another one of these things I didn’t understand on paper.

Lastly, even if the re-uses of Histoires are what I am least curious about - one doesn’t change his handwriting - I very much like the idea of immortality through liquid films, from Vertigo to Ruby Gentry by way of The River. And the peaceful moments of a happy Arabia where I see something of Barnet’s joy: sunset, a boat on the glittering sea, the banal corners of the Maghreb playing for the whole of Arabia, the Arabia we have behind our eyes. Again, thank you.

Warm regards,Bernard Eisenschitz (Critic, Historian, Director)

press kit下载：https://4f399d350e4882ff73b9-0f00c87f9e216dcd5acfbe5f7dfb64d7.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/production/documents/Godard%20-%20Image%20Book%20Press%20Kit.pdf