Since the "Twelve Arhats" and "Borrowing a Knife to Kill" were selected on the same day, the comments of major newspapers and magazines also chose to be published on the same day, presenting the tense atmosphere of the confrontation clearly and directly. Almost everyone can directly read the comments of another work when reading a movie review, and the comparison of the pros and cons is clear at a glance. ∽↗

Interestingly, all of the first forty-three film reviewers commented on "killing people with a knife", but only thirty-six commented on "Twelve Arhats". This situation is exactly the opposite of the number of news reports.

Thanks to the push behind Warner Bros., in addition to the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal, authoritative and professional media commented on the two films at the first time, but the result may not be satisfactory to Warner Bros.

The Chicago Sun, where Roger Ebert was in office, also published a brief review of this top film critic in the United States. Regarding the "Twelve Arhats", he said, "This is a movie about courage, dialogue, star appeal and wisdom and humor. Although the script is very weak and it loses its presence, as an entertainment blockbuster, I still like it to some extent." In the rating system of 100 points, he gave 65 points, and in the recommendation index exclusively belonging to Roger, he gave 4 stars with three stars.

This is also Roger's usual style. Maybe he doesn't like this movie, but he thinks it is worth recommending. Because of different demands of movies, he will not ask commercial movies to entertain the public while showing wisdom, nor will he require artistic movies to achieve box office results while exploring the depth of ideas. Therefore, the ratings may be very low, but the recommendations are good; on the contrary, the ratings are very high, but they do not think it is worth recommending. This situation often occurs.

As for "killing with a knife", he also continued his attitude on his official website. "Excellent movies, from character creation, to light use, to audio effects, and impressive performances, can be regarded as one of the best works in the past five years." The 88-point evaluation, combined with the strong recommendation of four stars, clearly expressed Roger's attitude.

Of course, the evaluation of the "Twelve Arhats" may not be all bad. The "San Francisco Chronicle" gave a good review of 75 points. Film critic Steven Lea said, "According to the current sequel trend in Hollywood, perhaps we can see the "Seventeen Arhats".

This humorous comment with ridiculous sarcasm obviously gives a good affirmation of the entertainment of the movie.

Relatively speaking, Steven's comment on "killing with a knife" is quite meaningful. "As a thriller crime movie, the biggest flaw of "killing with a knife" is that in the attempt to break through, it has not been able to go one step closer. Its only regret is that it has not been able to surpass the "desperate world" released ten years ago."

Steven avoided positive discussions, did not give direct affirmation or direct denial, but compared it to the legendary classic "Faith of the World" in 1993, only real movie lovers can appreciate the hidden deep meaning: perhaps, "killing with a knife" is the most outstanding thriller crime movie in ten years.

The 70-digit score is naturally not as good as the "Twelve Arhats", but no one should forget that the "San Francisco Chronicle"'s biased position on Chaos Film's works, especially referring to the content of Steven's brief review, the 70-digit evaluation becomes more and more meaningful.

Is it better to have a 75-point "Twelve Arhats" or a 70-point "killing with a knife"? I believe that every reader who has read the "San Francisco Chronicle" will have his own answer.

In addition, the comments on "Vanity Fair" are also very intriguing. This is the comment on "killing with a knife". "As a director, Lancelot-Stralo has injected charm into this film noir. The special camera language and special performance art left a special touch, but he was unable to avoid the cliché of the ultimate stupid movie in Hollywood - the self-righteous perfect ending, but it is just another arrogant interpretation."

At 50, "Vanity Fair" means that this is not a negative comment, but a neutral comment mixed with positive and negative.

In contrast, "Vanity Fair" gave praise to the "Twelve Arhats", "This is not only a double stimulating work, but also a magical film that combines retro and fashion. It is easy to steal the audience from the screening halls of other works."

Unreserved praise for the title of "Twelve Arhats". Such an evaluation is really good for a commercial film. Combined with a 75-point evaluation, it can be directly asserted that "Famous Fair" believes that "Twelve Arhats" is a work that is far more worthy of entering the cinema than "killing with a knife".

But unfortunately, there are only a handful of media that adhere to the similar views as "Famous and Fair". Among the 36 comments, eight gave negative comments, eight gave neutral comments, and twenty gave positive comments. Among the negative comments, the lowest score was 20; among the positive comments, the highest score was 75.

"Seattle Post", "putting aside the 'Twelve Arhats' is a movie that fades faster than invisible ink, but it's not the kind of movie you want to appreciate the plot details, but it's a movie about spending two hours on a yacht on Lake Como and relaxing with friends." Seventy-five minutes.

"Hollywood Reporter", "Stephen Milione's quick editing and David Holmes' pop-rock soundtrack make the movie entertaining, and as for the rationality of the story and the fullness of the characters, it doesn't matter." Seventy-five points.

"New York Post," "When you leave the theater, you forget about the movie - if not, wait a little longer. This entertaining movie is just about the enjoyment of the eyes ice cream." Fifty.

"Chicago Tribune", "Busier, more chaotic, weaker, the movie split into every part seems interesting, but when combined, it makes people so bored that they want to sleep." Fifty.

"The Washington Post," "the film attempts to achieve entertainment through the actor's chemistry, but it is undoubtedly a failure, inferior, bad, and even more terrifying, no part about this 'question' is interesting." Forty.

"Entertainment Weekly", "What we see on the screen is a lazy, second-rate, boring, awakening the phone ringtone - the only uncertainty is how many viewers' phones in their pockets ring - the work." Twenty-five points.

"New Yorker", "When the movie is halfway through, you will feel hungry like never before, and then start thinking about whether you should choose a burger or pizza after the movie is over." Twenty.

It can be seen that the media has launched fierce criticism of the "Twelve Arhats". Even the media that praises focus on the entertainment of the movie, but other than that, there is no way to give more praise, which also makes the clear-cut position of "Famous Fair" a unique and independent statement.

It is worth mentioning that the score of "Vanity Fair" for the two films is exactly the highest score of the first batch of "Twelve Arhats" and seventy-five points; it is also the lowest score of the first batch of comments of "killing with a knife", fifty-tenths.

For reference, media outlets who once gave negative comments in the "City of God" and "The Day Afternoon" works, and at the same time made positive comments for "Troy", such as the "Los Angeles Times", "San Francisco Chronicle", "Seattle Post", "Hollywood Reporter", etc., have also undergone subtle changes in their attitude towards "killing with a knife" this time.

Although among these media, the rating of "killing people with a knife" is still lower than that of "Twelve Arhats", the average evaluation has been significantly improved, which has attracted the attention of many people in the circle: the quality of "Twelve Arhats" is really terrible, and even the closest factions cannot bear to praise it, so they are ruthless about the competing works; or is the quality of "killing people with a knife" really outstanding, which makes people have to abandon personal paranoia and give relatively objective evaluations? Whether it is the former or the latter, in this competition of media comprehensive evaluation, the balance of victory and loss has changed significantly.

Faced with such a situation, the Houston Chronicle even changed the definition of the two movies directly. "As a commercial movie, the 'Twelve Arhats' are undoubtedly excellent, full of entertainment, shining stars and endless charm, becoming a delicious Christmas dinner during the holiday season; as an art movie, the bold and extraordinary attempt of 'killing people with a knife' is eye-catching, but trying to make a bloody road in the awards season with strong hands still needs to be further improved."

This is really ridiculous. Just one day ago, all media placed the two movies in the position of commercial movies, giving a lot of introductory descriptions of the box office competition between the two; but one day later, the nature of the two movies had undergone tremendous changes - obviously, people should not use "reputation of mouth" and "media comprehensive review" as the criteria for measuring the two works, after all, the nature is different.

This small detail has also become the summary statement of the first batch of media comprehensive reviews. This is true. In sharp contrast to the "Twelve Arhats", there are 43 film reviews who "kill people with a knife", 35 positive comments, and eight neutral comments, while the number of negative comments is zero.

In other words, this is a work with zero negative reviews! The overall momentum even surpassed Lance's debut "City of God", and achieved a new high recognized by film critics. The result was really beyond everyone's expectations - it attacked commercial films, gained the reputation of artistic films, and gave everyone a harsh blow.
Chapter completed!