Didn't you say that we would lose money after filming?

This film review is written by Onik Sabyan, a well-known top film critic today. As a board member of the Film and Television Association, his level of review is among the top film critics today. His film reviews can even determine the life and death of some small films and small studios.

His sharp and stimulating commentary style has always attracted many fans.

At this moment, this film review is spreading at a very fast speed.

[Today I went to see a movie, a movie with very high expectations. I was looking forward to seeing it before it was released.

I even think that this may become another benchmark in today's film industry and another pioneering work by director Karls.

However, after I watched it, I felt extremely emotional and had a thousand words in my heart but I didn't know how to express them.

That was the Sykes Project.

This movie has perfect technical skills and extremely solid expression techniques, but to be honest, I think the narrative structure is not up to Carl's level.

This movie also has a fatal internal injury. Let me analyze the data of this movie first, and then we can talk about these.】

What follows is a lengthy film review, which deconstructs the film by starting with the highlights of various technological changes.

It was not until the film analysis was completed that Onik posted a series of words, or rather, gratitude, in the final remarks section.

On the surface, this film seems to criticize colonialism, but in fact, it "whitewashes" or beautifies invasion and colonization to a certain extent through various narrative techniques and ideological frameworks. The following are several main whitewashing strategies:
1. The “white savior” narrative.

The core plot of the film revolves around Jack, a former marine who starts out as a member of the human colonists but eventually "awakens" and leads the natives in a rebellion against the Blue Star people.

This narrative model implies that colonizer violence can be corrected by “good individuals” and that true liberation must rely on the leadership of outsiders.

This setting ignores and infinitely downplays the indigenous people's own ability to resist, attributing their victory to an outsider rather than their own struggle.

This is in stark contrast to real historical colonial resistance (such as Native American or African anti-colonial struggles), which were often led by local people.

2. Blaming colonial violence on a “few bad guys”

The violence in the film is mainly driven by Colonel Miles and the management of RDA, while scientists (doctors) and some soldiers (such as Jack) are portrayed as "conscientious" characters. This binary opposition makes the audience mistakenly believe that the colonial problem is only the responsibility of "extremists" rather than the inevitable result of the entire colonial system.

In reality, colonial expansion is often a systematic behavior involving the collusion of officials, capital, the scientific community and ordinary people, rather than the decision of just a few "bad guys".

3. Glorifying the “peaceful infiltration” strategy

In the movie, humans tried to influence the indigenous people through "cultural exchange" through the "Sykes Project", such as opening schools and learning languages.

This strategy may seem more "civilized" than direct violence, but it is still a form of cultural aggression aimed at weakening the cultural independence of indigenous peoples and making them easier to control.

This approach is similar to the “civilization” of indigenous peoples by missionaries and colonial administrators in history, with the ultimate goal of paving the way for economic exploitation.
The film ends with the victory of the indigenous people, but this ending is extremely rare in reality.

Historically, indigenous peoples have often faced systematic extermination or cultural assimilation (such as the American Indians or the Aborigines of Kangaroo Island) when faced with technologically and militarily superior colonizers.

This fictional “victory of justice” gives viewers the illusion that colonial violence can be resolved in “one battle,” while ignoring the long-term and structural nature of the colonial system.

5. Portraying indigenous people as the “primitive but noble” Other

Indigenous people are portrayed as “noble savages” who live in harmony with nature. Although this setting seems to be complimentary, it also implies a colonial perspective: indigenous culture is only worthy of protection if it conforms to the Western environmentalist imagination.

This narrative ignores the complexity of indigenous society and simplifies it into an "idealized primitive state," thereby obscuring the colonizers' real motives for plundering land and resources.

6. Downplaying economic interests and emphasizing "survival needs"

The motivation for humans to colonize the planet Delsk in the movie is partly explained as "the depletion of resources on the blue planet", which to a certain extent provides "rationality" for the aggressive behavior.

However, in reality, the core driving force of colonial expansion is capital accumulation (such as the "superconducting ore" in the movie), rather than the simple need for survival. The movie weakens the cruelty of economic plunder and makes colonial behavior seem "excusable."

Finally I came to a conclusion.

Through the above methods, The Sykes Project packages colonial aggression as a problem that can be corrected by "individual conscience" rather than a global historical phenomenon that requires systematic criticism. It allows the audience to enjoy a visual feast while mistakenly believing that colonial violence can be solved through "heroism", thus covering up the cruelty and persistence of the real colonial history.

A terrible movie, full of standard American arrogance and rudeness. Yes, extreme arrogance and rudeness. It is hard for me to imagine that this movie was made by a top Hollywood director.

In fact, I was a loyal fan of director Karls before, and I was looking forward to seeing this movie as soon as possible so that I could enjoy a wonderful audio-visual feast.

But what I saw made me feel sick.

This is what I want to say. Although this movie has made a lot of technical innovations, its content cannot support it to become a true classic, and it is even seriously fragmented. I have to extremely doubt the vision of the Oscars. In fact, the movie I will talk about in the next film review that I will soon publish is the one that I think is truly worthy of the award. 】

The film reviews sparked huge public opinion and resonance.

"Yes, I wanted to say this when I was watching the film. I was shocked because it could use such shameless means to whitewash the act of aggression without any scruples on a large scale. But I couldn't say what was wrong with it. Thanks to Onik for giving me some ideas."

"That's absolutely right. This is the arrogance that has always existed among the upper class in America. Their arrogance has a long history and is directed at everyone."

"Family, let's stop talking. I see the Indian scalp hanging on my wall smiling at me."

(Didn’t someone ask me to write about Avatar before? They said that writing about entertainment cannot avoid this classic, and asked me to analyze this "good movie". Here it is, and I spent a whole day to analyze this movie for you.) (End of this chapter)