• 当前位置:首页 犯罪片 女生规则

    女生规则

    评分:
    0.0很差

    分类:犯罪片印度2016

    主演:阿米达普·巴强,塔丝·潘努,基尔蒂·库哈里,Andrea Tariang,皮尤什·米什拉,安加德·贝迪,维杰·维玛,Raashul Tandon,图沙尔·潘迪,特里蒂曼·查特吉,玛玛塔·尚卡尔,Dibang,Mamta Malik,Amit Baisoya,S.K. Batra 

    导演:阿尼鲁德·罗伊·乔杜里 

    排序

    播放地址

    提示:如无法播放请看其他线路

    猜你喜欢

    • 扫黑·决不放弃

    • HD中字

      死亡之地

    • 正版货

      法外情

    • HD中字

      东北往事之我叫赵红兵

    • HD中字

      破裂2022

    • HD

      阳光和混凝土

    • HD

      恶到必除

    • HD

      羔羊游戏国语

     剧照

    女生规则 剧照 NO.1女生规则 剧照 NO.2女生规则 剧照 NO.3女生规则 剧照 NO.4女生规则 剧照 NO.5女生规则 剧照 NO.6女生规则 剧照 NO.16女生规则 剧照 NO.17女生规则 剧照 NO.18女生规则 剧照 NO.19女生规则 剧照 NO.20

    剧情介绍

    一场聚会上,一名女生为了拒绝男生的侵犯而失手砸伤男生,随后她与同伴不断受到男方的威胁和骚扰,并被男方以“故意伤害罪”告上法庭,一场黑白颠倒的诉讼就此展开。在这场黑白颠倒的诉讼中,几位女生该如何走出“规则”的困局?

     长篇影评

     1 ) 律师部分缺失且重要

    #女生规则 # No means no

    #有些许些许剧透,但不就是这事儿嘛

    在删了18分钟后

    2013终于时隔7年把它搬到了国内屏幕上

    话题其实还是比较老套的话题

    套路也多少差不多

    可是架不住它一些台词是真的好,有力量

    而且这样的事件搬上法庭这个场地之后

    可以将矛盾激化从而刺激观感

    强势群体vs 弱势群体

    强势群体里面不仅仅有男性

    还有加害的女性

    甚至还有来自亲人的不理解的伤害

    可是,有什么错呢?

    “No, means no”

    无论她是谁,都有说‘不’的权利

    包括,妻子

    对,律师说到妻子的时候眼神灰败了一下

    这里就要说到电影不足之处

    不知道是否删减片段有关于律师的部分

    我觉得律师部分是有缺失的

    而且缺的部分非常的重要

    为什么他会关注这几个女孩

    为什么他可以在这样的“偏见系统”之外

    为什么他的妻子卧病在床

    为什么他的生活一直没有色彩

    为什么他精神不稳定

    这些都是非常重要的要素

    没有讲清楚

    如果律师部分讲好了

    应该可以给本片大大加分

    有些意识不是突然就有的

    它们是建立在血和泪之上

    而不应该只有这一次的女孩事件

    7分左右吧

     2 ) 这片子在印度能过审

    影片拍摄的很好,演员演的也很认真。我这里提出一些思考,关于审核制度的思考。如果这片子直指并抨击印度的全贵阶层,最后还能够过审,那就说明了很多问题。不要轻易小看一个国家,借用三体中的一句话,弱小和无知不是生存的障碍,傲慢才是!如果没有现在的审核制度,我们的很多优秀影片都能过脱颖而出,能够启迪和教育多少青年人,能够净化多少观众的灵魂!然而洗脑和灌输,从来都是主流,而文化元素的缺失,独立思考的匮乏,会让我们越来越落后,从而越来越孤立,这值得每个人思考。

     3 ) 主题是好的 但不看演职员表就知道是男导演

    挺好的 男性导演开始尝试触碰女权主义题材,是个挑战,但遗憾的是依旧全是刻板印象,女权思想全靠一个男性律师靠嘴输出,电影里的女性形象是单一的无助的受害者,她们情绪化不理智,只会在法庭上歇斯底里声泪俱下,法庭下只会哭着求助感到害怕痛苦无助,哭泣昏睡。全是符号化的,电影里的女性真的只是推动情节的工具人—失语的受害者。

    但也还是好的,不管怎么样越来越多导演愿意尝试触碰这个主题,就代表有越来越多的机会和可能性出现好的故事好的作品。

     4 ) 我们应该拯救的是男孩,而不是女孩(经典台词)

    女孩安全手册

    规则一:一个女孩不应该单独和一个男孩去任何地方,不能去度假村,当然也不能去用厕所,因为如果她那样做的话,人们就会假定,既然她都自愿去那里了,他们就有权利对她动手动脚了。

    规则二:当女孩和男孩说话时,她不能笑,也不能触碰他,不然的话,他会觉得这是一种暗示,她的微笑会被认为是默许,而这种人类的自然行为也会让他觉得她品行不端。

    规则三:在我们的社会,很显然时间能决定一个人的性格,当女孩子晚上单独走在路上,车子会慢下来,车窗会被摇下来,但是白天的话,就没人想过这些伟大的想法。

    规则四:女孩永远不能和男孩喝酒,因为她喝了,男孩就会想着:“如果她都愿意和我喝酒了,她就不会介意和我睡觉的”,对女孩来说,喝酒就意味着有机可乘。可只针对女孩,不是男孩,这对男孩不适用,对男孩来说,就是对身体有点危害,所以情况和条件不一样。 经典台词

    当有人未经你允许就触摸你时,那感觉真的很恶心。可是如果被人强行触摸的话,谁不会做出反应呢?

    穿牛仔裤、T恤,衬衫等等…女孩就不能那样,虽然那样做不会伤害她们,但对男生来说就是深深的威胁,可怜的男孩子看到她们也这样做,就受刺激了,她们没做错什么,可是可怜的男孩子最终还是犯错了,直到现在,我们一直都在朝着错误的方向发展,我们应该拯救的是男孩,而不是女孩。因为如果我们拯救了我们的男孩,那么我们的女孩也就安全了。城市里的女孩不该独自生活,不该独自居住,男孩可以,女孩就不行,独立的女孩会让男孩感到困惑,女孩在谈话时就不该微笑,事实上,即使她们在说一个好消息,她们也必须板着脸说话,她们不能用手机,不能受教育,她们要早点结婚等等…

    她说,那些女孩没有拿钱还承认了,只是为了结束争论。

    即使是所谓的“现代女孩”,也还只是女孩而已,当她们去和男孩吃饭喝酒,她们只是晚上出去一下,她们不知道她们就会被贴上“随便”的标签,但是即使是像他那样穿着得体并受过高等教育的男孩子,还是会利用封建思想,穿什么,喝不喝酒,这些决定了她们是不是随便的,那些不遵守这些准则的女孩就是可以被侵犯的。

    “不”不只是个单词,还是个完整的句子,这不需要进一步的解释,“不”就是“不”,我的当事人说了“不”,法官大人,这些男孩必须意识到,“不”的意思就是“不”,不管这些女孩是熟人,朋友,女朋友,还是性工作者,甚至是你自己的妻子,“不”的意思就是“不”,当别人说了这个字,你就必须要停止。 最后的诗

    开启自我探寻的旅途吧, 你为什么抑郁? 开始跑起来吧! 就连时间也在搜寻你的存在, 对服装的限制, 就别再去想, 只想它视作衣服, 打破所有的限制, 把这些都当做你的武器, 当做你的武器。 开启自我探寻的旅途吧, 你为什么抑郁? 开始跑起来吧! 就连时间也在搜寻你的存在, 即使你品行优秀, 你为什么还是处于这种境地? 那些罪人是没有权利评判你的, 烧毁这些社会准则吧, 那是残酷的陷阱。 你不是微弱的烛焰, 你是愤怒的火光, 你是愤怒的火光。 开启自我探寻的旅途吧, 你为什么抑郁? 开始跑起来吧! 就连时间也在搜寻你的存在, 把你的围巾变成旗帜, 挥舞它,开始革命吧! 天空也会战栗, 如果你的围巾掉落了, 它会引起地震, 一次地震。 开启自我探寻的旅途吧, 你为什么抑郁? 开始跑起来吧! 就连时间也在搜寻你的存在, 就连时间也在搜寻你的存在。

     5 ) 过程很揪心,结局很舒适,所揭露的现实很残酷

    印度电影,大致讲的就是三个年轻的女生,接受了几个刚认识的男生的邀请,去酒店吃饭、喝酒。这些男生觉得有机可乘,想做龌龊的事,结果遭到反抗,一个男生被打伤眼睛。 被打伤的男人家里有钱有势,就开始报复,甚至聘请无良律师颠倒黑白,将打伤他的女生告上法庭,想让她坐牢很多年。女生们扛住了种种压力,在一个老律师的帮助下,最后反败为胜。 这是一部反映印度女性低下的社会地位的电影,当女生受到有钱有势的男人的侵犯时,警察选择和坏人同流合污(哪怕那个警察自己也是女性),家人也劝她们息事宁人,社会舆论也认为“谁叫她们接受了男人的邀请,被侵犯也是活该”。 影片很不错,揭露了印度社会的黑暗面,不过好在是good end,结局令人舒适! 美中不足的就是,影片长达2小时,前一半基本都在铺垫,可能会比较乏味。不过后半部分,是法庭的辩论环节,正义的老律师vs无良油腻的坏律师,情节超级痛快,节奏感满满! 侵犯女性的男人必须受到应有的惩罚,但是,女性也要注意好保护自己。保持警惕,预防受到伤害,更胜过被侵犯后再去制裁对方。

     6 ) 女生规则

    印度的女生遭遇这样的情况很普遍吧。整个影片看的过程很揪心,好歹结局是好的。男性导演拍的女权主义题材,是挑战。只有律师为这些女孩子辩论,要打破“女生规则”!法庭辩论是为女生们正名,是对施暴者有罪的反击!

    电影给了一个满意的结局,女生们战胜了那些犯错的男生,使很多观众认识女权的重要性,法律维护了女生权利。

     7 ) The not-so-pinky messages from Pink

    Recently I have unfailingly surprised myself with the fact that I have so far watched 55 movies that has “India” as a tag. I know, though, that it is nothing to be surprised about when dwarfing this figure against either the sheer volume of Bollywood productivity, or the subsequent reminder that has already been seven years since the rabbit hole of this incredible country has cracked open for me.

    This figure has nonetheless put me into a justifiable position to summarize my stereotypes on Indian movies. And it does not take long to come up with these words:
    cheesy, “masala”, dramatic (and sometimes naively or even stupidly so), loudly, and- of course- sing and dance, sing and dance, sing and dance…

    These stereotypes sometimes feel comforting to foreigners like me, because stereotypical movies are easy to follow even if you don’t understand the language. You can also start guessing the plots early on, and the movies would end up with no substantial difference from your guessing. Being easy and predictable, it also saves brainpower so that you don’t have to think much. In other words, it is a cheap and really effortless way of relaxation. An entertainment.

    Insomuch as it is entertaining, it can be confusing and even frustrating. In all the Bollywood movies I’ve watched so far (perhaps with the sole exception of Slumdog Millionaire which is actually from Hollywood), India is always portrayed as spotlessly clean, without dust and no single trace of pollution. Metros or local trains are never packed. Traffic jam never a grueling pain to be confronted (fair enough: why waste the precious screen time on the seemingly endless jams?!) Suffocating crowdedness and the lack of space? All these can be whitewashed by an idyllic hue with some simple maneuvering of colors and lights made possible by advanced filming technologies…

    If even the surface of life is fabricated and brushed into such a fancy and romantic fairy-tale never-land, what portion of reality would you expect the movies to touch upon in terms of real contents?

    That is where Pink, the latest Indian movie I have watched, differs. It is a precious anomaly on the Indian screens after such a long while that was brave enough to pick up and challenge against a grave social reality. It embodies a rare and respectable effort to actually make people think. And think hard, as the message delivered are way less pinky than the title would suggest.

    The movie did prove itself to be different since the very beginning. No typical elements mentioned above were present. What caught the eyes was instead an intenseness that flows through the swift volatility of scenes around the girls and the boys despite the normality of neighborhood. The high-pitched, playful and sexy female singing common to most Bollywood pieces was also replaced by a low-pitch gloomy voice that preys and haunts and lingers, to create and corroborate a feeling of tragic vulnerability.

    But I also feel that the mood of the first half (before intermission) was a bit overdone that made it comparatively mediocre and even somewhat bizarre. For example, perhaps to showcase the character of a lawyer, Deepak Sehgal has worn a stern face ever since his first appearance- which, immersed in and intermingled with the creepy and nervous background music, disseminates an uneasy feeling as if Big B[rother] is watching you. This sternness was tendered only by his visits to his hospitalized wife.*

    Then, when it comes to the second half, the lawyer had and charmingly held the whole stage. Yet what enriches the movie from a one-man show into the current version of depth and audacity is that other characters played their part with equal strength and excellence. Especially the lawyer from the opposite side Prashantji, who cunningly tries to underpin the three girls as sex workers by highlighting the monetary issues. Indicating the girls as such also adds another delicate yet thought-provoking dimension to the story, on which the current Indian society is perhaps yet to grow adapted so as to reflect frankly and open-mindedly. At the very least, concerns on this dimension may well be the reason why they did not resort to the police in the first place. (The police do not seem to be a trustworthy venue of justice whatsoever.)

    I particularly like the last two rounds of questioning which, in my opinion, have been the climax of the entire movie. Till then, my initial boredom and cluelessness has evaporated entirely. And although I still wasn’t able to capture every detail because of the language barrier, the broader message got me completely (also thanks to the timely interpretation of my friend). Through the intense flurry of gestures, tears and expressions of the girl Falak under the increasingly overwhelming pressure from Prashantji, I had no problem sympathizing with her deep frustration and depression. Similarly, when the boy Rajveer was cornered by Deepakji’s turn, I cannot agree more with the final message: No means NO. Whether it comes from a girl, a girlfriend, a random person or a sex worker.

    Such a simple message it is. Such a helpless situation that the country has been so ignorant about it, that a simple message like this needs to be delivered in as a serious and sophisticated manner as possible in order to be heard. And such a brilliant initiative the movie is taking, in conveying it in this well-elaborated and well-played story.

    For those who question why the movie did not fix the character of Deepak Sehgal as a female lawyer, I was nevertheless unable to get the point. Pardon my limited knowledge about the Indian movie industry, but I failed to nominate in my mind a single actress who is as influential as the Bachchan and can thus deliver the message in an equally eloquent, cogent and powerful manner. More importantly, the charge is missing the point. It is too rigid an interpretation of feminism, women empowerment or whatever you call it. Compared with the gender of the messenger, the message itself matters much more. If anything, Big B’s playing such a decisive role in the movie is the best demonstration of “He for She” that I can think of. In the end, it is less about reversing the dominance of men with that of women. It is about creating a widespread and much-needed consensus, among men and women alike, that women are to be respected rather than abused, whose free wills are to be honored rather than violated.

    If one is really picky about the movie, you can say that it is still somewhat ideal. Poor King’s College whose name was borrowed as a negative illustration that higher or more degrees does not necessarily prove one’s being educated at an expected level. However, at least in this movie, schooling abroad at prestigious universities does seem to indicate a minimum of civility, which is why the case was lucky enough to be rested in the court.

    India’s harsh reality is by no means endowed with this luxurious luck. In the more common patterns frequency exposed in the media, sexual harassment, intimidation, molesting or other abusive cases were more likely to be succumbed to macabre male violence, sometimes with deadly consequences, before the court ever got the chance to be involved. Nor did the movie inquired deeper into the family background of the boys, or how their rich yet illiterate or poorly-educated mothers and “successful” yet similarly minded fathers have doted them into the irresponsive and misbehaving persons they have now become. Accordingly, it might be the case that the breadth and depth of the “mental bomb” detonated by this movie may be restricted by its very set-up.

    Having said so, those minor limitations would not prevent the radiance of the movie from shining at all. Indeed, instead of routinely embracing the more revealing and tantalizingly sexual Bollywood music videos featured by excessive showoffs and consumptions of breasts and hips, it is movies like Pink, with brain and compassionate heart, which should be encouraged, warmly received and solemnly contemplated.

    Finally, an outcry to Chinese filmmakers (or rather the regulators for that matter): In Korea, movies like So-won or Memories of Murder have been the brave bullets that bite directly the brutal scars of the society. Japanese movies and TV series also have the reputation of being closely connected to reality (接地气). Now even Indian screens are catching up with Pink- how or indeed when can we anticipate a change from your side?

    (I later on learned from IMDB plot that Deepak Seghal suffers from bipolar disorder. If that is the case, then the big-brother-watching-you type of face does make sense. Still, background information in the first half could have been unfolded in a more succinct and elegant way.)

     短评

    为女性污名化发声,法庭辩论振聋发聩,输出价值观铿锵有力。

    6分钟前
    • shininglove
    • 还行

    几次堂审的控方律师的咄咄逼人让女孩们一次次在奔溃边缘。男权社会公平公义本身从一开始就对这群女孩有偏差,辩方律师最后的结案呈词太赞了,当有人说“No”的时候,就是要对方立即停止,印度这个国家诟病很多,但在他们的影视作品中会正视这些问题,没有回避,这就是好样的。P.s.前半段节奏拖沓了点

    10分钟前
    • kiki204629
    • 推荐

    女生规则由男律师总结,女受害者们靠“扫地僧”拯救。这本质上还是一部父权社会下的印度爽片,而不是一部优秀的电影。但《女生规则》用这种大众娱乐的方式来触碰社会的痛点,引起印度社会的讨论和或许那么一点点的变革,是我们还远远不及他们的地方。

    12分钟前
    • 凉风羽
    • 推荐

    没有了解过,不知道印度的法庭是否真的那么乱。不过法庭上说出了一个大现实,女人做什么都会被误认为对男人有好感。

    13分钟前
    • 王二爷
    • 推荐

    我们一直都在朝错误的方向努力。我们应该拯救的是男孩,而不是女孩,因为如果我们拯救了我们的男孩,那么我们的女孩也就安全了。把你的围巾变成旗帜,挥舞它,开始革命吧,天空也会战栗。如果你的围巾掉落了,它会引起地震。开启自我探寻的旅途吧,你为什么抑郁?开始跑起来吧,时间也在搜寻你的存在。

    14分钟前
    • Mumu
    • 推荐

    印度是一个女性社会地位普遍低下的国家,德里也被戏称为强奸之都,然而就是在这样一个性别歧视相当严重的国家,却诞生了大量极为优秀的女权作品,“不管那个女孩是熟人,朋友,女朋友,妓女,甚至是你自己的妻子,不就是不,当别人说不的时候,你就必须停止”这是最简单又最深刻的对于女性对于人的尊重

    19分钟前
    • 小舞舞
    • 力荐

    两趟飞机上接力看完的 白发长者演得很棒 搜索才知道是国宝级演员 讲的维护女权反抗性骚扰的故事 记忆最深的是最后的结案诉词 大意是这样 "不 不仅仅是一个动词 也是一个完整的句子 当她说不 不管是你的情人 女朋友 甚至妻子 你也必须停止"

    20分钟前
    • Yuke-云
    • 推荐

    问题不少,金句挺多,感受到了阿米达普巴强的魅力。

    25分钟前
    • 不脱袜子同学
    • 推荐

    该片巧妙之处在于没有一开始就把真相公之于众,而是让观众处于陪审团的位置,通过法庭辩论自由心证。最后将事实通过片尾彩蛋放出。

    30分钟前
    • 波奇酱
    • 力荐

    2016.9.25. Select Citywalk.前半部分有些摸不着头脑,但后半部分的庭审戏燃爆了。BigB爷爷宝刀未老,但对方律师以及所有的证人的演技都非常出彩。比起挑逗性地消费大胸大腿的宝莱坞MV,真的这种敢于揭示并挑战现实的印度电影太清流太让人尊敬了: no means NO. 另外那个东北女孩儿有时看起来好像周迅

    31分钟前
    • 小飞侠3799
    • 力荐

    印度在中国“有名”的原因之一就是骇人听闻的强奸案以及背后可怕的固化的歧视思维。一个电影短短两小时内牵出印度社会撕裂的社会阶层,伪善的上流审美与思维,对于女性无处不在的束缚与社会充耳不闻的麻木,正义最终由退休又患病的律师维护,相比较一些国家来说,这样的情况可能还不是最坏。ost赞!

    34分钟前
    • 念念
    • 力荐

    宝莱坞要是能学会节制点该多好,比如《红粉惊魂》前50分钟1星戏份完全砍掉,丝毫不影响后面三星半的90分钟。

    39分钟前
    • NatureLB
    • 推荐

    结尾好仓促,辩方并未直接反驳控方的证据,而是通过打感情牌、拐弯抹角的讽刺来取得胜利,缺乏说服力,也没有兵来将挡的爽感。可有可无的细枝末节不如删去,两小时的体量承载不了那么多,但no means no 的立意上乘,剧情很抓人,观影情绪容易随着庭审的形势而变化。“幸福不是终点,而是一种生活方式”无声的台词让我印象深刻。

    40分钟前
    • 大浩Colen
    • 推荐

    单纯从影像看几乎就是好莱坞复制品,本土化做得实在太糟糕,三个女主的设定就非常脱离印度现实,过程和结局更是一厢情愿,女性权益的实现不能只靠嘴炮和说教。印度很多揭露社会弊端的电影一概如此,充斥着政治正确和话题消费,除了假大空外毫无实际操作价值。

    44分钟前
    • 小J²
    • 较差

    现在印度看到这种瞎编乱造的女权电影拍一个成功一个,于是争相模仿,刻意卖惨。真正去过印度的都能看到印度女人的地位已远远高于电影中的了。

    45分钟前
    • Protagoras
    • 很差

    想说的太多,索性还是用片中正气凛然的白发爷爷律师的台词:“不”不只是个单词,还是个完整的句子。这不需要进一步解释。“不”就是“不”,男孩必须意识到,不管这些女孩是熟人,朋友,女朋友,还是性工作者,甚至是自己的妻子,“不”的意思就是“不”,当别人说出来,你就必须停止!

    50分钟前
    • Fleurs.哼哼
    • 推荐

    7分吧,节奏不好,看的时候确实有点看不下去。不过在B站的,弹幕倒真是让我大跌眼镜了,真是人性大观。。。明明还处在一个略高的姿态的自己,一下子意识到,身边原来还有千千万万一样的直男癌,真TM讽刺

    53分钟前
    • kendy
    • 还行

    后半段的庭审看得太憋屈,法庭辩论有点像剑宗打气宗,控方律师使用各种逻辑谬误来给女方泼脏水,而辩方律师很多时候并没有直接拆穿或反驳,只是站桩输出自己的价值观,拐弯抹角地讽刺,为最终的观点作很长的铺垫。作为观众,我更想看到主角方把对手拆解得一干二净,而呈现出来的效果却并非如此,最终律师还是靠正确的价值观和“反派心急说漏嘴了”才赢得的胜利。很不喜欢律师的角色塑造,导演想要塑造一个神人的形象,但显然没太成功。影片没有呈现他如何思考策略或从糊涂变清醒的过程,更多时候他就是在“原地发呆”和“站桩输出价值”之间来回切换。总之我看到最后感觉也真是只有在电影里才能赢,放现实中可能早输了。Anyway这是部很不错的电影,类似的主题完全能在国内找到素材。

    55分钟前
    • 情绪稳定的小狗
    • 推荐

    看完《女生规则》,我的观点是部分中国男人和电影里印度男人还是有些共通之处的。比如一个女生答应和你一起吃晚餐并同意在晚餐后喝酒就以为着这个女生是个easy girl,或者她对你微笑、和你有不经意的肢体触碰就是在给你性暗示等等。所以,女孩子不可以单独和男生出去,不可以穿着暴露,不可以对男生微笑,这些在电影里被称为“女生规则”,是所谓的“传统以来对女生的道德标准”,面对这样的道德标准,女生是无所谓是否处在“现代”的,她们将永远被之规训。那就想问问,从来如此,便对么?

    60分钟前
    • osake
    • 力荐

    No,不是一个字、一个词,而是一个完整的句子。当有人说no,所代表的意思就是对方要立刻停止。

    1小时前
    • 哥伦比亚树蛙
    • 推荐

    Copyright © 2023 All Rights Reserved

    电影

    电视剧

    动漫

    综艺