The poster I was responding to DIDN'T understand it though, whether they liked it or hated it their description of it being all about the "joys of sex" is just sillyit wasn't some hidden subtext anyone misses, it was the core point of the film that they missed by dummying it down to being all about sex
+Charos+
"I have often laughed at weaklings
who thought themselves good because
they had no claws."

This message has been deleted.

"So Chan Park-Wook made a film to show the joys of sex. How beep deep!"
A movie about the joys of sex? There's ONE sex scene in the entire film, as tastefully done as a sex scene can be, and the only thing it was conveying is the love of the two main characters and their throwing off of the isolation they'd built themselves into, it's completely peripheral to the entire plotline of the filmthe consummation of everything that the film was trying to offer.
And as a side, it's Park Chan-wook, not Chan Park-wook
+Charos+
"I have often laughed at weaklings
who thought themselves good because
they had no claws."

It's pretty funny reading some of the comments in this thread.
Just because you understand the movie doesn't make it good, just because you don't understand the movie doesn't make it bad.
That being said, I really enjoyed this movie. The amount of weird and funny that's mixed with the growing romantic relationship between the two main characters, and that beautiful ending made me feel good by the time the credits rolled.
7/10! Good show Mr. Park

This was way better than Lady Vengeance

So Chan Park-Wook made a film to show the joys of sex. How beep deep!
Could have made a porn flick straight away.
I hope this is a temporary lapse for him.
It's not like he's not supposed to make comedic films - if they're good then bring them on! He already has had many very funny moments in his other films (although much of the humour was pretty dark) so it's not like he can't. It's just that here he was overly self-induldgent.

The plot was arranged kind of bleh, but the ending made perfect sense. The main point was the romance between the two main characters, even though it strayed from that some. The ending was simply them getting together. They took their socks off because they were getting wet, then he says "hey more than our socks are wet", so they take off all their clothes and have sex which consummates the relationship. Plot resolved, story over.

I had no idea who the director was when I saw this. I new that he had done Sympathy for Lady Vengance but I havent seen it.
I did not expect the movie to be so masterfully directed. The style reminded of Amelie a bit (another film I liked). I loved it from start to finish although it does feel a bit disconnected from the middle part and on.
I was lucky to understand many points on the 1st time I saw it. It really isnt very hard to get. It just needs attention (not to mention Young-Goon is gorgeous).

Yeah, I don't get it either. No wonder IMDB is a travesty, this film is freaking brilliant.

This movie was beautiful, moving and touching.
Just because apes like you don't understand something doesn't make it terrible.

That's what I don't get, even in the Vengeance trilogy two of the films were artsy crap so why is it a shock for people to see it here? This was the most intelligent, charming, thought-provoking rom-com I've ever seen. Just because it doesn't revolve around murder doesn't make it suck, and it's no less or more complicated than the Vengence trilogy; the meaning of the story is the same one that's been preached throughout the film.
I think it's the case the vengeance resonates more clearly with people than denial.

yeah I mean, its almost as if the director wanted to do something different! I mean, hello! we don't want different, we want the same thing we saw last time please, what the hell was this artsy crap. Dolts.
The film was brilliant.

I personally thought this was a great film. I knew it wasn't going to be anything like the revenge trilogy so maybe that helped make me enjoy it better. It was really beautiful. I loved the way some of the folks on page two of this thread explained the ending. Works for me. I love Park's visionary style. It's perfect.

i was also super dissapointed. oldboy got me watching korean movies
That says it all. Do you think every Korean movie is going to be similar to Oldboy? This movie was fantastic.
Ultimate Batman/Catwoman Poll -
www.project2046.com

i loved this film completely, i also loved his other films you know why? because i love beautiful film making regardless of the genre.
plus i had no idea who rain was before i saw this.

This message has been deleted.

Take the movie for what it is, stop comparing to PCW's previous work!
Visually, the film is a masterpiece. It's imaginative, poetic, colorful, and funny. In fact, it's one of the funniest korean films I have seen. Every scene is suprising, you never know what to expect because the film is not plot-oriented (which is probably why most viewers didn't like it). After the scene where the mythomaniac lengthily explains every characters' background, only to be refuted in 2 seconds by the doctor, I knew I had to "let go" and just enjoy the ride. I mean, that scene clearly set the tone, how could you expect a "logical" plot after this? It was obvious that PCW wanted the film to be more about the characters, and thus the theme of mental disorder. If anything this film is a truly remarkable depiction of schizophrenia, as it really takes us inside the schizophrenic mind (at the expense of logical plot development, but that was a price to pay).
Saibogujiman Kwenchana is, without doubt, a Park Chan-Wook film. His signature is all over the place, how can fans of the revenge trilogy dismiss it so dryly is beyond me.

I agree it was a boring film. I understood it and it has originality and i wouldnt say it a bad film but its just not my cup of tea. Congrats on everyone who enjoyed it though.

So, you're complaining about a movie you admit outrightly you never even saw? I mean, like the movie or not, making comments about it when you've never seen the key portion of the film seems like it would be pretty counterproductive.
+Charos+
"I have often laughed at weaklings
who thought themselves good because
they had no claws."

This message has been deleted.

"Park Chan-Wook's arrogant creative masturbation"
This is a statement best reserved for experimental art films, not fluffy romantic comedies about crazy people. I grant that the overall tone of the film, and much of the content, is bizarre, but you can't tell a movie from the perspective of a person who thinks she is a cyborg without it being just a tad odd, especially when you're leaping between that character's delusions and the real world. (Not to mention the delusions of the man courting the lead and the delusions of the rest of the psyche-ward lifers.)
But this is at it's core a rom-com, and a pretty good one at that. I did come away from it feeling like something was missing. For me, it was brevity. The movie didn't need to be just South of 2 hours. Some judicious editing would have made it move a lot faster, and this is where I'd agree that Park displays an indulgence that verges on pretension.

I thought this was a great movie. One of the oddest I've ever seen.
If you watch the end- Rain puts a wine bottle cork on the end of the antenna so they won't actually be struck by lightning.
The entire movie is about being able to accept someone for their flaws & for their weird quirkiness. Yes, since they were in a psyche ward, their flaws were a bit more intense, but still, it's the general idea.
And the idea that we are all trying to figure out the purpose of our existence.
In the end- where she is looking to destroy herself- she actually starts living life.

My two cents on "Cyborg" (which I just saw today): It's cute, original, and even kind of
dense
, but despite that I found it to be pretty much "fluff." Dense, but not by any means Deep.

The closest to describe this movie:
"Park Chan-Wook's arrogant creative masturbation"