I'm sorry, but this movie was just a flop, even with a high profile cast. I love Lim Soo Jeong but the movie was terribl
-
Banana_Flavoured_Pants — 17 years ago(December 01, 2008 01:47 PM)
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. -
praito — 17 years ago(August 23, 2008 10:43 AM)
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). -
YnEoS — 17 years ago(September 03, 2008 10:16 PM)
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.
-
h-vadim — 17 years ago(November 26, 2008 08:04 AM)
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. -
Seraphaw — 17 years ago(January 08, 2009 10:06 AM)
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 -
Zarathustras_Crown — 16 years ago(January 24, 2010 07:32 AM)
"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." -
Zarathustras_Crown — 15 years ago(May 06, 2010 09:38 AM)
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."