Thirst (Chan-Wook Park)

[Ezee E]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG2NCsz1mFc&eurl=http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40465

Awesome. Even if I don't know what's being said.

[Winston*]

Youtube comments were useful for once.

'You shall not murder.'
'You shall not commit adultery.'
'You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.'
'Bloodlust disturbs his soul.'
last line : Vampires aren't immortal. Do you still want my blood?

[transmogrifier]

Looks awesome. Love me some PCW (last film notwithstanding)

[Grouchy]

At a loss for words.

[DavidSeven]

Yes.

[Qrazy]

I think that this will be good.

[KK2.0]

Park Chan haven't failed yet to me.

[number8]

Of the 6 of his films I've seen, I liked 6 of them.

[Qrazy]

Park Chan haven't failed yet to me.

Ironic engrish or drunken musings?

[Dukefrukem]

I love vampires.

[soitgoes...]

I am very much looking forward to this. Much more so after seeing I'm a Cyborg (sorry trans).

[transmogrifier]

I am very much looking forward to this. Much more so after seeing I'm a Cyborg (sorry trans).

Because you assume he saved up all his talent for this one? Fair enough.

[Grouchy]

I'm a Cyborg is awesome.

1. Oldboy
2. Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance
3. I'm a Cyborg But it's OK
4. JSA
5. Sympathy for Lady Vengeance
6. Three Extremes - Cut

[number8]

This again, huh.

1. Sympathy for Lady Vengeance
2. Oldboy
3. I'm a Cyborg, but It's OK
4. Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance
5. JSA
6. Three Extremes - Cut

[megladon8]

Park could direct a movie starring Jessica Alba and Orlando Bloom about a giant shit-monster rampaging the streets of Utah, and I'd see it.

[Ezee E]

Park could direct a movie starring Jessica Alba and Orlando Bloom about a giant shit-monster rampaging the streets of Utah, and I'd see it.
You mean, with that premise, there's a chance you wouldn't see that?

[number8]

Yeah, that's a pretty bad hypothetical, meg. Brett Ratner could direct that and I'd probably see it.

[megladon8]

Brett Ratner could direct that and I'd probably see it.


Now, now, let's not go nuts here.

[Mal]

It's no Twilight, but I think I'd give it a shot.

[Kurosawa Fan]

It's no Twilight, but I think I'd give it a shot.

Actually, if they're about vampires, they're really all the same film.

[number8]

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/images/thirst.jpg

[B-side]

I like that poster. Film looks nice.

[Lasse]

Very cool poster.

[Saya]

Here is the US trailer (http://twitchfilm.net/site/view/us-trailer-for-park-chan-wooks-thirst#extended)

[Boner M]

This was kinda crap. I think my opinion will be the minority one here, though (not a huge Park fan, Mr Vengeance aside).

[KK2.0]

Korean film posters are great, used to be a thread for them here at Match-Cut, right?


Ironic engrish or drunken musings?

a bit of both. :P

[trotchky]

I saw a trailer for this when I saw Tetro. Looks exciting.

1. Sympathy for Lady Vengeance - okay
2. Oldboy - okay
3. Cut - terrible

[dreamdead]

I still don't think that Park is a good screenwriter (some of the Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance dichotomies seems a bit too easy), but he is a wonderful visual stylist. I'm still excited to see what becomes of this one.

J.S.A. - 7 (fascinating in its general highlighting of the North Korean perspective, and for successfully utilizing the melodrama inherent to Park's filmmaking)
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance - 6 (too gruesome and nihilistic for my taste, though exceedingly well shot and framed)
Oldboy - 7.5
Sympathy for Lady Vengeance - 5 (inert, glaringly maudlin and trite in its story, but contains that fantastic shoot-out in the snow halfway through)

[Boner M]

I saw a trailer for this when I saw Tetro. Looks exciting.
It lends itself well to trailer form because the film essentially is a hundred trailers cobbled together into an ungainly whole. Park needs to calm the fuck down.

[MacGuffin]

I already saw the trailer awhile ago, and it looks awful.

[transmogrifier]

Park needs to calm the fuck down.

I'm not sure if you are referring to Thirst only or his films in general, but I have to say Oldboy is one of the most tonally consistent, well-structured and formally masterful films of the past decade.

[Boner M]

I'm not sure if you are referring to Thirst only or his films in general, but I have to say Oldboy is one of the most tonally consistent, well-structured and formally masterful films of the past decade.
Just Thirst, although I have the same complaints about Lady Vengeance (barely positive on Oldboy).

[transmogrifier]

This was kinda crap. I think my opinion will be the minority one here, though (not a huge Park fan, Mr Vengeance aside).

I hope you're in the minority, because this movie is a blast. Doesn't carry the same emotional heft as Oldboy, mainly because so much of it is played for laughs, but by God I love the kitchen-sink energy and true sense of unpredictability that you don't often find in vampire movies. Park is a joy of a director.

[Boner M]

I hope you're in the minority, because this movie is a blast. Doesn't carry the same emotional heft as Oldboy, mainly because so much of it is played for laughs, but by God I love the kitchen-sink energy and true sense of unpredictability that you don't often find in vampire movies. Park is a joy of a director.
I did enjoy the various parodies of stock domestic scenarios, and the whole film carries the mildly infectious buzz that comes with the sense that Park is enjoying his own craft. But didn't its frequent bids for emotional heft and/or poetry just feel... empty? The ending being the worst offense. Also the first half hour does not in fact have much to do with the rest of the movie, as intriguing as it is.

[transmogrifier]

To tell you the truth, I dont think you'll be the one in the minority on this one; it's your typical Park film, though a little less controlled, a little more jazzy and funny, and it definitely doesn't have a self-contained logical through-story. This latter element is something that is strangely celebrated in low-key minimalist indie dramas, yet is almost universally looked-down upon in a flashy genre film, as if by some magical rule of cinema states that by working in a well-defined genre, you automatically must have a clearly stated antagonist, protagonist, three act structure and set goal to be achieved (or not), and God forbid you should ever try to mix genres in a temporal fashion (ie start off as one genre and end up as another, or either alternate from scene to scene)

One of the things I love about this film is the way it doesn't shy away from the fact that humans are often directionless, pathetic and childish, and how it doesn't necessarily keep a distance from this, instead getting right in there and being comfortable with our complex, less-than-honorable basal desires. There are some scenes (mahjong particularly) that are almost Altmanish in it's sense of community and fluctuating relationships....

A day on, I like it even more and can't wait to see it again. It really is three short films tied together rather brilliantly. I'm fully ready to be one of the few to think this, but screw it.

Also:

Thirst >>> Let the Right One In

[Boner M]

To tell you the truth, I dont think you'll be the one in the minority on this one; it's your typical Park film, though a little less controlled, a little more jazzy and funny, and it definitely doesn't have a self-contained logical through-story. This latter element is something that is strangely celebrated in low-key minimalist indie dramas, yet is almost universally looked-down upon in a flashy genre film, as if by some magical rule of cinema states that by working in a well-defined genre, you automatically must have a clearly stated antagonist, protagonist, three act structure and set goal to be achieved (or not), and God forbid you should ever try to mix genres in a temporal fashion (ie start off as one genre and end up as another, or either alternate from scene to scene)
Wait, is this spiel directed at me? And what low-key indie films are praised for the same reasons as a film like Thirst is rejected? Cos I don't dislike the film solely for being erratic, just for never establishing anything to latch onto even as it flip-flops in every direction. I'm OK if its, say, Resnais or Lynch going all-out jazzy with Last Year at Marienbad or Inland Empire since I get the impression that both are either interested in something substantial and/or care about someone. I don't even know if Park can be called jazzy, since that implies he's riffing on a theme and only abandoning that theme when it's played out, rather than just picking up something and abandoning it out of distraction. It's more like a bad Zappa album. Yeah, the images are cool/weird/WTF/OMG, but they just disappear in the mind as soon as they've made their immediate sensory attack. It's cinematic nihilism, and I wanna believe, man!


One of the things I love about this film is the way it doesn't shy away from the fact that humans are often directionless, pathetic and childish, and how it doesn't necessarily keep a distance from this, instead getting right in there and being comfortable with our complex, less-than-honorable basal desires.
I don't really understand how this is a virtue in and of itself.

[transmogrifier]

RE: Your first question.

No, it wasn't directed at you at all. It was me coming back after reading a bit more about it elsewhere, and I just used your comment about being in the minority as a jumping off point, to discuss some of my thoughts about it. Sorry for the confusion.

However, I think you are being unfair regarding Park not riffing on a theme, or not caring about anything. I think this comes from his self-evident love of mixing genres, whereas a David Lynch film (for example) trades in inscrutable scenes united with a consistent atmosphere and "genre". Personally, I think Thirst tackles very human responses to both subjugation to and control of three things: power, sexual urge and religion, and has a great deal of fun wallowing in the messy situations caused by interactions between the three. To me, the film has a very distinct, unique, fascinating voice, part of which stems from its form.

RE: Your last statement. Because it is a film about vampires.

EDIT: Dear Wats, this is me caring.

[Boner M]

EDIT: Dear Wats, this is me caring.
Do this for your entire posting history, and I'll concede that New Zealand is a better country than Australia.

[transmogrifier]

Do this for your entire posting history, and I'll concede that New Zealand is a better country than Australia.

What's next, you're gonna concede the sun's hot and water's wet? :)

[Boner M]

What's next, you're gonna concede the sun's hot and water's wet? :)
...and Thirst is crap? :D

[transmogrifier]

...and Thirst is crap? :D

Look deep inside yourself, boner, and you will know that is just not true.

[number8]

Oh my, I loved this. Loved loved loved it. It's damn near flawless.

[transmogrifier]

Good to hear....:pritch:

[Dukefrukem]

It's so good he changed his avatar.

[Duncan]

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/things-publicists-send-us-there-will-be-blood/?hpw Ew.

[number8]

I've got an interview with Park Chan-wook on Wednesday. Quick, send me questions!

[Sycophant]

Can you ask him a question that at surface level appears to be about his formal technique or whether he can see himself attempting another series of films that examine a single theme like the vengeance trilogy, but is secretly about getting me Doona Bae's phone number?

[Rowland]

I've got an interview with Park Chan-wook on Wednesday. Quick, send me questions!Do you see yourself ever returning to the more measured formal approach of Mr. Vengeance, or is clusterfuck filmmaking your new permanent directorial voice?

[Dukefrukem]

Do you see yourself ever returning to the more measured formal approach of Mr. Vengeance, or is clusterfuck filmmaking your new permanent directorial voice?

:lol::lol:

[transmogrifier]

Do you see yourself ever returning to the more measured formal approach of Mr. Vengeance, or is clusterfuck filmmaking your new permanent directorial voice?

I hope so, because it's awesome.

[the unfunny Cyborg excepted]

[Grouchy]

I've got an interview with Park Chan-wook on Wednesday. Quick, send me questions!
Did he always envision the revenge trilogy as a whole or was it something that just "happened" once he decided to adapt Oldboy and so on?

Does he consider himself a writer or a director foremost? In other words, could he direct stuff he didn't write?

And typically, what's he planning to do next.

I fucking envy you.

[trotchky]

I think this movie will be okay.

[Ezee E]

Where the heck is that cyborg movie that came out a few years ago? Me want.

I hope you can control yourself. Cool to see you getting work at the Comic-Con.

[number8]

It's not for Comic-Con, I'll be interviewing him here in SF in the morning, then I head for the airport in the afternoon. I assume Park is too. It would be funny if we're on the same flight, but I doubt it.

I don't like to do interviews at the Con as I like to enjoy myself and see the panels, but I do have one set up since I cannot possibly pass it up. It's for John Lasseter & Hayao Miyazaki, together. :P

[Rowland]

My question, despite its surface facetiousness, was at heart a real query. Consider asking him about the evolution of his aesthetic, which will signal to him that you are genuinely interested in the art of cinema rather than some promotional stooge, hopefully encouraging him to answer your questions with more thought and candidness.

[transmogrifier]

Where the heck is that cyborg movie that came out a few years ago? Me want.

Forget about it. Easily his worst film.

[transmogrifier]

Awesome review from Matt Zoller Seitz right here (http://www.ifc.com/news/2009/07/standing-witness.php).

[Rowland]

Awesome review from Matt Zoller Seitz right here (http://www.ifc.com/news/2009/07/standing-witness.php).Seitz has always been more attuned to Park's sensibilities than most mainstream US critics; he was one of the few to initially evaluate (and rightfully adore) Mr. Vengeance while neither condemning it as fanboy-pandering trash nor praising it in a fanboy-ish manner.

For the flipside, I haven't read this review (http://www.reverseshot.com/article/thirst) by Reverse Shot, but a quick scan reveals it to devolve into a condescending rant berating Park's fans.

[transmogrifier]

Seitz has always been more attuned to Park's sensibilities than most mainstream US critics; he was one of the few to initially evaluate (and rightfully adore) Mr. Vengeance while neither condemning it as fanboy-pandering trash nor praising it in a fanboy-ish manner.

For the flipside, I haven't read this review (http://www.reverseshot.com/article/thirst) by Reverse Shot, but a quick scan reveals it to devolve into a condescending rant berating Park's fans.

I read that, and it is a pathetic attempt at Armond White character assassination of people who happen to disagree with you over a movie. The comparison to Sam Mendes is simply a reviewer trying desperately to slam as many names as possible in a single review in order to gain street cred as "maverick", as if watching and writing about movies was a step removed from donning a cape and becoming a superhero.

Indeed, this is my favourite part:

"Park’s latest, Thirst, is a vampire film, coming at a time when consumers seem at peak hunger for such things. This savvy befits a filmmaker who populates his movies with Xtreme incident to maintain outsider cachet, while still slavishly remaining in thrall to convention and trend."

This in the same review that starts off with this opener:

"By now, it should be readily acknowledged that Park Chan-wook’s films, for all their maker’s talents as a visual stylist, are a bit moronic."

Pot meet kettle. :)

[dreamdead]

Not that I don't agree that the Reverse Shot review is overly snide and dismissive, since it is, but how is its comparison between Park and Mendes any less dismissive than this (http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=190911&postcount=77)?

I wonder a bit about the bash on Reverse Shot bash on JSA when I thought the site had lauded it a few years ago in the East/West issue... especially embarrassing since they seem content enough with Shiri. :confused:

[number8]

By the way, I wasn't too happy with the interpreter I got for the Park interview (too much paraphrasing on his part), so I will not be posting it. Instead, I used what little information I got from it in my review.

I might upload the MP3 file just for you guys.

[transmogrifier]

Not that I don't agree that the Reverse Shot review is overly snide and dismissive, since it is, but how is its comparison between Park and Mendes any less dismissive than this (http://match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=190911&postcount=77)?. :confused:

Simple: because Mendes is known for two films (American Beauty and Revolutionary Road) pretty much trading in the sentiment that whoever I was quoting claimed was in the Kubrick film. There is a connection there, hence my comment.

Now, explain to me a connection between Mendes and Park Chan-Wook that makes sense beyond the "I don't like either of these directors and I can't WAIT for you to know it!".

[Sycophant]

Can you ask him a question that at surface level appears to be about his formal technique or whether he can see himself attempting another series of films that examine a single theme like the vengeance trilogy, but is secretly about getting me Doona Bae's phone number?


By the way, I wasn't too happy with the interpreter I got for the Park interview (too much paraphrasing on his part), so I will not be posting it. Instead, I used what little information I got from it in my review.

I might upload the MP3 file just for you guys.

Well?

[number8]

Well?

011 82 2 450 1134

[DavidSeven]

Liked it well enough. Park brings his trademark humor and style to the table. And it's damn hilarious if you jive with his sensibilities. Wasn't a huge fan of the disjointed narrative(s). I thought there were two really good movies here, but together, it felt awkward. The film essentially has a complete ending by its halfway point. As it continues on from there, we're left wondering if the remainder is an extended epilogue or an entirely separate story. Too many false endings and some restlessness (from me) in that last hour. Definitely a must-see for Park fans, but unlikely to convert the naysayers.

[Qrazy]

By the way, I wasn't too happy with the interpreter I got for the Park interview (too much paraphrasing on his part), so I will not be posting it. Instead, I used what little information I got from it in my review.

I might upload the MP3 file just for you guys.

If you have the MP3 you could probably shop it around the internet and get a better translation.

[KK2.0]

Liked it well enough. Park brings his trademark humor and style to the table. And it's damn hilarious if you jive with his sensibilities. Wasn't a huge fan of the disjointed narrative(s). I thought there were two really good movies here, but together, it felt awkward. The film essentially has a complete ending by its halfway point. As it continues on from there, we're left wondering if the remainder is an extended epilogue or an entirely separate story. Too many false endings and some restlessness (from me) in that last hour. Definitely a must-see for Park fans, but unlikely to convert the naysayers.

I think Park's peculiar sense of humor is what divides people, i'm not surprised most of it's critics enjoy Mr Vengeance the most, of all Park films i've seen it's his coldest.

[transmogrifier]

I think Park's peculiar sense of humor is what divides people, i'm not surprised most of it's critics enjoy Mr Vengeance the most, of all Park films i've seen it's his coldest.

Thirst is by far his funniest film. I think his most po-faced film is JSA - Mr. Vengeance still has a lot of sly, dark humor in it.

[KK2.0]

I still need to watch JSA

[transmogrifier]

I still need to watch JSA

It's nothing like any of his other films. Very studioish, mainstream, slightly boring.

[Grouchy]

It's nothing like any of his other films. Very studioish, mainstream, slightly boring.
Not true. The Park style is obvious in every take.

[transmogrifier]

Not true. The Park style is obvious in every take.

Comparative to the rest of his filmography, I still think I'm right. It's very much the odd one out. I never said you can't see his stamp on it anywhere, though.

[Qrazy]

Comparative to the rest of his filmography, I still think I'm right. It's very much the odd one out. I never said you can't see his stamp on it anywhere, though.

I find Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance has more in common with JSA than with Oldboy or Lady Vengeance.

[transmogrifier]

Let it be known that Ben Lyons doesn't like Thirst, and that should be all the recommendation you need.

[MacGuffin]

Let it be known that Ben Lyons doesn't like Thirst, and that should be all the recommendation you need.

This means I'll probably at least rent it. Too boring for him?

[transmogrifier]

This means I'll probably at least rent it. Too boring for him? Pretty much

[Philosophe_rouge]

I'll preface by saying this is my first Park film, I haven't seen Oldboy or any of the Vengeance trilogy. My reaction to this film was pretty mixed, there are quite a few wonderful moments and great scenes, but they were too spread apart and most of the narrative was dull, or at least bogged down by uneven pacing and a lot of false endings/starts. So ultimately, nothing really comes together, and even though a scene here and there wowed me, it never was able to build any tonal or emotional momentum. I really did appreciate the film's sense of humour, which was wonderfully perverse and absurd, and it's handling of sex was equally fascinating and well done.

[transmogrifier]

Hardly a surprising reaction, but I'm glad that the humor is registering, because it is such a funny film. I expect most reactions will be similar to yours, or slightly more negative (like that misguided Boner, for instance)

[number8]

Ugh. I asked Park specifically about that shot and how he came up with that idea to convey flying, which I told him evokes aerial joy better than any big budget superhero movies I've seen. I think either the translator misunderstood me or he translated it wrong and Park misunderstood him, but he ended up talking about how tough it is to do technical special effects in Korea.

[KK2.0]

Ugh. I asked Park specifically about that shot and how he came up with that idea to convey flying, which I told him evokes aerial joy better than any big budget superhero movies I've seen. I think either the translator misunderstood me or he translated it wrong and Park misunderstood him, but he ended up talking about how tough it is to do technical special effects in Korea.

I guess the translator was lazy and asked only: "how did you film that flight scene mr Park?: :P

[Cult]

I agree that it was hilarious, and a total blast. But while I certainly didn't think it was flawless, I also didn't think it felt disjointed or had any false endings. I think the sprawling feel of it works really well and is exhilarating, and fascinating--I actually liked the characters and eagerly awaited what they'd do next--not tiresome. The two leads are excellent, and the last 40 minutes or so are pure genre pleasure. I got the feeling from the trailer and such, that it would be a lot more heavy handed about the whole priest thing. It was refreshing to find that it was, if nothing else, a fun, crazy-awesome vampire movie. I hope it becomes a bit hit and some of those Twilight-watching fools check it out.

My new Park rankings:

1. Thirst
2. Oldboy
3. Sympathy for Lady Vengeance
4. Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (toss-up between these two, really)
5. Cut
6. I'm a Cyborg, But That's Okay

[Cult]

Oh, and I just remembered...

The part where he tries to rape the girl at the camp grounds...what was that all about? I kept waiting for it to be further explained, but it wasn't really. Was it just because he knew he was going to die? Did I miss something?

[number8]

Oh, and I just remembered...

The part where he tries to rape the girl at the camp grounds...what was that all about? I kept waiting for it to be further explained, but it wasn't really. Was it just because he knew he was going to die? Did I miss something?

It was his way to get those people to stop worshiping him.

[transmogrifier]

It was his way to get those people to stop worshiping him.

Yep.

[transmogrifier]

I agree that it was hilarious, and a total blast. But while I certainly didn't think it was flawless, I also didn't think it felt disjointed or had any false endings. I think the sprawling feel of it works really well and is exhilarating, and fascinating--I actually liked the characters and eagerly awaited what they'd do next--not tiresome. The two leads are excellent, and the last 40 minutes or so are pure genre pleasure. I got the feeling from the trailer and such, that it would be a lot more heavy handed about the whole priest thing. It was refreshing to find that it was, if nothing else, a fun, crazy-awesome vampire movie. I hope it becomes a bit hit and some of those Twilight-watching fools check it out.

My new Park rankings:

1. Thirst
2. Oldboy
3. Sympathy for Lady Vengeance
4. Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (toss-up between these two, really)
5. Cut
6. I'm a Cyborg, But That's Okay

Glad to hear it. The more I think about it, the better it seems.

[number8]

He's a religious man and they were worshipping a false idol. He was always against it from the beginning, and he staged the rape after he decided to kill himself, no? So it's one last loose end to tie up. He smiled because the crowd behind him was cursing him out. He knew he could then leave in peace.

[Cult]

It was his way to get those people to stop worshiping him.

Ahhh, yes, thanks. That makes sense and makes me like the ending even more.

[number8]

I see. Yeah, I guess that makes sense. I guess he wouldn't want any unearned fame to continue considering all the horrible things he had done. I also get that the false idol thing works but I don't remember this being too explicitly stated (I suppose it may be the sort of thing that doesn't have to be). I don't recall him showing anything but frustrated/bemused annoyance with the worshippers and a general discomfort with his unearned fame.


Well, I think that's exactly why. It was just a mere annoyance at first, and I guess he even humored some of them (which is how he reconnected with the family in the first place) but after the events in the third act, he's now a monster. He would be letting those people worship what he sees himself as--the devil.

[EyesWideOpen]

Why the fuck is this still only playing in a total of 16 theaters in the US and Canada?

[transmogrifier]

'Tis a shame indeed.

[number8]

Why the fuck is this still only playing in a total of 16 theaters in the US and Canada?

Well, maybe if he sparkles.

[megladon8]

Comes to DVD November 17th.

They certainly picked the right image for the cover art...


http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/1901/thirstr1artworkpic1.jpg

[dreamdead]

So with this getting a R1 release this year, I only need K. Kurosawa's Tokyo Sonata to get a R1 release to feel quite content about my Asian auteurs getting their due respect here in the States. This one will likely be a blind buy, considering the thematic content.

[origami_mustache]

fun movie, but seriously went on far too long.

[Spun Lepton]

How does this compare to America's current crop of erotically charged emo-vamps?

[transmogrifier]

How does this compare to America's current crop of erotically charged emo-vamps?

It doesn't compare. It is in a league of its own. Spectacularly graceful go-for-broke oddball greatness.

[number8]

That's like asking how Slaughterhouse V compares to 17 Again.

[EyesWideOpen]

So with this getting a R1 release this year, I only need K. Kurosawa's Tokyo Sonata to get a R1 release to feel quite content about my Asian auteurs getting their due respect here in the States. This one will likely be a blind buy, considering the thematic content.

I'm still pissed that Park's last film which came out two years ago still hasn't gotten a R1 release.

[transmogrifier]

I wonder, if Tarantino or Nolan had directed this, would your score automatically go down a few notches? I mean, if they had churned out the exact same film instead of Chan-wook.

What a strange postulation. First of all, Nolan could never make a film like this in a million years (I'm not talking quality-wise - after all, I may like Memento a little more -, I'm talking a film so tonally inconsistent and perversely idiosyncratic; Nolan is resolutely about that monochrome studio hum), and secondly, I like Tarantino (hell, I'm one of the few people around here who loved Death Proof).

I know a few people around here are unaccountably annoyed when I say i dislike something, but am I not allowed to like films either anymore?

[transmogrifier]

This response was way more than I expected. You're usually so passive and flippant when it comes to stuff like this. It was harmless ribbing, if anything. I didn't think you'd take it seriously. I'm not even a huge proponent of Nolan or Tarantino.

I don't know, it just seemed so far out of left field compared to the flow of the thread that I felt compelled to post more than a sentence. You trapped me! My next few posts will be single words to compensate.

[EyesWideOpen]

Finally! Just saw today that it's playing at an arthouse theater near me this weekend.

[dreamdead]

At times the narrative here gets a tad too sterile, and like Boner I think the opening third of the film isn't truly needed, as everything until his vampirism feels rushed. And, to be fully honest, Song Kang-ho portrays a rather boring character, despite the theological underpinnings that should yield good internal drama. Once Tae-ju enters the film, though, things enliven greatly, and Park gets the necessary character dynamics to explore his themes, even if they feel skimmed at times (see the ending, which feels similarly devoid of resolution).

As per usual with Park, he engineers some truly marvelous filmmaking moments, with the already-mentioned flying sensation wonderfully conveyed, and the entrance of the dead into the sex scene is a hilariously macabre way of suggesting the trauma of murder. Here, though, Park circumvents some of the more interesting theological aspects that could be broached with the film, so that the final mention of "Father" feels more perfunctory than revelatory. Good, and I'm sure that I'm missing a lot, but it's not quite my favorite film of his. Somehow, Mr Vengeance has finagled its way to his most interesting film for me, despite my initial indifference to it and its focus on the grotesque. It is, ultimately, his most visceral film, and the one that cements his themes in greatest detail.

[ledfloyd]

That's like asking how Slaughterhouse V compares to 17 Again.
17 Again was surprisingly good.

[Ezee E]

Nearly loved this, but was kind of annoyed by the dead popping up, especially the drowning victim. He really annoyed me.

[dreamdead]

Nearly loved this, but was kind of annoyed by the dead popping up, especially the drowning victim. He really annoyed me.

Do you mean the simple portrayal of a near-autistic individual or Park's perverse placement of him in sexual trysts? I thought the latter was one of Park's ingenious touches, allowing for some black humor to pierce the doubting humanism. What hindered the film from being especially effective for me was Tae-ju's character reversal at the end of the film, when she accepts her fate. Park hadn't allowed us enough interiority into her character to position that as a moment I was ready to buy--despite the initial existential despair she has toward her fate when she crawls and hides, and the layer of comedy that comes from it, it didn't seem natural for her to give up so willfully.

[Ezee E]

Do you mean the simple portrayal of a near-autistic individual or Park's perverse placement of him in sexual trysts? I thought the latter was one of Park's ingenious touches, allowing for some black humor to pierce the doubting humanism. What hindered the film from being especially effective for me was Tae-ju's character reversal at the end of the film, when she accepts her fate. Park hadn't allowed us enough interiority into her character to position that as a moment I was ready to buy--despite the initial existential despair she has toward her fate when she crawls and hides, and the layer of comedy that comes from it, it didn't seem natural for her to give up to willfully.
Both really. Just didn't find it funny.

[Dukefrukem]

I liked this, but didn't love it. Can anyone please tell me the attraction Tae-ju had for Sang-hyun? Is it because she hated her life so much?? I always find this kind of motivation unrealistic... someone convince me otherwise.

[Adam]

I liked this, but didn't love it. Can anyone please tell me the attraction Tae-ju had for Sang-hyun? Is it because she hated her life so much?? I always find this kind of motivation unrealistic... someone convince me otherwise.

Well, she had always had a crush on him. I'd say it's natural someone who did resent their life so much could get swept up in the idea of a magical white knight from their past swooping in to take them away from it all

[Bosco B Thug]

Park has a hard time elevating much of this beyond Korean soap opera or pointless exploitation flick, and the film loses touch with its greater points much too regularly (but they are present: the pleasure of sin, the wages of sin, sin [and salvation's] very arbitrariness particularly within orthodox religion), but I had fun with the film. Super romantic, super stylish, super sexy, super twisted-sexy.

Becomes a bit middling by the midpoint. But the final scene really won me over. I loved that whole sequence.

[Rowland]

First word that comes to mind is flippant, as this introduces numerous thematic threads without satisfying most of their emotional/intellectual potential. The first act is particularly damning, as Park clearly has little interest in the implications inherent to the material building up to the Father's attempted suicide or the immediate aftermath of his rebirth. In fact, the movie doesn't really come alive until the relationship between him and the repressed wife is introduced, and even then its internal rhythms remain, at best, clunky. Yay for its tactile sensuality and boldly operatic vision, nay for its glib humor and lack of cohesion, the latter not necessarily a fault by definition, but this particular film goes too far in my estimation. The best scene is probably their first almost-fuck, equal measures tender, awkward, and sultry; also the wife running through the barren, nighttime streets while the sound of her bare feet smacking the pavement echoes in the priest's ears is among last year's most tangibly erotic sensations. The last half hour is its most compelling stretch of storytelling, by which it comes across as too little too late to really salvage the picture as an altogether success, though I remain open to giving it another chance in the future. For my money, the underestimated Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance remains Park's single masterpiece. It didn't have a fart joke, for starters.

[Lucky]

Also:

Thirst >>> Let the Right One In

Indeed. Best vampire movie since Interview with the Vampire. Could have probably used another trimming session in the editing room, but it certainly had some glorious moments. Especially the last 45 min.

[Peng]

Sprawling mix of bleak existentialism, slapstick farce, and vampire romantic melodrama. Storylines careen from and into each other as much as Park's camera swoops through rooms and buildings, and the mix, if pulled off, might be intoxicating the whole way through, if not for me finding that bleak existentialism one of the lead's character study rather lacking. The priest is just a blandly written character which is compounded by being saddled with old genre conflict, even if Song Kang-ho's performance keeps him interesting on screen. Not surprising that the film gets a charge when Tae-ju enters the picture, even more when she gets folded into his secret, as she's a more richly complicated presence, especially with Kim Ok-bin's playful, ferocious performance. 7.5/10