Only God Forgives (Nicolas Winding Refn)

[TGM]

ONLY GOD FORGIVES

Director: Nicolas Winding Refn

imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1602613/?ref_=sr_1)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Jli2eyVrmMY/UbvEC2rlh1I/AAAAAAAAM0I/EcSRRorfVM8/s640/Only+God+Forgives_Poster.jpg

[plain]

Not much to defend here (surprise, surprise), but my initial impression of Only God Forgives is that it's not very good. Yes, it's purposefully thin as a narrative, but the whole thing registers as an endless and futile search for meaning within the empty images. Glances, stares, the same brooding Gosling we've seen before, drenched in the red nightmarish tinge of Bangkok -- all resulting in some sort of muted and simplistically "abstract" quest for masculinity amidst keeping the devil at bay. Refn has spoken before about the anticipation and build up to violence being akin to sex in some degree, and while I grasp the logic, it just doesn't come across as very interesting or cutting here. This almost teeters on Gosling self-parody regarding his quiet and sullen shtick as well, as his veiny biceps appear to have more personality than his character of Julian. Refn can clearly construct intoxicating worlds, but this one is abandoned, quiet, and seemingly without purpose. The final 10 minutes are sort of interesting, and this begs the question, can one give this a pass even if it's far more interesting to think about than Drive? (which some have argued) Contrast this film's vulgar and sleazy, almost magical dreamscape world with Drive's take on Hollywood as fantasy and what do you have? Refn can talk all day about how he finds violence interesting, but I hardly give a fuck anymore. Nothing to see here.

[Ivan Drago]

If there's one thing this movie is not, is Drive 2.

I need to see this again as soon as possible.

[TGM]

Hmm, I really don't know how I feel about this movie. I'm gonna have to sit on this one a while, and maybe watch it a second time or something.

[Sycophant]

Based on my gut reactions to everyone's reactions (and my experience with Drive), I think I need to give this a lot of time before I get around to seeing it, if I ever do. I've got some big prejudices built up already.

[wigwam]

:|

[ledfloyd]

Man. This is the kind of terrible movie only a skilled director can make. If I see a worse film this year I'll be surprised.

[Henry Gale]

It really, really worked for me, but I'm also equally satisfied with the experience of finally being able to see why it really, really hasn't for others since it debuted. It's like a had a strange dream that I watched something that loosely resembled the film I had expected it to be, except it really was the film, and I can revisit it whenever I choose. For better or for worse.

I wouldn't bother even beginning to make an argument of it as a great piece of work, but I don't know anyone can argue it isn't a singular (and a strikingly, vividly assembled) one. So much of its inherent construction involves consciously detaching its emotional core from its imagery but it's also so content with amounting to a lavish, ethereal meditation on deep emptiness and depravity of human nature that it's hard to blame for not being anything else. I'm not sure why I'd need to understand or relate to anyone or anything on-screen to feel it, because for something so deliberately cold and sinister, it ultimately struck me in exactly that way (intention or not) and held me throughout. It's viscerally arresting whether or not you want any given moment to involve you as intimately as it does.

It's bound to be stuck in my head for a while. I'm sorry if the same happens for those that hate it.

[Boner M]

Every press quote I've read from Refn has been :lol:, not sure if he's taking the piss tho.


Infuriated with "whoever the creator is," Refn decided, "I wanted to express my pain through violence. I wanted to fight God."


"Emotionally, our artistic expression consists of sex or violence. It all boils down to those two pure emotions that we have."


"So I’ve apparently made a film that people either love it or they hate it. So obviously I’ve reached into your deepest soul [in a move alarmingly reminiscent of a pivotal moment in the film, Refn here leans forward abruptly and points at your intrepid writer’s gut area] and planted something, or else you wouldn’t love it or hate it"


...the film is designed like that, like going to a museum and watching a painting, a Rembrandt, you’re going to see a thousand different elements within a single frame. Filmmaking is not about what we see it’s a very misconceived notion, it’s about what we don’t see.

It's like an Entourage parody of a pretentious euro-Auteur.

[TGM]

So I went with the nay in the end. Even after writing my review (http://cwiddop.blogspot.com/2013/07/only-god-forgives.html), I wasn't entirely sure whether I'd go with the mild yay or the mild nay, despite getting all my thoughts down on paper. I enjoyed certain aspects while watching it, but almost immediately after it ended, I was left with a very empty feeling, and that feeling of shallowness only intensified the more this set in. I didn't hate the movie, and in fact I really did try and come up with something substantial to grasp onto to justify giving this movie a yay. But in the end, this is really an overall empty experience of a movie.

[Ezee E]

Stupid. To the point where it almost seems like the movie was sabotaged. It almost plays off like a long music video then an actual movie, because 3/4 of the movie is just music and sounds.

It's like it took all the disadvantages of Drive and made it that way the whole movie. Gosling's scenes almost seem like they cut out the actual scenes of dialog.

Thing is, Refn directs the hell out of this. It has the look, sound, and feel of something mastery, but it comes across as garbage. I can't think of another movie that's actually done this.

[Ezee E]

Kristin Scott Thomas deserves some recognition here. She managed to still carve out a character here, despite all the mockery everywhere else. She also looks AMAZING at 53. Holy cow.

[Boner M]

Thing is, Refn directs the hell out of this. It has the look, sound, and feel of something mastery, but it comes across as garbage. I can't think of another movie that's actually done this.
Valhalla Rising and Bronson.

[Pop Trash]

So...will this get any Razzie noms? Simply nominating whatever Adam Sandler or Eddie Murphy does year after year gets boring.

[Skitch]

Man, this seems to be one hell of a MC divisive movie! Makes me want to watch it more to see which side I come out on.

[Boner M]

So...will this get any Razzie noms? Simply nominating whatever Adam Sandler or Eddie Murphy does year after year gets boring.
Don't think it's gonna get widely seen enough, and everyone involved has too much clout for the film to be an obvious enough whipping boy for the Razzzzies.

[Morris Schæffer]

I liked it. I found it uncomfortable in terms of the violence, but also the unnerving, nightmare-ish atmosphere so thick you could cut it with a knife. Don't even wanna ponder what it all means (the singing for instance), and perhaps there's nothing to digest beyond its mood and visually striking minimalism, but sometimes cool visuals do the trick more than enough.

Gosling barely registers though. In a funny turnaround since his hero in Drive, his character must be one of the most useless protagonists I've ever seen. And I mean that halfway as a compliment.

[D_Davis]

Stupid. To the point where it almost seems like the movie was sabotaged. It almost plays off like a long music video then an actual movie, because 3/4 of the movie is just music and sounds.


That's how I feel about all of his movies that I've seen, and I think he does too. At least he approaches each film with music in mind, in order to sculpt the images to.

Valhalla Rising is a brilliant example of this - which is why it's more of a tone poem than a narrative film.

[plain]

did anyone else laugh when Gosling yelled "TAKE IT OFF!"

ugh

[Ezee E]

did anyone else laugh when Gosling yelled "TAKE IT OFF!"

ugh

The entire theater did, but out of how stupid it was.

[B-side]

Images and actions speak louder than words. Only God Forgives is not easy, and it's doesn't slide by with nostalgic catharsis like Drive. While Only God Forgives carries over Drive's predilection toward neon lights and iconography, it can't be said to be any sort of spiritual successor or "follow-up". Finding the characters here particularly interesting or compelling in and of themselves is hardly relevant. It would seem most of the violent rejection of this film has been a product of a refusal for audiences to accept this film in Refn's canon on its own terms. It's apparent from the very beginning that Refn won't indulge his audiences trained whims. He won't give in and pump his film full of hot, navel-gazing air and explicit determination. What you're given is the cinematic equivalent of autoerotic asphyxiation. Comparing violence to sexual release isn't new in psychology, but it seems to be something outside what many are willing to accept in a film. Julian's story is the story of Oedipus in modern Thailand, but with a special and prolonged attention paid to Julian's need for maternal affirmation. Julian, like Oedipus, kills the king (his father) and "marries" his mother, the widow. The Greek myth says that after the marriage of Oedipus and Jacosta (the mother), the town of Thebes is plagued with infertility. This of course is visually rendered after Julian sees his mother dead and proceeds to cut into her abdomen and remove her cervix. This is not only a mythical parallel, but the way in which Julian finally severs any maternal authority she may have had over him, even after her death. It's important to note the manner in which both Chang, the cop, and Julian handle violence in the presence of children. Neither are so considerate as to avoid it altogether, but they both refuse to involve the children despite being prompted to do so. Julian's mother's impudent rage at the death of her favorite son is the impulse for which Julian lives to indulge and assuage. Even without knowing that she had completely threw him under the bus to try and save her own skin, he nonetheless ignores her mother's order to kill Chang's daughter in addition to Chang himself. Oedipus is said to speak to the nature of humanity and the way in which we are ultimately bound by our destiny. The latter is a tradition heavily ingrained in Asian culture.

Only God Forgives is a film of contrasts. Light and shadow, love and violence, silence and deafening screams. Similar to Jimmy Stewart in The Naked Spur, Julian fears a symbolic castration via the chopping off of his hands. The hands that are constantly balling up into fists of repressed rage and sexual asceticism befitting the Buddhist nation of Thailand. The same fingers that curl up into fists to fight Chang are the same ones seen to touch his stripper friend's genitals in contrasting edits, again tying back to the sexual climax and violent catharsis equivocation. The aesthetic is a neon-soaked pop facsimile, and Refn's camera absorbs the lines and geometry of his frames in impeccable fashion. Say what you will about the narrative, but it's clear the man knows how to craft a shot. In this, it will not be easily surpassed in cinematography in 2013. The saturated neon lighting is only the dressing on top of terrific dollies and killer geometrical framing. The staging alone is something genre filmmakers would do well to try and emulate granted they can't find their own interesting way around a scene. Where Drive's violence was a cathartic explosion ultimately condemned in hindsight, Refn doesn't grant the audience even that. Far more often than not, the violence here is either averted by the camera, shot from a distance or completely antagonistic to your desire to see Julian succeed. The ultimate brain oxygen deprivation in this cinematic exercise in autoerotic asphyxiation comes from the absence of a "final showdown". Constantly building to crescendos and climaxes and withholding the release, one expects to be served a deliciously intense finale, but no. And, in a sense, this may be the film's most important legacy in anti-genre reproach. If having your film speak with action and images is a mistake, I'd urge Refn to keep making it.

[B-side]

If you think the film was humorless, then you weren't paying attention.

[TGM]

did anyone else laugh when Gosling yelled "TAKE IT OFF!"

ugh
Yup...

[B-side]

I'm seeing a lot of accusations of stupidity, and they all sound horribly misguided. What, exactly, is so stupid about it?

[NickGlass]

If you think the film was humorless, then you weren't paying attention.

I certainly wouldn't call the film humorless, but it has no deftness in reconciling tones of solemnity and camp. And even though it isn't humorless, its sensibility doesn't come off any less strenuous.

[B-side]

I certainly wouldn't call the film humorless, but it has no deftness in reconciling tones of solemnity and camp. And even though it isn't humorless, its sensibility doesn't come off any less strenuous.

It felt completely in sync to me. Nothing forced or strained about it. It's as slow and pared down as it ever is right from the beginning.

[wigwam]

:|

[B-side]

The karaoke stuff was pure deadpan. You'll notice they always cut to it after a really violent scene.

[Boner M]

The karaoke stuff was pure deadpan. You'll notice they always cut to it after a really violent scene.
Sounds ironic

I mean, I'll see this eventually and hope for the best but everything I read about it sounds :rolleyes: to the extreme.

[B-side]

Nah. It's more about the sudden tonal shift.

[ledfloyd]

I'm seeing a lot of accusations of stupidity, and they all sound horribly misguided. What, exactly, is so stupid about it?
It's sophomoric sex and violence thesis, and the painfully literal reading of freud's Oedipal complex.

[Ezee E]

Compare this tone and lack of dialog to the other Gosling movie this year.

Place Beyond the Pines does a similar approach with Gosling, especially in that first sequence, but Place Beyond the Pines pulls it off so much more effectively. It not only has atmosphere and tone, but it advances character, story... It gives insight. It's not irrational or forced.

[B-side]

It's sophomoric sex and violence thesis, and the painfully literal reading of freud's Oedipal complex.

I don't think it's sophomoric, and it's not exactly well-worn ground, so it was ripe for the digging. It's meant to be crude and exaggerated. After all, the film operates an a wavelength of pure abstraction and slides in and out of hallucinatory fantasy with no desire to distinguish between the two.

[ledfloyd]

I don't think it's sophomoric, and it's not exactly well-worn ground, so it was ripe for the digging. It's meant to be crude and exaggerated. After all, the film operates an a wavelength of pure abstraction and slides in and out of hallucinatory fantasy with no desire to distinguish between the two.
It just seems like such an empty idea. Like the Refn quote above: "Emotionally, our artistic expression consists of sex or violence. It all boils down to those two pure emotions that we have." It's reductive bullshit.

[Ezee E]

For a movie about sex and violence, there's a whole lot of violence, and not really any sex.

[TGM]

For a movie about sex and violence, there's a whole lot of violence, and not really any sex.

Well, there is the scene of the prostitute pleasuring herself, which is fitting enough, given how masturbatory this movie is.

[Irish]

There aren't any sex scenes, but there's a lot of sex in the movie, especially in the first half.

Anyway, man oh man is this movie ever weird. It's not any good, but then it's also not nearly as bad as I was expecting. (I'm a little confused by the critics who called this "boring," the one thing it's not).

I think there's a decent story here and an interesting character in Julian but its buried under a mound of self indulgent bullshit and an escalating series of bad choices.

Disagree on the direction. Kristen Scott Thomas's character is so horribly written, and her performance so over the top, that she very nearly ruins every other effect Refn was going for.

Also disagree on the cinematography. There's some nice framing up front, but later on Refn repeats the exactly same composition over and over again. I think there's maybe three shot in the entire movie, and two of them have been dipped in day-glo paint (seriously, what's with all the filters?). This movie is to cinematography what Instagram is to photography. Bright, flashy colors and stark compositions don't automatically translate to "good."

Strangest choice: the way Refn insisted on staging the actors as mannequins, unmoving in the frame, during dialogue scenes. I know he's underlining the themes and all, but aside from being baldly obvious, it's just off putting. It makes everything feel more artificial than it should be.

My absolute favorite part was the cop's magic sword. You know, the one at the ready when the plot requires it but mysteriously absent when the camera photographs him from the back.

Aside from all that, Refn's biggest sin is mishandling what little narrative he has. The opening is jumbled and senseless, key plot and character points are explained in dialogue, and the movie sets up a stark revenge plot and then never delivers on it. No wonder critics and audiences hate this film.

This'll stay with me for awhile, because it's like this curious clusterfuck of stupid married to a few good impulses.

[B-side]

It just seems like such an empty idea. Like the Refn quote above: "Emotionally, our artistic expression consists of sex or violence. It all boils down to those two pure emotions that we have." It's reductive bullshit.

Thankfully it's not meant to be interpreted literally, then.


Also disagree on the cinematography. There's some nice framing up front, but later on Refn repeats the exactly same composition over and over again. I think there's maybe three shot in the entire movie, and two of them have been dipped in day-glo paint (seriously, what's with all the filters?). This movie is to cinematography what Instagram is to photography. Bright, flashy colors and stark compositions don't automatically translate to "good."

Strangest choice: the way Refn insisted on staging the actors as mannequins, unmoving in the frame, during dialogue scenes. I know he's underlining the themes and all, but aside from being baldly obvious, it's just off putting. It makes everything feel more artificial than it should be.

He repeats similar modes of composition, yes, but that's not new for Refn. In fact, it's par for the course for most great auteurs. Not that Refn is, but having a consistent visual template is hardly unique to this film. I also made a point to establish that "bright, flashy colors don't automatically translate to good" when it comes to cinematography. Stark compositions, however broadly you're defining it, kind of do constitute good cinematography, especially when so deftly woven to serve the narrative artifice, which is completely intentional, and something that should have been obvious from the very first fantasy sequence in which Refn makes it abundantly clear that this is not a film that is operating within a standard narrative framework. It's pure mood. Who gives a shit about the characters. They serve their purpose.

[B-side]

and the movie sets up a stark revenge plot and then never delivers on it. No wonder critics and audiences hate this film.

For a movie about sex and violence, there's a whole lot of violence, and not really any sex.

That's the point! Jesus. Julian is not a wronged hero. He's an amorphous cipher through which his mother's psychopathic whims are enacted. There's a reason he doesn't "win".

[Irish]

Thankfully it's not meant to be interpreted literally, then.

He repeats similar modes of composition, yes, but that's not new for Refn. In fact, it's par for the course for most great auteurs. Not that Refn is, but having a consistent visual template is hardly unique to this film. I also made a point to establish that "bright, flashy colors don't automatically translate to good" when it comes to cinematography. Stark compositions, however broadly you're defining it, kind of do constitute good cinematography, especially when so deftly woven to serve the narrative artifice, which is completely intentional, and something that should have been obvious from the very first fantasy sequence in which Refn makes it abundantly clear that this is not a film that is operating within a standard narrative framework.

Great auteurs didn't repeat the exact same composition relentlessly in the same film. Not to the degree Refn does here. The problem is that he's making his metaphors and smashing us in the face with them, over and over, for ninety minutes.

He's more or less operating in a conventional framework, aside from a few short dream and fantasy sequences.


It's pure mood.

Not sure I agree with that. You could argue it about something like "Spring Breakers," but not this.


Who gives a shit about the characters.

Apparently, the vast majority of the critical and movie going public. This thing got booed.

[Irish]

That's the point! Jesus. Julian is not a wronged hero. He's an amorphous cipher through which his mother's psychopathic whims are enacted. There's a reason he doesn't "win".

Julian isn't really a cypher. I think the "Take it off!" moment proves that (it's pretty much the only genuine moment in the film).

It's not about winning, but about giving the audience some form of catharsis. The film doesn't have a resolution. People hate that kind of thing.

And honestly, if Refn has seen more than two movies in his lifetime, he should have know better.

[B-side]

Great auteurs didn't repeat the exact same composition relentlessly in the same film. Not to the degree Refn does here.

He repeats similar shots when filming the same area, yeah. It's a repetition that serves a purpose. This could easily be seen as in line with the film's fatalistic trajectory.


The problem is that he's making his metaphors and smashing us in the face with them, over and over, for ninety minutes.

I don't think so, since most people don't seem to have derived much of anything from it beyond "ugh that was stupid the characters were boring blahblahblah"


He's more or less operating in a conventional framework, aside from a few short dream and fantasy sequences.

Oh, really? So conventional that people couldn't wrap their heads around it one or the other?


Not sure I agree with that. You could argue it about something like "Spring Breakers," but not this.

Yeah, this one's actually even less interested in characters.


Apparently, the vast majority of the critical and movie going public. This thing got booed.

Ad populism. I don't give a shit what other people think, but you sure as shit seem to. And no, my previous remarks about other people are not an appeal to public sentiment. They're demonstrative of the very thing you seem to think validates your reaction.

[B-side]

Julian isn't really a cypher. I think the "Take it off!" moment proves that (it's pretty much the only genuine moment in the film).

Not really. It proves he's at the whim of his mother to the extent that he would get violent were he to perceive any slight against her. He's not an individual. He's an extension of his mother.


It's not about winning, but about giving the audience some form of catharsis. The film doesn't have a resolution. People hate that kind of thing.

Again, I don't care what "people" want, and neither should an artist. Maybe it's not always about satisfying standard audience expectation.


And honestly, if Refn has seen more than two movies in his lifetime, he should have know better.

Known better than to not copy their tired formula that leaves them completely off the hook and doesn't deviate at all from tedious third act wrapping with a nice little bow.

[Irish]

He repeats similar shots when filming the same area, yeah. It's a repetition that serves a purpose. This could easily be seen as in line with the film's fatalistic trajectory.

No, I meant he uses the same compositions for different characters and different locations throughout the film. I lost count of all the perfectly frame mid-shots of characters facing the camera, or long shots of people standing in doorways.

Sure, he's doing that for a specific purpose and it's effective ... At first. Then he goes and bludgeons the audience with what becomes a series of increasingly trite visual metaphors.


Oh, really? So conventional that people couldn't wrap their heads around it one or the other?

The movie has a very by-the-numbers revenge plot, which it doesn't deviate from outside of the ending. My suspicion is that where people were confused, they were confused over the arbitrary and downright weird choices: the magic sword, the stiff staging, the short, dream-like fantasies. I think people expected that to add up to something because the narrative was so conventional. And then got pissed when it didn't.

[Irish]

Not really. It proves he's at the whim of his mother to the extent that he would get violent were he to perceive any slight against her. He's not an individual. He's an extension of his mother.

I think we have a different understanding of this character. Less charitably: If you think Julian is at the whim of his mother, you don't understand him at all (especially as, at several points, he goes against his mother's wishes).

The "take it off" reaction was because the would-be girlfriend rejected his gift, just after he'd been humiliated by his mother.


Again, I don't care what "people" want, and neither should an artist. Maybe it's not always about satisfying standard audience expectation.

The only people who can live in the world and get away with that are small children and maybe teenagers. If the purpose of art is to communicate, then the artist has to care about his audience in some fashion.


Known better than to not copy their tired formula that leaves them completely off the hook and doesn't deviate at all from tedious third act wrapping with a nice little bow.

Not what I was talking about. At all.

But, anyway, if your motivation for liking this as much as you do is because it ignores some basic conventions, I'd challenge you to come up with a better reason.

[ledfloyd]

Thankfully it's not meant to be interpreted literally, then.
How is it meant to be interpreted then?

Cutting from someone getting their arm lopped off to a woman orgasm is pretty fucking in your face. It's hard to imagine a more literal evocation of Oedipal desires than the shot of Gosling returning to the womb. I disagree with a lot of Irish's arguments (a film does not need catharsis), but he's right that Refn is beating you over the head with his metaphors.

[Irish]

I disagree with a lot of Irish's arguments (a film does not need catharsis), but he's right that Refn is beating you over the head with his metaphors.

Eh, you're right. That might have been a little too broadly stated. Let me try again: A film might not need catharsis, but this film does.

I think it's fine to end on an ambiguous note if you've been playing with ambiguity during the runtime. But here, Refn leaves everybody hanging. He doesn't even bother to address the needs of the primary two characters and resolve what everybody has been talking about for two hours -- revenge. Instead, he'd rather hit us in the face with yet another metaphor for castration anxiety.

Given the structure of the piece, that's poor form.

[ThePlashyBubbler]

So the new Brightside is basically the old Irish. Huh.

[B-side]

In that I'm not afraid of expressing a strong opinion and not willing to let people's silliness go without being called out? Yes.

[Ezee E]

So the new Brightside is basically the old Irish. Huh.

Soon they shall merge.

[Winston*]

Soon they shall merge.

The beast with no tact

[chrisnu]

I'm very mixed. The atmosphere is almost Lynchian at times. (Not a surprise, since Refn's earlier Fear X was even more Lynchian.) I actually feel it could've done with less plot, the mechanics of which leaves it not hitting the Lynchian vibes consistently. It could have, and I thought that's what it did best - a lex talionis revenge tale set in a Thai nightmare world. Trying to make character motivations more complex with far too much expository dialogue didn't contribute anything positive. Of course, we'd be left with a film less than eighty minutes long, but a film need not be long in order to leave an impact. Still, while I'm in the mixed-leaning-toward-a-mild-con territory, I'm not giving this a "nay." Given the film as it is, it feels like more memorable as a series of sceen caps or short clips than a cohesive whole.

[Mal]

So if Drive was Refn doing Sixteen Candles, wtf is this.

Would have definitely been better suited as a short film imo, without Kristin Scott Thomas' Donatella Versace impression.

[transmogrifier]

Soon they shall merge.

Is it possible for a long-standing feud to become sentient? Because soon it's going to wake up and look at itself and think, what the hell am I? Why do I exist? Why is everyone else so wrong about everything?

[Irish]

I'm very mixed. The atmosphere is almost Lynchian at times. (Not a surprise, since Refn's earlier Fear X was even more Lynchian.) I actually feel it could've done with less plot, the mechanics of which leaves it not hitting the Lynchian vibes consistently. It could have, and I thought that's what it did best - a lex talionis revenge tale set in a Thai nightmare world. Trying to make character motivations more complex with far too much expository dialogue didn't contribute anything positive. Of course, we'd be left with a film less than eighty minutes long, but a film need not be long in order to leave an impact. Still, while I'm in the mixed-leaning-toward-a-mild-con territory, I'm not giving this a "nay." Given the film as it is, it feels like more memorable as a series of sceen caps or short clips than a cohesive whole.

I like your take quite a bit. I didn't dislike the film, didn't hate the experience, but at the same time I'd never recommend this to anyone.

Expectations around this were a problem. I think people wanted to see "Drive 2" and instead they got Refn pulling a little bit of Lynch on them. At least, that's the only way I can explain the rejection of this movie by a group that embraced things like "Mulholland Drive" and "Spring Breakers."


without Kristin Scott Thomas' Donatella Versace impression.

:lol: Nice.

[Mr. McGibblets]

In that I'm not afraid of expressing a strong opinion and not willing to let people's silliness go without being called out? Yes.

Silliness is definitely a very bad thing.

[ThePlashyBubbler]

Brightside 2: Death to Silliness.

;)

[ledfloyd]

Arguing with Brightside can be worthwhile which isn't to say arguing with Irish can't be, but it kind of gives me a headache at times.

[Irish]

Arguing with Brightside can be worthwhile which isn't to say arguing with Irish can't be, but it kind of gives me a headache at times.

Hey. Fuck you too, floyd.

[ledfloyd]

Hey. Fuck you too, floyd.
I knew that was going to come off wrong.

[eternity]

I was trying to come up with good things to say about this, and the first thing that came to mind was that the shot coverage was adequate.

[wigwam]

i dont remember coverage in the traditional sense, each shot was very deliberate and self-contained

i did have a problem with the sloppy up-angle on KST in her hotel room before that one thing happens when everything else has been so symmetric or straight on, i get where it could be argued as being disruptive deliberately but that could be achieved with something just as striking as the rest of the shots' geometry, i thot it just looked dumb

[dreamdead]

Immaculate nonsense. Gorgeously framed and shot, but it bespeaks every Western stereotype of Thai life. Some of the symbolism is mildly inspired--Julian's fundamental impotence depicted in both sexual and masculine overtones--but so much of the film is tied to an inane plot that it's hard to overcome, despite the artistry involved. I did find the score effective, and some of the slow dolly shots were phenomenal, but as Irish notes, the repetition of Refn's framing dilutes my appreciation of some of his structures.

I'll grant that we excuse Wes Anderson of these stylistic tics, but even those are used less than Refn uses them here. As a Jodorowsky tribute, it's ok I suppose (only a fan of Holy Mountain, which still has way more dimension to it than this), but I think the Refn needed to imbue more character into Julian's prostitute in order to transcend the basic material. Julian doesn't have enough character to do anything interesting, and the mother/son situation needed something more as well.

Mixed grade because of the artistry, and some of the individual sequences (mostly in the beginning and closing), but otherwise a big disappointment. Still, I can see people getting behind this just as I'd get behind something silly like Torque.

[Ezee E]

It works for Wes Anderson because his plots aren't inane, the characters are beyond basic cutouts and stereotypes. There's at least something going on, even if the art direction and style remains the same.

I really think Refn shot himself in the foot here. He was generating an almost Christopher Nolan-ish interest in the community. I wonder how he'll react.

[Milky Joe]

I don't think he really gives a shit about "the community." Which is why I still respect the guy even though he made a self-indulgent pisstake of a film.

[Ezee E]

I don't think he really gives a shit about "the community." Which is why I still respect the guy even though he made a self-indulgent pisstake of a film.

Sure, but I'm sure he'd like to continue making movies. He's only "announced" a movie with Carey Mulligan right now which sounds like a female take of his movie in Miami. He was well on his way to doing some great projects after Drive. Think those are stalling now.

[Milky Joe]

He chose to go to Bangkok and make this movie on a shoestring budget. He could have done whatever he wanted, and this is what he chose to do. He's still making his Barbarella TV show. He's been making films consistently since the 90s. He's going to be just fine.

[Ezee E]

He chose to go to Bangkok and make this movie on a shoestring budget. He could have done whatever he wanted, and this is what he chose to do. He's still making his Barbarella TV show. He's been making films consistently since the 90s. He's going to be just fine.

He's already lost out on some projects.

[Henry Gale]

Refn got the financing for this and Drive at the same time. He almost made Forgives first, but claims he changed his mind very late. He pulled a similar sort of switcheroo with Bronson and Valhalla too.

So even if he wanted to jump onto things like the Logan's Run remake or his desired Wonder Woman with Christina Hendricks right after Drive, I'm not sure he could have. And I'm glad he didn't. It's so seldom you see a film as focused and atmospherically, viscerally pure from any director at any point in their career, and that's something a more natural trajectory into bigger studio fare could've forced him to turn his back on for the foreseeable future.

Whatever you may say about Only God Forgives, positive or negative, it'll surely stem from the omnipresence of Refn's singular direction. If major studios want to hire him after this, it's because they'll actually want him and his distinct craftsmanship, not just his buzz.

[Sven]

Trying to decide if I should see this tonite... gotta confess, the negative feedback has me only more intrigued. A lot of it sounds like the things that Drive-dissers were saying about that one, and that one is terrific.

[Ezee E]

Trying to decide if I should see this tonite... gotta confess, the negative feedback has me only more intrigued. A lot of it sounds like the things that Drive-dissers were saying about that one, and that one is terrific.

I loved Drive.

[Milky Joe]

Trying to decide if I should see this tonite... gotta confess, the negative feedback has me only more intrigued. A lot of it sounds like the things that Drive-dissers were saying about that one, and that one is terrific.

you should definitely see it, regardless of what anyone says about it, bad or good.

[ciaoelor]

I didn't like Drive, but I really liked this one. I don't understand how a non-Horror movie such as this can have such effectively creepy moments without showing anything scary. I'm talking about the nightmarish scenes drenched in red of Gosling pensively walking through hallways. I've seen the movie twice and those scenes worked their magic each time.

[Grouchy]

I'm... kind of confused by the negative reactions to this. I thought it was excellent. When I read some of you guys saying that the Kristin Scott Thomas character is horribly written, it's like you watched a different movie.

The cinematography and the most fucked up mother/son relationship since Psycho already make this a keeper.

[MadMan]

I liked Only God Forgives a lot. However I think part of the problem was people went in expecting Drive. After watching Valhalla Rising earlier this year and watching the trailers again I realized that Only God Forgives was going to have very little in common with Drive. Seeing as I loved Drive, found Valhalla Rising great, and liked this movie despite the hate it received I guess I'm a fan of Mr. Refn's. For some stupid reason Netflix only has Bronson available until next week so I've pushed it to the top of my queue and will interrupt my Hammer Studios viewings just so I can see it even though I hear its one of his lesser movies. At least Netflix also has The Pusher trilogy and Fear X as well.

My main complaints are that even this film left me a bit cold, and that why only one cop to protect Chang's family? Is the Thai police force that stretched thin or limited?

And I barely recognized Thomas. Not because she's older, but just how her character looked, acted, and felt. The trailer didn't prepare me for the dinner table scene, and the violence was really graphic but I expected that. My favorite scene is probably when the hit men show up and try to kill Chang. The lack of dialogue, the music, the shots, all perfect.

PS: So much for the review I was planning to write as I'm covering most of what I thought already, but I liked that Gosling's character was a complete 180 from the Driver. I'm a bit reminded of how John Carpenter and Kurt Russell kind of deconstructed Russell's tough guy persona with Big Trouble In Little China, which incidentally is another movie with martial arts, Asians, and a really badass older guy with plenty of henchmen. Only in Chang's case he's a cop with policeman instead.

[Sxottlan]

This really worked for me. Many bizarro films do. Loved the look and feel and especially the music.

[Dukefrukem]

Jesus is this how every Ryan Gosling movie is going to be for the rest of his career? I think he spoke probably six times in this movie. Fucking awful. I liked Drive because of the mood, soundtrack and at least there was some payoff. This is a steaming pile.

[Bosco B Thug]

Well-intentioned swing and lots of small missing.

Brightside is right that its anti-climax is its clearest triumph. Agree with lots of his thoughts. Refn struggles to meld his adamant vision with dramatic competence (mum on the role Thai culture plays in it all), but I guess the film won when

I wasn't laughing at the act of Gosling reaching into his mother's womb, but was overcome by the concept.