I hated it. Here's why.

Plz, before judging any foreign movies, plz do some research on the country's history and the society, also the most important thing, to understand the way of how people think.

i think you should take a film class or two. i don't say this to be funny, but rather, to help you understand story tellling in film in a deeper manner. the open ending (no resolution, murky meanings) are things that have a root in the french new wave, which wanted to have a more realistic, true to life feel, to the point of denying the viewer's expectation of everything tied up by the final act.

it's a lack of understanding of film that comes thru in your comments. first with the gripe that the movie was long. that's not really a solid reason to dislike a movie. it's subjective, and says to me, that you didn't take the film on IT'S OWN TERMS. you were looking for something else from the begining.

this also holds true for your earlier assesment of "no charecters to hang on to." there is no law saying you have to like the people you meet, and absolutely no law that you have to like the people in a movie. the people in this movies, and plays like richard the 3rd, are purposely repulsive, to distance you, and make you look at the situation with a bit of perspective.

i don't think this movie is merely "technically brilliant" it's brilliant in everyway. the story is a serious look at police brutality and police impotance. no easy answers, no neat endings. it's smart funny, the mood and acting are solid. the charecters are complex, in a way that is different for most cop/detec movies in that they aren't pure good guys. they are very flawed. their hearts are kinda in the right place, but.... and the story keeps you on edge-- dark, black humor, sillyness and deadly seriousness. it is a rollercoaster.

everybody sees films and thinks they understands them, but taking a class shows you how to glean a deeper meaning. not to make it an elitist activity-- it's not, but like books, you can find much more complex things going on under the surface, it you look.

I liked this movie a lot. However, you might want to check Citizen X which is an American movie and it looks more like the type you are looking for.

[deleted]

"So, you see the problem here? There's no one character for you to hang onto. Perhaps this is the American in me talking, but when I watch a film, especially a long one, I want to empathize, sympathize and like at least one of the protagonists."

Yes, that's definatly the american in you talking. I'm affraid this is why american movies ended up being so formulaic and predictable over time, with one lead chracter undistinguished from the other. This is why i like the boldness of certain foreign movies from europe and asia, that take risks in making mvoies with main characters that are not "sympathetic" or that they represent and project a certain "type" of audience trait to the target audiences. I rather have an interesting protagonist, be he/she a good or bad person, then a "sympathetic2 but unintesting, cliched and deja vu protagonist i have seen in so many other movies before.

I'm not korean, i didn't got the finer points about the korea of the time the movie story is set, and yet this movie totally enthralled me and rapured my attention form begining to end. I don't need to be korean to know when a good mvoie from korea is good. Good movies are good movies, regardless where they came from. It's not a big toll on anybody's imagination to watch a movie from another culture and not be absorved by it, if one is sufficiently willing. In the end, it's a film, and the language of cinema is universal.

"This are Nice shoes! Couldn't you afford some real Nike?"

"Here, i've got nothing, except 3 hours lost."
Dude, Memories of Murder didn't run for 3 hours... are you sure you saw the right film?

I've learned in the 2nd grade to not write something unless you've got a point.

Your review of this film was very unique. I thought you offered an accurate analysis of the film and proved that you weren't criticising it due to incomprehension. Ironically, you started subjectively criticising the filmmaker's very intentions that you seemed to catch so well!

Reading on, I found that the objective conclusions you'd reached from the movie parallelled my own.

"it was LONG"

I hadn't really thought about it until reading this line, but it's very true! It was a very involved procedure involving three suspects that each took up a substantial amount of time. Of course, since I enjoyed the movie..I chalked up the running time as a profit instead of a loss.

"Park..belief of his clairvoyance..constantly wrong..coercive..unintelligent..superstitious..I don't care for this character."

Like many others have already suggested, I doubt this character was meant to be empathised with. It's probably safe to assume the director is also part of this majority. Why should we care for Park or fear for his safety? If this movie was about Park fighting for his life, this would've been an issue..but the audience is simply following Park's journey. Would making his character identifiable really get more of the audience involved in his investigation? If so, what if we made him funnier? What if Park was an attractive young woman instead?

"Jo..single-dimensioned side-kick..I don't care for him either"

Yet again, I agree. His compulsive violence and thoughtless obedience frustrated me. Yet again, probably intentional..yet again, I appreciated it.

"Suh..personal vendetta..the film, as presented, did not mention it."

During the movie, I remember being pleased that his backstory wasn't spotlighted. It was never discussed but it was suggested through his actions and frustrated body language. Never giving us a visual of his background was the freedom this subtlety gave us. It seems as though general audiences are catching less and less of these subtleties. I'm not going to blame Hollywood, but having a movie spell everything out through explicit flashbacks and omniscient narratives is making it almost trivial to look for the finer points and subtler clues of a story(as we have to do in life).

"when I watch a film..I want to..like at least one of the protagonists..there's no one character for you to hang onto"

I hadn't conciously thought about what there is to hang onto in these types of movies but I think I know which character it was. This might be stretching it, but I believe there's an implied character in any story that we can choose to hang onto--the basic principle of justice. During the "interrogations", I wasn't fearing for the suspect's life or the policeman's career;it was more about the loss of justice and morals. I found myself wondering if justice was completely lost on the characters or if she would survive. This was the character I was rooting for..the character I empathised with as she was being defeated.

I'm not citing this movie as some unprecedented piece of art. I doubt it'll become one of my favorites. I posted here because your logic was congruent with the intentions but didn't trigger the desired emotions.

"Here we are just presented with a bunch of facts, some awkwardly acted, and overall, dissatisfying."

This line seems to pertain as much to your own review as it does to your opinion of this movie. You're looking at the movie from all the right angles yet still being disappointed with the outcome. Maybe these types of movies simply aren't for everyone..but I would like to think that when people get their feet wet enough, the water's fine.