MovieChat Forums > Salinui chueok (2003) Discussion > I hated it. Here's why.

I hated it. Here's why.

posted 18 years ago by leafletta
119 replies | jump to latest

Before we all jump to the "technical brilliance" of this and the "that's how Korea was back then" that, allow me to say why this film irked me to no end. First off, it was LONG! And for that long, I wanted something real good out of it.

The main characters had no discernable depth. Park: irascible, stupid even in his pompus belief of his clairvoyance in picking out the guilty, was constantly wrong through most of the film. His methods were coercive, brutal, unintelligent and at time, down-right superstitious. OK. So I don't care for this character.

Next, Jo. The high-kick side-kick. First, from a realistic film standpoint, his kicks are a bit over the top. It looks more like a fantasy Matrix kick than how cops actually beat people up. But I'll put that aside. He is at least consistent. He is hot-tempered, do as Park tells him, and a single-dimensioned side-kick. He's fine. But I don't care for him either, that's the point.

Next, Suh, the cop from Seoul. From the special feature, I learned that he had a personal vendetta to gripe with, which would have made his character a lot more interesting had that aspect been made clear in the film. The film, as presented, did not mention it. OK, so again, I hoped he was the voice of reason. And for a long time, he was. I was happy with that, all the way till the end, he suddenly flips a switch, and decides to ignore DNA lab test result and shoot the guy. Now, if the film had made it clear that this last suspect was indeed the killer, then fine, Suh is in the right. But the Film NEVER made that clear, which I could only draw the conclusion that Suh is acting immorally. Despite pressure, right is right, and you can't kill someone before you are sure they are indeed a murderer. So again, I don't care for Suh.

Chief police. He knew very well the operation of Park and Jo. I mean, that was pretty much implied when he talked about how the reporters are always crowding around and why so many protesters come around. So, the chief is just as backwards as Park and Jo. While I give him credit for reprimanding Jo in a later juncture of the film, he is by no means a character with the credibilitiy to be a voice of reason.

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. Here, I've got nothing. This leads to the point, what the heck is the point of the film? To tell me how corrupt that society was and that's why they couldn't catch the serial killer? Or, is the film attempting to be a Mockumentary? No is the answer to both.

I've learned in the 2nd grade to not write something unless you've got a point. Not just a bunch of facts. Even documentaries have points. Here, i've got nothing, except 3 hours lost. This film was utterly unenjoyable, dissatisfying for me. I will say this much, I know I am able to be this brutal and harsh in my review of the film because I am not a Korean, so I do not have all these nostalgic links to the subtler points to the film. But what is a film? It's a story with a point. That's the basis. Here we are just presented with a bunch of facts, some awkwardly acted, and overall, dissatisfying.

[–] noveltylibrary 18 years ago

"Perhaps this is the American in me talking"

Please don't include us as a reason for not appreciating the film. I really liked it. And as someone said the frustration at the tunnel was the pinnacle of empathy for the characters.

[–] bingham_bryant 18 years ago

I really don't understand how someone can cite their main gripes with a film as be ing that it was too long and that they couldn't empathize with the characters and expect themselves to be taken seriously. Pure idiocy. This was a true story. Real people are not always big huggable bundles of joy with perfect moral compasses and impeccable manners. And the events of the film took place over the course of over ten years . Of course it's going to be long. Good thing that it is near perfectly paced and that the hours fly by.

Top 3: The Royal Tenenbaums, In The Mood For Love, Lawrence of Arabia
Last Seen: Memories of Murder 8/10

[–] NEEVARP 18 years ago

Obviously, this movie has too much style and substance for a person like you to comprehend. I think Soul Plane will satisfy your type.

[–] piasa84047 18 years ago

"This leads to the point, what the heck is the point of the film? To tell me how corrupt that society was and that's why they couldn't catch the serial killer?"

Exactly. If you wanted a movie that tidied everything up in 99 minutes and told you who the killer was and brought him to a bad end at the hands of the police, rent Lethal Weapon.

[–] phil-brown807 18 years ago

I agree.Found the film frustrating to watch. ....Long winded,it dragged,meandered,side tracked and was vague....
The police must have been very frustrated..
Because it was based on truth ,l felt at the end it said "thats life" .Reality is not as tidy,well rounded as fiction..
l liked the way the film ended the soft music as the camera panned across the fields where the poor unfortunates died..
A tribute to them, some sort of rememberance.

[–] famouscoop 18 years ago

geez i thought this was one of the best things i had seen in ages

[–] Sricko 17 years ago

just watched the movie, and just came on your post.
i agreed with everything you said. none of the charcaters hold themselves with dignity throughout the entire movie. and while i guess that is how detective work worked back then (so they say) i found it odd/funny that they tried beating confessions out of all these innocient people, then when they most likely catch the guy they wait, and get lab results?
and whats with the amputation scene? necessary?
however, with that said, i still liked it. it was really well shot, and had a lot of great scenes.
but yea, i hear you.

[–] dirklance_160 17 years ago

I find it sad that after reading his review, everyone came on here saying how unintelligent the OP was. Just because he didn't like the movie, doesn't mean he's not smart. Personally, he sounds rather intelligent. In fact, the people criticizing him for his lack of intellect, ironically are coming off as even more dumb, as what they are saying doesn't make any sense. Prove to me that this man is

a) dumb; or
b) (to quote a few people on here) "hasn't made it past Grade 2"

And I'll be beside myself.

I found this movie to be amazing but this man has a right to his opinion and it sounds like he doesn't care what you think. I mean, when was the last time he responded to any of you? Anyway, not to play the devils advocate but I think you should get off this guy's back. Not to mention this post is incredibly old.

Cheers,
Dave.

See how I manage? I manage well.

French kiss newsletter

[–] quangtran65 17 years ago

dirklance_160, I completely agree. People should be allowed to articulate their honest opinions, even if it's an unpopular one, without the fear of being lambasted by the majority.

Personally, I respect what this film is trying to accomplish, but I did not like this film. Yes, there were moments that I thought were genuinely riveting, but it was frustrating having to watch such incompetent and loathsome detectives bungle the investigation over and over again, no matter how true to life this story was based on.

Would I recommend this film to a friend? Knowing that this is a well loved film, I’d say yes. But, if that friend asked me whether I enjoyed the film and would want to watch it again, I'd answer "no".

[–] armyofangus 17 years ago

In response to quangtran65’s comment:
"People should be allowed to articulate their honest opinions, even if it's an unpopular one, without the fear of being lambasted by the majority."

Why? If you aren't going to have people respond to you with how they honestly feel about your opinion, why bother posting anything? Are people entitled to their criticism of a film maker but in an open and democratic forum others aren't entitled to criticize the critic? Is this lambasting your speaking of so awful? Does it lead to being detained by the government, beaten perhaps, family members killed? I thought it might just be that in response to your opinion others might voice theirs even if they might be *gasp* different than the original poster. So far I don’t think anyone has said that Leaflettah does not have a right to his/her opinion or that any of the aforementioned punishments should be dolled out in kind for having willingly voiced opinions. But then again we might in the end hurt someone’s feelings and that is a price to high to pay for living in a democracy. That is what you’re saying, correct?

So why would people be critical of A) leaftetta’s opinion and B) leafletta’s intelligence…let's look more closely at what the person who kicked all this off had to say:
"First off, it was LONG!" (although leafletta does imply that long in and of itself is not bad but that he has higher expectations with greater length in film) and second "There's no one character for you to hang onto." Leafletta indicates that when watching a film he/she wants "to empathize, sympathize and like at least one of the protagonists." As he has just pointed out that they're at best amoral based on lack of action, at worst, brutal in the action they take. His final point is that he could not figure out the point of the film and "Even documentaries have points." (I don't know if this is meant to be a put down of documentaries or not but it is nice of him/her to allow that docs have the ability to have points).
So, yes, leafletta is entitled to an opinion, even if it is arrived at through the eyes of someone who has "as an American" an aversion to longer movies, cannot "hang onto" characters that have morally questionable moments/less than redeeming qualities. not unlike protagonists in films like The Godfather Trilogy, Casablanca, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Citizen Cane, etc, and cannot figure out the point of a movie that does little or nothing to hide or veil multiple points that are made and reinforced throughout the movie, (the Majority of the posters here were able to come up with at least one if not multiple points to this film, presumably most of them had 2nd grade and higher educations as well).
Oh and Dirklance 160, if as you said "he doesn't care what you think. I mean, when was the last time he responded to any of you?" You’re right, he didn’t respond, not once. So I think it's safe to assume that he never cared to have a dialogue about this film in the first place and since these forums are about talking to each other (reviews can be left else where) and as he/she has not, leafletta apparently doesn't care to have his/her opinion challenged in spite of challenging the film maker's work in the first place. So in keeping with an open forum where we are all subject to criticism: leafletta is a hypocrite and or coward as well as not smart enough to come up with even a single point to this film (Jodorowsky this is not people). It would be one thing if he made a compelling and well thought out critique of the film in which he was honestly asking questions of his fellow film viewers. Leafletta did not. Instead, he was repulsed by the inadequacies and amoral actions of the characters to the point where he couldn’t allow himself to empathize with the characters. An emotionally cowardly stance generally taken by those who are not secure enough within the context of their own morality, to even step outside of it within the relatively safe confines of watching a movie.
I hope someday that his education of at least 2nd grade serves him better or at least if he's unwilling to respond that he doesn't waste our time with his emotionally stunted timidity.
If I’ve hurt anyones feelings, I would apologize but that probably wouldn’t help anyone grow up, grow thicker skin, or improve the worlds opinion that Americans only like the easy, bland and what does not challenge their own moral center.

[–] cgavin1110 17 years ago

Guess you slept thru the part where the city cop falls asleep watching the suspect and another one dies when the suspect is out all night. Extra features or whatever aren't needed to see his vendetta against this suspect it is for this reason HE FEELS RESPONSIBLE. The DNA said inconclusive not yes or no. The whole point of documents never lie... yes they don't but they don't always give a definative answer. City cop's character was based on this fact and when documents fail his whole notion of right and wrong is blurred as his only basis has failed him. Not to mention the detectives are worn down they both feel it in their souls that this guy is the inhuman killer they seek, it not only becomes a case but a greater struggle within themselves and their demons and all the characters ability to change; Rural cop holding city cop back at the end is a complete 180 as is his wealth from his new business at the end a possible result of a blending of rural and city ways, and city going back to the barbaric practices he criticized the rural detectives for and then Lui Kang getting his kicking leg amputated perhaps because he has no will to change on his own and the rural cop now reformed makes the decision for him to change.
The wall of text I just punched out I think proves that the characters were not that bad maybe you just didn't grasp them as fully as others. I thought they were great characterizations between country and city cultures something we can see in America. The ending of the movie is well worth it even if you hate the film. It says it all and conveys the message of the film brilliantly the scariest part of this film is not knowing who the killer is and the fact that he is still out there probablly doing the same thing. In real life sometimes there are no answers. Life it is not always a Production Code film where evil is punished and the world is truly a scary place.
Your entitled to your opinion but I think there is alot more to this film than your anyalsis leads others to believe. But hey thats your cup of tea not everyone should like every film and you can't expect everyone to.
Maybe I'll write more when I see it a second time.

[–] yellowrobe1 17 years ago

Well the whole point of Park was that he was supposed to represent Korean society of the time. That was my take on him anyway, and it makes it more apparent why they were unable to solve this crime when you look at it that way. I don't agree that he was totally unlikable but that his character was more complex than being either completely good or bad. I found his character intriguing and thought provoking.

Personally I think you missed the point of this film. It was a commentary on Korean society at the time. A society trying to come to terms with the modern world and a rapidly changing government. I found this film to be beautifully shot, with captivating performances by the cast. The ending haunting.

I'm glad though, that even though you didn't like the film you were able to express it thoughtfully and intelligently ... unlike so many others on IMDB forums.

[–] amon-10 17 years ago

You see my friend you did not get it at all. THE FILM IS BASED ON REAL EVENT AND THE KILLER WAS NEVER CAUGHT. WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED? you wnated the realisator to create killer being caught when in reality they never caught him? this is not CSI! And this is 1980's no technology no smart people , in rural South Korea, of course it's brutal it 's not like they have rules or anything. Jesus people stop being so simple minded