I hated it. Here's why.


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.

reply

its not a story about a serial killer. good cop bad cop is more like it. the serial killer aspect only adds suspense and tension or takes it to a pitch the soundtrack conveys with haunting effect.

so who's the good cop bad cop? its hard to say. at first i sympathized with the rural cop: he's only doing a job and he'll be damned if he ever let his job consume his life. the city cop with all his science and codes of conduct...how pathetic and yet...it was hard not to be moved by his descent into madness.

the film claims this story to be true. i'd think again.

reply

"Even documentaries have points. Here, i've got nothing, except 3 hours lost."


So it took you 3 hrs to watch a 2 hr movie??

reply

[deleted]

All the reasons for the original poster to not like the characters or the movie are the precise reasons why this movie is brilliant. He didn't even spot the character arcs. Park, in the end, let emotions got to the better side of him and stopped framing the innocents (or who he thinks are the innocents). Suh, on the other, BECAUSE OF HIS PERSONAL VENDATTA, let emotions got to the worse side of him and decided to ignore the DNA eveidence (I love the touch of blood on the DNA papers). Out of the two, Park, in the end, turns out to be the better one. And this surprise revelation is done smoothly, with no audience going WTF?

The side kick Jo is a comic relief. When he goes out of action, the film prepares for its harsh and cold climax.

This film is certainly at least one cut above a normal Hollywood film, where the characters are stereotypical and the plot laid out for you explained in black and white just in case the audience don't have the intelligence to think nor the emotions to feel. So yeah, it is the American in him talking.

reply

ur not cool enough to hang out with those dudes in real life.
eh

reply

[deleted]

Pretty poor analysis here. Like previous IMDB users have mentioned, the characters were not there for for you to get attached to or sympthasise with, there were portayed as geniuine corrupt police on the brink of desperation to find a serial killer. The film has various points - modernisation, links to westernsation etc. And to say the film was 'awkwardly acted' is misguided in itself. The words 'Narrow minded' springs to mind.

reply

I understand the whole documentary purpose and even the personal drama of shattered faith in documents ("Documents never lie" ---> "This document lies"), which could also stand for a loss of faith in Reason over brutal, Inquisition-like methods. I see the various references to modernization and the Western world.

But still. Did it have to be so long? Were all of the (alleged) plot twists really necessary? No matter how true they are to the actual events, there were hundreds of ways to portray them in a more engaging way that played up tension instead of verging on a (pitifully) laughable plot.

As much as I tried to absorb the different cultural traits, to my non-Korean (and non-American, for that matter) eyes the movie looked fairly inconsistent under many aspects (something that hasn't happened with other Korean flicks like "Time"). Several events/characters/details looked as if they had just been thrown in to add to the atmosphere and never really explained. When the screenwriter and director explored the role of certain items to a larger extent, the trick does actually work (the panties, for instance). But other details like the peach and the spoon/pen, or even the band-aid? As if one couldn't see (or even just guess... surprise surprise) that it was always the same girl. Who, by the way ,was also very smartly walking alone in the darkness on a rainy night, when she claimed she always walked with her friend so they'd be safe.

Well, enough said on my part, I need a few hours of sleep to digest the movie.

reply

leaflettah,
if you ever bother to read these posts. Feel good that you have touched off such a roaring debate. I assume you are a troll as no one in there right mind would be able to so completely miss a movie. Hating a movie is not an excuse for being unable to pick up on even some of the most obvious points that your review would have us believe you have missed (see my original post). However, being borderline retarded is an excuse to miss the very things you obviously have. That and being a troll. I'm assuming for your sake that you are a troll and not trully as mind numbingly stupid as you have led us all to believe. For those of you others who dislike the movie, that's fine. Hate it, but as soon as you throw in your support with someone who has done everything but claim he is clinically less likely to remember to breath if he is busy concentrating on more than one other thing, keep in mind that you are retarded by association.
I thought the movie was okay. This is not in response to someone trashing something I care about. This is pure and unadulterated shame I feel that another member of the human race feels that it's okay to post "thoughts" expressed as poorly as leaflettah has done so. It's as if a grown man has smeared poop on a wall for all to see, and without irony has said, "I know this is an opinion and all, but I really don't think my feces smell."
My god, can you people just start a film opinion site for idiots only, and leave the rest of us alone. At the very least IMDB is a great site for film reference, you shame us all by demonstrating how shallow the end of the gene pool was that you crawled out of. Please, never voice your opinion in public again. And for those that are defending him; did you read his post? Are you all that completely out of your depth too?
Do us all a favor and stick to American sitcoms of the 80's as an aneurysm may be in the future for those of you attempting to wrap that thread bare mind around anything more complicated.

reply

I'll tell you your problem leaflettah. You're a poofter.

reply