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

First off, it was LONG!

Stopped reading there. judging movies quality on its length is retarded.

--------------
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for enough good men to do nothing.

reply

Couldn't have dissected its flaws as well as this. Right on.

reply

The OP legitimately laid out his dislikes of this film in an articulate matter and the majority of the replies we're comprised of vile and juvenile posts that attacked his person rather than his arguments. Fu*k the internet. Is anyone capable of engaging in a debate without resorting to immature name calling? Tis a sad day in the idmb world, but surely that is the norm. I know this thread is 5 years old, but it still sickens me. Grow up people of the interweb. We all can't agree on everything, but we can treat others as equals despite our dissenting views.

reply

Sorry but I have to disagree. I really enjoyed this film...awesome film IMHO, one of the best korean movies I've seen. 10/10 and I'm not a Korean.

reply

I've just watched this on DVD and it's only 2 hours and 9 minutes long. What's with the whole '3 hours long' bollocks?

http://benendsbasement.blogspot.co.uk

reply

The OP seems a little small minded. This film is a VERY good representation of what detectives were like back in those days. But... this film is set in Korean society.

BTW the short tempered, pompous character is a pretty archetypal character in Korean movies.

Prior to the advent of DNA testing, detectives relied on witnesses for criminal conviction... What happens if their weren't any witnesses? Detectives went on supposition and gut instincts.

The innocent guy pretty much embodies how wrong Suh, big city detective and the main character instincts were. They weren't even close to finding the true killer. Everything they believed in at that one moment was rubbish. This questioned their self competency as a detective. the main character happens to quit or retires. Like he said he just "doesn't know anymore."

Movies are stories. There is no lesson in this movie but a story of a failed serial murder case. The reality is... the REAL killer is STILL out there. That was the MAIN purpose of the last shot. It's not a movie anymore. It's REAL.

reply

well you probably won't read this as its 2013... but I think your criticism misses the whole point of the movie. You complain that characters change in the movie, to you, it seems unrealistic. You even praise Jo for at least being consistent throughout the movie. The very reasons you hate this movie are the very reasons I believe this movie is great.

Park, as you pointed out, begins in the movie as brash, tactless, unintelligent, superstitious etc. He'd rather shoot the breeze than solve crimes. As an american living in the 21st century, we witness with slight horror his foolhardy eagerness to put away someone, anyone, away for the serial murders. Though its difficult for us to imagine these traits in a detective, we all do know someone who is incompetent. Someone who cuts corners, jumps to his own conclusions that he stubbornly and stalwartly supports, even with lack of evidence. Park is relatable, though perhaps not sympathetic to us.... yet. Throughout the movie, he is proven time after time that he is wrong in his assumptions. He finally "breaks" in the end. Looking into the eyes of who very well may be the killer, he could not say that he was guilty or not guilty with the foolish certainty he once had. I saw this as him finally becoming a mature, responsible person.

Suh has a more tragic but similar storyline. He was intelligent, intuitive, by-the-book detective, and a successful one at that. Paralleling Detective Park, each successive failure at bringing the perpetrator to justice serves to "break" Suh at the end. He pulls a gun and attempts to kill a man whom they only had circumstantial evidence against. It contrasts deeply with his personality at the beginning, but it wasn't exactly a "flick of a switch" lapse of judgement. You can see his frustration build over the two hours of the movie, with the final straw being the rape and murder of a little girl he failed to protect. With that emotional burden, its not surprising to see him attempt to kill the last suspect.

I see your point though. You want a good guy all the way through. Not a detective that jump kicks every suspect, or comes up with wacky theories, or does the morally wrong thing. Though we would be rooting for this hypothetical guy... don't you think it would be a little boring? Especially when he fails to find the murderer?

reply

i am sorry to say that but this is not really the american in you speaking. This is nothing to do with being an american or something. You just dont get the nub of the story as it seems. I don't know who taught you in the 2nd grade the crap you mentioned but it is plainly wrong unless the text you write is an academic one. Sometimes aesthetic of the story is a sufficient reason to put it down on paper and this film is one of these incidents.

reply

I kind of agree with you on a lot of this however 3 hours lost confused me, the version I have was about 2 hours and 5 minutes long (not including the end credits), so I didn't feel it was overly long and I did enjoy it.

reply

[deleted]