It's OK if you don't 'get it'

I enjoyed this movie but I admit it wasn't long enough. There were so many parts that were left out. But overall, it was a good movie. I just wish it was longer and explained more.

I have absolutely no problems with this film. I don't understand what the fuss is about. What are people confused about? What's wrong with the ending? Please try not to nitpick.


----------------------------------------
Shoot him again... His soul is still dancing.

This is not a movie about martial arts. Many people here seem to be trying to make sense of it though the lense of a story about martial arts, or about fighting, or about honour. I don't see any of that here, not even honour. I see a very realistic movie about one of those very unusual people bent on manifesting their deeply held principles with every thought and deed, even when faced with both great loss and great temptations. It's realistic, not plot-wise (it's a *story*) but with regards to how things happen; life doesn't deal you any plot lined up for you to understand, it deals you bits and pieces of information, and it deals you situations for you to react on. Life is quite "artsy" compared to the regular blockbuster. What defines you as a person is how you react to what life deals you. And, of course, life ISN'T fair, it DOESN'T happen in a ring with a set of just rules enforced by a referee - this is the whole point of the idea about the dices and the reluctance to acknowledge competitions as a respectable arena. The legal procedures in the undercard room, making the fighters concede to the referees *legal authority*, and the repetition of these words as Terry is about to go in, is not some coincidental detail they throw in to make things realistical. Real champions aren't made in the ring, but in the real world facing real and unjust challenges that you're not prepared for and that you don't always have the means to understand fully. The last fight being outside the ring is an important detail, not a plot weakness. After all, "everybody knows" these things are fixed, and as we can see when the speaker calls him out, "everybody knows" Terry is a respected martial artist who up until now has refused to compete for some reason - it's not too far-fetched to believe that the audience and people around has an idea of what's going on, even though nothing is said out loud. Or maybe it is, we just don't get to see it, because it's obvious and unnecessary: Everyone knows these things are fixed anyway, and even the participants and profiteers have an itch somewhere to see the scam tore down and faced by all for what it is. That's why he was honored with the belts, because he did what almost every other fighter wanted to do and knew was right to do, but had been unable to do because of their all-too-regular human weaknesses (greed, fear, ...), or maybe lacking some strengt that they saw in Terry enabling him to overcome these weaknesses. Terry didn't go for any belt or acknowledgement, he went only for what he thought was right, regardless of the potential consequences.


One of the real gems in here, as I see it, is the story about dead cop's wife. Up to this point, we've been seeing his good deeds somehow resulting in good outcomes for himself and others (although not economically), or at least better than they would have been without his actions - the feeling we're getting is that this is a "good man" doing "good things", at least according to his own mind (!). This time, however, his principled approach to life has resulted in someone's death. Joe took his life knowing Terry would never back down from the truth, or maybe he was killed by the same people who set everything up - either way Terry's responsible: giving in to their demands could easily have saved the cop's life. Now he's dead, someone loved and needed by an innocent third-party, all for Terry's precious principles. He decides, then, to compromize on his principles (or even throw them away?) in order to help the widow pay her bills, and participate in the charade of the power-mongers, to give in to their unjustified and egotistical wants and needs and become a player in their dirty game (as he sees it). How during the next challenges life throws at him he turns back again to his principled-based approach on behalf of not himself and his school, but on behalf of only what he believes is right, is one of the most interesting and whimsically (read: realistically) portrayed character "traps" I've seen in movies for some time.


Sure, it's not a Nobel-prize movie plot, and it's not very original, really. But the point isn't "getting it", it's getting something out of it that relates to your own life. There is no "it". And that is exactly why I love this movie, because it challenged me to go beyond just understanding what the authors want to say, and start to explore what it can tell ME about MYSELF.

Bowltastic! Nicely put, very articulate and I understand what you're saying. Lets define what you stated as a VIRTUE OF UNDERSTANDING art, movies, etc. Artists know that this virtue exist in all their audiences. And if they know that, some may abuse it, some may use it as a license to do whatever they please and call it art. I sometimes get the feeling that throughout history there has been revered art that was only intended as a joke. Some painter says, "Look, I'm going to paint this blob. It has no meaning at all, and our high end snobby society is going to eat it up. They will make me a bunch of money, and along the way, they will define this painting for me." LOL!

Some high end artist can pick up a piece of rock from the beach, put it in a glass case and display it at a galleria. And because this artist is a household brand-name, there will be people standing around it, marveling it, pulling things out of their asses to define it. Meanwhile, the artist is chuckling in the back room.

Abstract doesn't always have to have meaning. It could simply be a screw-up.

[deleted]

I didn't know there was anything to even get or not get.

Well said.