Park should stop trying to be all 'Reservoir Dogs' - Boksuneun naui geot (2002) Discussion

[–] baygerbieger 12 years ago

"I just don't think it's Park's forte. He's an immensely talented filmmaker, who--if he didn't labour to be the poor man's Korean Tarantino"

Holy crap, never say anything along these lines again. Just say why you like or don't like a movie and be as opinion based as possible. Tarantino is a known rip off artist and he effin admires the hell out of Park Chan Wook. He'd kill to make something half as meaningful as Park.

With that said, the violence in this film was realistic and necessary. The violence was a result of the plot and characters. It wasn't scenes seen in another movie pieced together to make a whole new movie. It was, a stupid young great kid who has a sick sister desperate to find a way to save her. His naiveness starting a chain of events that led to the death of an innocent daughter of a hard working man who advanced in life. That father losing his daughter and needing to do something about it. That young kid killing who he believed was at fault for everything. The guys who took his kidney and money. The father summed it up at the end as well. The best line/line read in movie history. "I know you're a good guy, but you know why I have to kill you right?".

Park has never made the same movie twice. You should seriously watch more movies and learn to try to watch everything in the movie. Empathize with all the characters and pay attention to every detail. It looks like you are stepping out of your comfort zone and starting to check out some very talented film makers like Park(best in the world), so good on you. But seriously this movie was about the emotion. The necessity. The compulsion. The tragedy. The everything and anything that is revenge. No offense with any of this, but really...poor man's Tarantino. Can't forgive that. No one should.

Snap, Crackle...CALL AN AMBULANCE!

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

"Holy crap, never say anything along these lines again."

Yes, SIR! ::saluting::

Seriously, though, dude: where do you get off trying to order me (or anyone) around? Think again, there, pal.

And what's with the "comfort zone" talk? Is this the tiresome old canard on IMDB boards that anyone who doesn't share your exact opinion about a film or filmmaker must needs be a doltish clod whose taste runs to Michael Bay movies? The reality is that in the late '90s and early '00s, I was the owner and manager of a video store specialising in foreign and independent films. I suggest you look at my Flickchart film rankings and see where my "comfort zone" actually lies:

http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc

Also: it's "naivete" not "naiveness", just FYI. HTH

reply

[–] baygerbieger 12 years ago

Seriously?

"I just don't think it's Park's forte. He's an immensely talented filmmaker, who--if he didn't labour to be the poor man's Korean Tarantino"

You said that. The guy that just went off on me roping you in with the Michael Bay loving idiots, said he tried to be like Tarantino. Because you saw one movie that wasn't anything at all like Tarantino's movies. Because it had some violence you didn't understand? Didn't care about the characters so felt the violence was as desensitized as Tarantino's flicks? That^ was more insulting than me saying you clearly have a comfort zone when it comes to movies. Which frankly, you've yet to dispute. Even with that flick chart.

I welcome arguments to the movies I like. Key word being arguments. Mr. Vengeance was about the emotion. I told you some of what it was about. You have too much misplaced pride to one second think about why you actually disagree/agree with what I said, or why exactly you think Mr. Vengeance was anything like any Tarantino movie. All you can do is try to posture up with a safe movie list and semantics.

Snap, Crackle...CALL AN AMBULANCE!

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

Go ahead then, tell me what my "comfort zone" is. I assure you that list is not "postured", not a "safe list" but an accurate reflection of what films I like best (and--at the other end of the list--what ones I don't like so much).

I already explained at length in my original comment that I think Park clearly is one of the most talented filmmakers working today. I'm not sure why you are so defensive and hostile that you can't acknowledge that.

I'm simply advocating that he make a quiet, reflective drama, with no major action or violence (or romance for that matter). So it's hardly as though I wish for him to go in a more marketable direction! The kind of film I'm envisioning would have almost no chance of doing big box office, but it could be an artistic triumph for Park in my opinion.

reply

[–] baygerbieger 12 years ago

"Park should stop trying to be all 'Reservoir Dogs'"

"I just don't think it's Park's forte. He's an immensely talented filmmaker, who--if he didn't labour to be the poor man's Korean Tarantino"

That is not explaining in length anything. That is saying a point without ever explaining it. "Cheese is for terrorists". There I clearly explained why that statement is true. That is basically what you did. Those "statements" of yours are very insulting. Maybe if you explained them, they wouldn't be. Maybe.

Na, yeah great. You want a movie where nothing happens. I get that. List was posturing though. I brought up some of what the movie was about and you jumped on me politely saying, it seems you are barely stepping out of your comfort zone and looking into films such as Mr. Vengeance. It didn't impress me. Explaining your original "point" would. Explaining why you liked certain aspects of the movie but didn't like others, would. Not a website where you rank movies literally everybody says they like.

Then again maybe you do. Saw one or two movies that might show some of your more personal tastes.

Snap, Crackle...CALL AN AMBULANCE!

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

Like which ones?

It would be ridiculous for me (or anyone) to make a list of HUNDREDS of movies I haven't seen or don't really like, to impress people with my non-existent tastes. People with mainstream tastes don't MIND appearing mainstream, that's what you don't seem to get. And if I were just trying to copy Sight and Sound or something like that, I would probably have more than one of their top ten in my top TWENTY (Citizen Kane is my #17, and that's it). Ya think?

Those are ALL reflective of my personal taste, regardless of what the experts think (note that the S&S #1 is my #382, and their #3 is my #259; Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is btw almost right in the middle at #309). I'd be happy to discuss my thoughts on any of them in detail--just tell me which board to meet you at.

reply

[–] baygerbieger 12 years ago

Congratulations.

"Park should stop trying to be all 'Reservoir Dogs'"

"I just don't think it's Park's forte. He's an immensely talented filmmaker, who--if he didn't labour to be the poor man's Korean Tarantino"

Explain that^.

Snap, Crackle...CALL AN AMBULANCE!

reply

[–] erikk-shupp 11 years ago

Movie Critics...

You guys should talk about how the movie is good via plots, character development, was everything conjoined, does it end? Techniques are fine but what makes this movie so good is that everything ends. The anarchy group seemed like the only "eh" moment of the film, but it was also pretty comedic, so I applaud the ludicrous notion that they did exist. This ended a lot better than the I am a Cyborg movie... its was may too Meta for my taste...

I think the important thing to notice is that everything has been said and done, we just need to reinvent it. I would treat Tarantino and Park differently. There shouldn't be any reason to create conflict because one imitates the other. In the end though, it does work, and juxtaposition of plot can be traced back to Hitchcock, so take that into account when you talk about "styles"

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] baygerbieger 12 years ago

City on Fire, innit?

Snap, Crackle...CALL AN AMBULANCE!

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying he should have made the same film, without the violence (that wouldn't make any sense). I'm saying he should make a different film, without violence.

I haven't yet seen any of Park's other films, but I was afraid of that (that he might go for the same kind of violence in them). That's a shame. As I said, I'm not inherently opposed to violence in films, but very few filmmakers do it right. In my opinion, it is not Park's forte, but he has other talents that could produce a fantastic work of cinematic brilliance if he got over the desire to be Tarantinoesque.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

"Shucks and mucks"? Never heard that phrase before, and I don't understand what it means (Google is no help).

reply

[–] baygerbieger 12 years ago

So you're never going to explain your "point"?

Yeah, what I thought.

Snap, Crackle...CALL AN AMBULANCE!

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

You make comments that consist entirely, or almost entirely, of quotes from my posts, with no explanation, and then you have the chutzpah to demand further explanation from me! That's rich.

reply

[–] baygerbieger 12 years ago

You accused Park Chan Wook of trying to be like Tarantino. Explain how or you are officially a troll.

Snap, Crackle...CALL AN AMBULANCE!

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

I think that's pretty obvious, but the most obvious examples are the scene in the "operating room" or whatever we would call it, where the henchman guys are taking turns with the anaesthetised (or, some believe, dead) woman and the protagonist goes on a killing spree; and the one where the father of the kidnapped girl tortures the protagonist's girlfriend.

I'm hardly the only person to see the connection. A couple cites follow; the first one, ironically, was defending the film against a number of other critics who (like me) decried the way violence was used--but even he did make a parallel to RD:

http://www.joshuajmorgan.com/blog/filmdiary.php/2005/08/22/an_eye_for_an_eye_leaves_the_whole_world
--------
The film has been getting some really bad reviews as critics (wrongly) attack the film for being violent merely for shock value. Entertainment Weekly rants that "the hideousness serves no dramatic purpose" but I totally disagree.

First off, most of the violent acts in Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance appear OFF-SCREEN, ala the ear-severing torture scene in Reservoir Dogs, or are obscured from the audience's view.
--------

http://www.coronacomingattractions.com/news/warner-bros-finds-sympathy-mr-vengeance-remake
--------
If you couldn't stomach looking at the screen while Mr. Blonde from Reservoir Dogs did his thing to the kidnapped cop, there's a scene in Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance that pushes the torture imagery envelope even further.
--------

reply

[–] baygerbieger 12 years ago

Very wrong headed and ignorant take on the film. People that only know Tarantino and the bare minimum of foreign films, who lack any sort of empathy or insight to judge a film on it's own merits.

The henchmen take turns with a passed out girl and how is that Tarantino-esque? They are one of the few black and white things in the film. They need to be to add weight to just how much of a good guy Ryu, and Mr. Park are. Ryu kills them out of revenge. How is that a killing spree? A girl died under his watch, his sister is dead, and he needs someone to blame in order to not have to deal with what happened as a result of his rashness, so he kills the two men and women who he believes are responsible for the horrible chain of events.

Violence off screen isn't a Tarantino quality. Not even close. Takashi Miike did it before and better. Other directors have as well. Some Suzuki films come to mind. One of the directors that "inspires" Tarantino as well.

Seriously because some stupid critics out there didn't pay attention to the movie and brought up a very wrong comparison of Tarantino and Park Chan Wook, you jump on it and very much like them fail to come up with a logical and concrete comparison and argument for such a claim?

Snap, Crackle...CALL AN AMBULANCE!

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

"The henchmen take turns with a passed out girl and how is that Tarantino-esque?"

Are you joking? Or have you not seen Kill Bill?

You seem to struggle with accepting that people can have opinions that are different from yours. Instead of saying "I disagree" or "I see it differently" you stamp your foot, have a hissy fit, and insist that anyone with a different subjective reaction to the film from yours (including professional film critics) is "stupid" and "very wrong". See why I see you need to chill out?

reply

[–] baygerbieger 12 years ago

2002
2003

Next.

Snap, Crackle...CALL AN AMBULANCE!

reply

[–] MetalWorks 11 years ago

"The henchmen take turns with a passed out girl and how is that Tarantino-esque?"

"Are you joking? Or have you not seen Kill Bill? "

So tarantino invented that... I see such a creative genius

I mean Kill Bill is probably the most hommage driven movie ever, and you are tryng to make it sound original, are you for real?

reply

[–] Christopher_Smilax 11 years ago

Are you joking? Or have you not seen Kill Bill?

Did Tarantino create that concept? And how does that work when Mr. Vengeance came out first?

Veteran of Psychic Wars

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 11 years ago

Fine, but I already addressed that elsewhere in the thread. (Also, Tarantino did it better.)

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

reply

[–] AmicableDead 11 years ago

If you're gonna compare directors to Tarantino. Then stop doing it backwards OP. It should never be, "this director is like Tarantino for such and such." It should be, "Tarantino did this or that like such and such director." Because in all fairness, that's the majority of Tarantino's films, homages, and that's how you should, if you do, compare him to anyone.

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 11 years ago

But Tarantino's career was well established before Park's, and a lot of filmmakers have tried to emulate Tarantino's style, even if his style comes itself from a pastiche of influences.

I think what may be getting missed here is that I'm not saying all filmmaking must be utterly original or that homages are uncool or even that being derivative is bad. I'm saying that when Park goes in the direction of ultraviolence and perverse, explicit, deviant sexuality (a direction I chose to describe in shorthand as Tarantinoesque, which may have been a mistake on my part as comparing directors was not my purpose), it detracts from what otherwise appears to be a rare level of talent.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

reply

[–] MetalWorks 11 years ago

Dude Tarantino is the most homage made Director ever

He is brilliant in doing so, I have no doubt about it

It can't be compared to Park. You can "get" Park influences, and where he comes from, obviously, but he make his own vision out of it. He is an auteur.

I'm not saying Tarantino is it not, but for me, he is so focused on making things look stylish or "like that movie" that he loses much of his own genius in the process

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 11 years ago

Again, I regret using a shorthand which put the focus on Tarantino. My point is that Park could be a truly great auteur filmmaker if he got away from his tendency to include elements of graphic ultraviolence and transgressive sexuality. The only reason I mentioned Tarantino is to make it clear that I'm not saying those elements have no place in cinema generally. Rather, there are just very few filmmakers who can pull off using them effectively.

In a way, this is a compliment to Park, or to his potential. As much as I love Tarantino's output, I do see his tendency toward (as you say) stylised homages and whatnot to be a limitation on some level. I can't picture QT making a quietly powerful drama or a truly avant-garde experimental film. He's always got to be playing with genre. Whereas Park could make non-commercial cinema that would be incredibly powerful and beautiful, but he works at cross purposes with his own creative muse by including these ugly, dissonant elements. JMO of course.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

reply

[–] MetalWorks 11 years ago

I see what you saying man, agreed

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

BTW, I need to see your Troll Identification Officer badge before I accept that you have the authority to "officially" label commenters as trolls. ;-)

reply

[–] Ramuna 11 years ago

"The henchmen take turns with a passed out girl and how is that Tarantino-esque?"

Are you joking? Or have you not seen Kill Bill?

You are basically killing your own arguments right there, my friend.

If Kill Bill was your reference, it was more likely Tarantino who's being Park-esque rather than Park being Tarantino-esque. :)

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 11 years ago

Let's keep in mind that "Reservoir Dogs" was my original reference. "Kill Bill" was only in response to one specific point made in one comment.

But I think the real question here is not who did it first, but who does it effectively. Let's not forget that I see Park as a very rare talent as a filmmaker. I could so easily picture him making a dramatic, non-violent film that would earn a 10/10 from me.

In fact, maybe I should have left Tarantino out of it and titled my thread "Park should stop trying to be all badass". Because that is the root of the problem, I think: either he or the marketplace is pulling him away from making quiet but powerful pieces of cinema that would appeal most to thoughtful adults, toward making shockingly violent films young males are more likely to gravitate towards.

But then again, if I had simply posted that, I think people would have assumed I just can't handle a film that piles on the ultraviolence. And while it IS true that I dislike 99.9 percent (at least) of such films, it can be done in a way that I find cinematically successful. Quentin Tarantino is the rare filmmaker who pulls that off. Is he the only one? There are a few other filmmakers who rate "ten stars" for me, whose films contain their share of violence: the Coen brothers, Martin Scorsese, PT Anderson, Stanley Kubrick, Lars von Trier, Francis Ford Coppola. But none of those quite seem in the same category somehow.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

reply

[–] baygerbieger 11 years ago

Talk about comfort zones and safe lists...

Grow a pair will you.

What was Joint Security Agency for you? Hell even if literally every thing he ever did was violence galore, why can't you possibly see beyond that? Are all his movies the same movie? Same story? Same style behind them? The thing is, Park is pretty mild when it comes to violence compared to a lot of other film makers. As he doesn't do anything unless it has a point. Where as your Tarantino's do something if they saw it in another movie.

But once again you are giving a blanket statement with nothing behind it. You've moved on from what you admit was a wrong thing to say in, "I just don't think it's Park's forte. He's an immensely talented filmmaker, who--if he didn't labour to be the poor man's Korean Tarantino" and him trying to be all "Resovoir Dogs".

You have now gone on to double down on, he should do Silent Light and not make Ichi The Killer. Well he shouldn't and he didn't/hasn't.

Nothing amazing ever happens here.

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 11 years ago

Haven't seen Joint Security Agency. For that matter, I have also not seen Silent Light, but I Googled it and it sounds fantastic. Thanks for the tip! (Ichi The Killer, I will be avoiding at all costs, LOL.)

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

reply

[–] Ramuna 11 years ago

I see your point but maybe it's a poor choice of comparison that made you seemed to say things that you didn't really mean.

Take me, reading the thread title alone made me think that you're just another Tarantino's die-hard fans who take comparison base on your own merit, well maybe not but a little carried away there you were. And as a matter of fact, I myself tend to agree that less violence won't reduce Park's movie quality in any way, but still I won't go as far as to say that he should stop trying to be Tarantino let alone 'a poor man Korean Tarantino' which of course was very disdaining. You made it sound like Tarantino was the only benchmark to any content of ultra violence in a movie while that very director was the one to be questioned for originality and very well known for pasting homage all over his movies.

And again taking "Kill Bill" as further reference, you have unintentionally pointing to the wrong direction that only make you looked twice as bad. Aside from what the organ dealer did to the sedated girl, unless you saw "Kill Bill" first than "Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance", of which I'm sure you did, you will at instance notice the similarity of what the Bride did to the hospital interim in "Kill Bill" with what Park did to Ryu in "Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance." No question to that and yet nobody was referring Tarantino as 'a decent Hollywood Park'.

So all in all, you might get it right in the end that you should probably just left Tarantino out of your thread's title, admitting to that even in a very subtle way shows that this discussion is actually going somewhere.

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 11 years ago

Those are all fair points! Maybe you should rewrite my OP for me. :)

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

reply

[–] silentman01 11 years ago

Comparing Park Chan-Wook to Quentin Tarantino is like comparing Stanley Kubrick to Akira Kurosawa. YOU CANNOT COMPARE THEIR STYLES BECAUSE THEY ARE SO STYLISTICALLY DIFFERENT. As for Park being to "Reservoir Dogs"-ish....whatever the hell that means, I don't know what films of his you have seen to make that judgment.

reply

[–] KTope 11 years ago

"I have only seen one of Park's films, but allow me to tell you all exactly what this man has done wrong thus far in his career, and what he should do to create the truly meaningful cinema he is capable of, but hasn't yet achieved..."

Do you remember all of those people in your life who, at one time or another, said or implied that you are an egocentric ass?

They were correct.

I am Jack's IMDb post.

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 11 years ago

No, they were all wrong, everyone is wrong, they are all against me but I will prevail...

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

reply

[–] squodge 11 years ago

I actually bothered to read the entire thread.

After watching Sympathy..., I did not recall anything in the film that reminded me of a Tarantino film. I've seen Reservoir Dogs - I thought it was okay. I've seen Kill Bill, which I enjoyed - but I've never recommended it to friends as a "must see" film. In fact, I feel that Tarantino goes for style over substance.

As for Park, I like the stories a lot. I'm not bothered by the violence or gore, as I've seen plenty of horror/gore (both Anglo and Asian). Sympathy's violence and gore was extremely tame by horror and gore standards.

I'd say, and this is just an opinion, that Tarantino uses violence stylistically; whereas Park uses it as a necessary part of the narrative. I still remember when I first saw Oldboy - it felt like "the best film I've ever seen" at the time, and even now I recommend it to absolutely everyone for the story.

Anyway, I digress. Tarantino and Park are both great directors - I just feel that Park's material is far stronger (in terms of narrative), whereas Tarantino goes for characterisation over narrative. I choose narrative any day.

reply

[–] Uberlim 11 years ago

well, 2 b fair, Ryu does "tryout" a baseball bat a bit like Bruce Willis in Pulp Fiction just before he goes berserk on the organ donors.

i believe we're all artists, & it does piss me off when someone only "homages" (which Tarantino doesn't), OP wasn't starting a fan'boy fight, he was just wrong in "wishing" that Park made a movie as blend as all those who made it 2 Cannes...

me i wish john woo ,park, ong-bak , tarantino, those guys from south park, gibhli studio, the guy from City of God, the guys from Matrix, these guys from supernatural...etc made a movie alltogether, & believe it or not, i' m pretty sure that's already happened & gonna happen again, in the head & dreams of any of these & others to come...

Fill with their majestic spirits all [...] and not a few leaders only. R.W.E

reply

[–] arkast 10 years ago

There is not any copying between the two directors.
Tarantino used crude humour and rich dialogue to create his movies. Chan-wook on the other hand doesn't.
Also i don't see many similarities between this and RD.
Last but not least i don't consider Kill Bill to be tough to watch or even very gory. It's more like manga than goryfest. Here the violence is raw and not cartoonish (that was the point of kill bill as it was a tribute/parody to 70s martial arts movies).

reply

[–] Uberlim 10 years ago

true dat, op b dumb posting because fo som reason he racist 2ward asians or something, which shows what an idiot op is.

also that last movie, broker? striker? strider? well it sucked so much i can't remember, about the vampire cannibal girl family drama, was so *beep* u def can't compare the 2.

if i was racist & dumb, i'd say after having to watch this movie "koreans shd stick 2 hip hop"
but i ain't & the movie this thread is about is great. really!

imdb b full of trolls & fake trolls trying to hurt 1 another by pretending they ignore dem, ppl shd b more civilized rly.

again, great movie.

''As Imbecile examines finger, Wise man sees who's watching Imbecile, & Moon gets intimacy.'' H.E

reply

[–] foxyrabbit 8 years ago

bumping this thread because op is an asshat

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 8 years ago

Awww, aren't you sweet.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

reply

[–] palvdb 7 years ago

I wish Quentin Tarantino wasn't trying to be like the entire history of cinema.

I think it's a very strange comparison you're making here.

reply