The best movie


This is the f-u-c-k-i-n-g best movie I've ever seen and I don't understand anybody, who says that this is s-h-i-t. And there's a lot of such crazy people.

reply

I agree.

This is easily one of my favorite movies of all time. It's flawless.

Easily the best film of 2003.

Sadly, it seems it's bound to fall into obscurity.

BTW, where did you see it ?

reply

This movie got the "best film award" of ?stanbul International Film Festival.
I totally agree, one of the bests.

reply

Wow ...

I'm pretty surprised.

I never thought it had actually won anything anywhere. :p

To me, GDI exceeded all 2003's greats, such as Elephant, Dogville, Good bye, Lenin, and others.

Did you guys see "The Skywalk is Gone" as well ?

Just as good - if not better - than GDI.

reply

[deleted]

You can find Skywalk sometimes on ebay as a CD-R. It's a middling burn at best, but it's such a beautiful movie and the only way to see it.
Skywalk supposedly comes between WTIIT? and Tsai's new movie, A Wayward Wind, which I think he just finished.

reply

Anyone interested in Skywalk or any of the other movies of Tsai can find them on the eDonkey network.

A good client can be had from www.emule-project.com.


reply

The Skywalk Is Gone is included as an extra on the DVD I have of this film. I won "Goodbye Dragon Inn" in a contest. I had seen "Vive l'Amour" many years ago and given it a good review here at the IMDB. When I started watching this movie, it seemed familiar, and then after looking up the director I discovered it was the same one who made Vive l'Amour. In my review of that film, I stated that I "appreciated" it more than I "enjoyed" it. I felt the same way about this film, except for that five-minute shot of the empty theater near the end. After the first couples minutes I started to feel like it was a joke, and an annoying one. It kind of pissed me off. Fortunately since I have it on DVD I was able to fast-forward through it after about halfway. I couldn't believe it just kept going and going. I'd accepted the rhythm of the film until that point, when it just seemed to drag to a state of total static inertia. However, after the film was over, I was left with a bit of a haunted, melancholy feeling, although Goodbye Dragon Inn didn't affect me like Vive l'Amour, which really hit a nerve.

| Fools rush in--and get all the best seats. |

reply

I have terribly mixed feelings about this movie...

I love movies with beautiful shots/cinematography. I love movies that take their time and have LONG scenes. My favorite movie is "Maborosi". Somewhat similar in visual style and pacing.

However, the difference between Maborosi type slow, and GDI slow is VERY different. In Maborosi, the pacing is furthering some goal of the story, and further showing the feelings arrived at in the storytelling. I know there is a story in GDI based upon reading the back of the DVD case, but had I not read that, I would be clueless.

But then again, I have the feeling that if I watched this under different circumstances, I would probably enjoy it more. Expectations are a terrible thing to have!!

So all in all, this was a very beautiful movie (no debating that) but the pacing seemed to be misplaced in relationship to the story (which was very slim).

Just my 2 cents....

Dave

reply

this was the
slowest
movie
i
have



EVER


seen





in












my










life.

it was "beautiful", but if it was truly an "empty vase" (i love that concept) that i'm supposed to fill with whatever i bring to the viewing experience, then...................... i need to see a doctor.

it made me want to scream.

reply

This is a great movie, I loved it. I´ve seen it in the "Buenos Aires Independent Film Festival 2004", were it was proyected with all functions sold-out. I think this is one of Tsai's best movies, along with "The Hole".
Tsai Ming Liang is a "never-mising" director in the Buenos Aires Independent Film Festival.

reply

HI,
I agree. WHAT A FILM!.
I saw it at the Buenos Aires film fest 2004.
I have to say that while I was watching the film I spent an *horrible* time.
I had read that the film was astounding so I expected.. I don't know but I centainaly didn't expect what I saw.
Then after I saw the film, I started to like it, I started to recall all I had seen. I loved that feeling. Suddely the silences and images frozen were like delighting music enchanting me.
I must have saw it like a year ago. Today I was studying and I thought about it again. Why nobody make films like this one? I mean Sokurov doesn't even comes closer. It's more intimate. I had the feeling that I WAS there.
Why nobody films a person chosing a tomate can from the kitchen?.
carla

pd. don't take the tomato thing too literally.



www.ithaki.net :: new powerful meta search engine

reply

A genius, Ming-liang Tsai, that's for sure!
Certainly the part with the empty auditorium. Many people were very upset cause of the tempo and storyline, and during this part of the movie most of the spectators just left the room shouting "Goodbye!" etc. So actually the real movie took place in the "real cinema", not in the "virtual cinema" (= screen). As I told you, you must be a genius to come up with such an idea, although everything depends on the public.

reply

Maybe people dislike it because it has no plot , its just random silence. a lady staring at a wall for 20 minutes . Guys standing at a urinal for 20 minutes.

watching a lady limp down a hallway for 15 min. Ok , symbolic or w/e thats fine. But this movie is just dumb, boring , lifeless.


I won't call this movie *beep* as you put it , I have seen bad movies , horrible movies . How this is even remotely close to be a moving or entertaining i will never know .


I am going to go eat some wild mushrooms now and drink gasoline , hopefully i will come back and be able to say "WOW THIS IS SO FANTASTIC , ITS BETTER THAN THE DUPONT WATCH PAINT DRY FESTIVAL OR THE JOHN DEER WATCH GRASS GROW PARTY"


I don't know what you guys are on but personally, I rather drive rusty nails through my knee caps than have to sit through this again.

reply

Okay, it isn't the Worst movie. He framed his shots well. I can't imagine what the fuss over this piece of crap is.

1) It had no plot
2) It had no plot and ran for an hour & 1/2
3) The 20 minutes watching the guys at the urinals was asinine.
4) Watching the lady eat her doughnut (or whatever that was) for 5 minutes, then limp down the hall for 20 minutes was mind numbing.
5) The Japanese man. Why was he staring at everyone?

Before I face the wrath of flamers, I love foreign films (grew up in England, so I can't help it), I work as an editor, so I have an extremely long attention span.

I would have trimmed that beast down to about 10 minutes. There are so many wasted shots in that film it defies reason.

I'm glad some of you enjoyed it, but it wasn't for me.

I wish I knew who was greenlighting this guys projects. I know at least a dozen filmmakers who could blow this guy out of the water.

reply

The first movie I saw by Tsai Ming-liang was "What Time is it There?" and since then I have watched just about all of his films, because I liked that one movie so well. But I have been disappointed with all of them except "The Hole," which was only okay. I only now finished watching "Good Bye Dragon Inn," and again I am disappointed. As always, the cinematography is beautiful. But many of the shots are pointless and ridiculous. When the camera held steady on a theater of empty seats for five minutes, I thought I was going to have a fit. Like other posters here who do not care so much for the film, I love foreign movies and many slow, quiet movies that tell simple stories (for instance, Takeshi Kitano's "Dolls" is one of my favorite films). But this movie was a little too slow. No. WAY too slow. And the story could and should be told in maybe five minutes, not 83. There are many beautiful pictures in the film, but it does not work very well at all cinematically. A picturebook would be worth flipping through again and again, but sitting through this entire film just isn't worth it.

reply


All right,

1) Why should it have to have a plot? It's not a stage play. Read "Notes on the Cinematographer," think about it for a year or two, and we'll talk.

2) So it's pretty short for a movie...do you feel ripped off?

3) No, it was hilarious, like a piece of comic choreography by Paul Taylor.

4) Your mind must have been pretty numb to begin with.

5) Why do you think he was staring at people? What other kinds of looking go on in the movie? What functions do they seem to be serving for people?

Sorry you didn't like the film...it certainly isn't for everyone. But dismissing things as pointless is a foolish thing to do if you aren't ready to consider what it is that they're doing. Being spoonfed a plot is what's truly mind-numbing--thinking for yourself (which this film allows you to do) is not.

reply

[deleted]

_______________________________________________

"..and for the most part, pretty friggin' GAY!"
_______________________________________________

That must have been a shock for you, especially after having seen "Vive l'Amour". I mean that wasn't gay at all...

reply

Re: "5) The Japanese man. Why was he staring at everyone? " - The Japanese man was trying to pick some man with an interest to have sex with him. It was really obvious to me, not even subtle at all (though a lot of other things in this movie are fairly subtle).

One of the plot keywords for this movie on IMDB is "gay interest". Reading plot keywords may be helpful for answering questions like that / explain certain things to people who didn't "get it"...

reply

I totally agree. I guess some people find it great just because they want other people to think they get something we don't get. I guess they feel kind of cool because they are able to "enjoy" this movie. or maybe they are just high as you suggest.

reply

I totally agree. I guess some people find it great just because they want other people to think they get something we don't get. I guess they feel kind of cool because they are able to "enjoy" this movie. or maybe they are just high as you suggest.


Yes, that must be it. Because it's impossible for anyone to honestly enjoy a film that you don't enjoy.

reply

The movie doesn't have that much to "get", it's a slow-paced melancholic movie, which you can watch and relax and imagine whatever you want while watching. It's by far not the only movie that takes that approach, and many people like that. All these random suggestions that people who liked this movie take drugs are insulting, and truly show you - and everyone else here who suggested it - are quite dumb / narrow-minded.

reply

I'm very excited, today I received my amazon DVD order which includes 4 Tsai Ming-liang titles: "Goodbye Dragon Inn", "The Hole", "The River" & "Rebels of the Neon God", I already have copies of "Vive l'amour" and "What Time is it There". I've seen all of these except GDI. I first saw "Vive l'Amour" when it was shown at the Toronto film festival and I got hooked. Although V.l'A. is still my favourite, I've enjoyed the other titles as well. I like the director's minimalist style and his sense of humour and I also find Lee Kang-sheng's performances absolutely mesmerizing.

I was compelled to post here because no one I know shares my enthusiasm for this director's work. ( In fact a couple of people are still pissed off at me years later, for recommending that they watch "Vive l'Amour". Go figure.)

reply

So, I just want to give my two cents. There are lots of words to describe this film.. interesting, unique, different. Entertaining is not one of them. It wasn't bad, BUT I can't imagine having to sit through this again (which I will have to do because I have to write a paper on this for a class.) It was pretty interesting but the long takes, especially toward the end, were excrutiating. The film seemed 10x longer than it actually was.

I agree with the editor who posted in this thread. I too am interested in editing, and while long takes have some importance in the film, sometimes it was just excessive and I too would have definitely cut them down.. for example, the shot of the empty auditorium that lasted for what seemed like an eternity. I actually thought my dvd had frozen or something. THAT is excessive. You can have long takes but at some point I just have to say, "OK! I get what you're trying to convey with this long take.. cut to something else!"

"Listen, I need a cool way to kill people. Don't worry, for my script."

reply

That's precisely what Ming-Liang does with his films though. He's not concerned with you "getting what he's trying to say"...in fact, if you think you do then he wants to undermine that by letting the scene go on even longer, even longer, wait, yes, even longer. He is saying goodbye to something and in order to understand what it is and why it's so sad he makes us look at it for so long.

It's a long scene, there's no denying that. Extraneous? Probably, but I don't think Tsai would disagree. The space remains so static it feels as if it empties itself till we realize that maybe the cinema was never there to begin with...Tsai provides alot to contemplate and alot of time to do so (I'll admit my thoughts started to drift off on tangents during the empty theatre scene). But that's what's so unique about his style and films. He subverts expectation until he questions the whole concept of "necessary" and "too long"...what defines too long and necessary...is any scene necessary or too long and why?

Anyway I'm not arguing with anyone because I can completely understand why this wouldn't be someone's cup of tea. Personally I've enjoyed all his films and have seen this one about four times now.

Randomly drifting onto this board has made me want to watch it again.

P.S. to the person who has to write a paper on this film...what class is it? and I envy you! No class in my media studies department would have the gall to show this film for class.

reply

It's a Chinese Cinema class. We also saw Vive L'amour.

Good thing is, the paper wasn't very hard to write :)

"Listen, I need a cool way to kill people. Don't worry, for my script."

reply

It was rubbish! absolute bloody rubbish.

reply


I would respond to this, but you're probably waiting in line for a Playstation 3 right now.

reply

Grow up.

reply

I have to agree with ilovetarantino.

I saw this at the Sydney Film Festival and it was voted worst film of the festival, I left after an hour or so. I realised that I could go stare at a wall at home where it was warmer and reflect on the fact that one day my home would be demolished and I would be dead.

I have it on very good authority by one attendee that there were 7 people left in a theatre of over 1000 by the end and she only waited because she thought I was staying until the end.

While I appreciated the irony of a plush theatre (initially) full of people watching a down-heel theatre barely full of people, the joke wore thin after the tenth minute. This was minimalist story-telling at best.

As there was no real narrative, or visuals interesting enough to maintain a locked-off shot of over ten minutes, that leaves it as a proto-documentary of a dying place. For a similar effect, find a rough part of your town, sit and stare at it for an hour. Remember not to move your head.

Or try the same in your public urinals and see where it gets you.

reply

The rough part of town _should_ be looked at for a long time, imo.

Storytelling? Narrative? What happened to letting your mind do the work every once in awhile? This is a film about watching film, and about death, mourning and absence. If he had tried to frame a solid story around the people in this film, it would have been familiar and redundant. Instead, the theater itself is the character, and the narrative (anything that would or could happen there) is implied. That theater was stunningly old... a museum of ghosts.

Ming-liang Tsai displayed all the dark corners and hallways and hidden places I would have wondered about if it was simply the setting for some typical human drama or if I was actually going to see a film there. In fact, he showed everything except what most people usually went there to see (the screen), and I was completely mesmerized by the long shots. They carried the weight of the director's affection, and mourning, for this type of film experience... which is basically extinct now.

Viewers aren't given a history here, instead they are given an infrastructure to construct that history themselves. Even the film being played (Dragon Inn) is a ghost that can, for the most part, only be "heard". There are stories aplenty in the expressions on the faces of the viewers as they watch, and in the emptiness of the hallways and seats which imply ghosts that will disappear with the building itself when it is eventually demolished. The intent is for the viewer to experience all of this intuitively, and that my friends is a nod to your intelligence. To simply call this film art house excess is completely lazy.

I don't feel "cooler" than anyone because I love this film. I feel exhilarated that I connected with it. I'm sorry that not everyone had the same experience, but there is something beautiful about the idea of 993 out of 1000 people leaving the screening of a film because of long shots, lack of dialog, and a cloudy narrative. It's as glorious as our departure, as human beings, from theaters in general so that we can sit at home and interact with computer screens for hours on end instead.

reply

[deleted]

I really despise people who criticize others for not having the patience for slower paced films. This, is an insanely slow film, there is no plot. It's completely understandable for people to dislike the film on those grounds, even for art-house cinema it's a struggle. The posts in this topic that criticize the film seem to desperately defend their credentials because these idiots will throw out the "Michael Bay" insults. It's pathetic.

That aside, until the first line of dialogue I couldn't believe how slow this movie was. I haven't read any DVD covers or reviews, I barely watched half of the trailer because I don't like ruining things before I watch them. But then you start picking up on the awkward silences, the little moments between the characters that suggest meanings that may or may not be true. It's as if the director has offered you a canvas or a dot-to-dot puzzle and left you to fill in the details.

There is something there, and it'd definitely be more enjoyable on a second watch considering you'd understand the subject matter more. But it's utterly understandable for people to dislike this film, and you shouldn't judge or criticize people for hating it.

reply

I noticed that people who liked this movie are generally criticized here. Some "viewers" went so far as suggest those who liked this movie are taking drugs. This is just insulting. I can fully understand why many people would dislike this movie, but it's no excuse to be so angered about as to post fairly troll-ish / childish, short remarks (and I don't mean you here - but such posters as JillieKate, whom for some reason you decided to defend), or accuse anyone of anything. It's just a movie.

reply