Am I Crazy? I thought it was terrible!!

Thank you sir, i have to also admit i walked out as well. And was the first time. I found myself thinking i dont care what heppens end, ive wasted an hour of my life, i dont care to waste 2.

i know some scenes are quite disgusting and its hard for viewers 2 understand
why that kind of weird and abnormal scenes are needed in the plot.

however if u focus on the flow for getting what the message being conveyed is,
u will definitely get the idea and just ignore the other disgusting parts like
too much vulgur gay girls or other things..

its just talking about the jejus'agony that we just think of as a abstract concept and never realize its virtual pain ..
and we never feel like our sin is such dirty as the disgusting disease that the homeless guys have had and try to heal by transferring it to the *beep* guy.


i think the director;s intention in this flim was good.

now i think i should feel my sin is so dirty and feel shameful that
i ignore how awful my sin was .. and how admirable and touchy hardship the fact that christ take our sin instead of us suffering from that dirty sins.

I didn't think it was terrible, exactly, but it's certainly bonkers, completely unhinged, with horribly disturbing elements, and a plot that has no discernible structure or comprehensible intent, but...the photography is stunning, the soundtrack haunting, and Hartnett and Koteas are very good. It's not a movie that is easily forgotten. Points, though, for Roody31 for posting what may be the most pig-ignorant comment in the chequered history of imdb comments: "It's just a movie where you have to think too much".

[deleted]

To twguzzi: I understand your sense of anticipation - I was really looking forward to this, liked the trailer, thought the posters looked very atmospheric. It was such a shame it turned out to be not just bad, but a screaming turkey of a film. Distributors tend to be fairly audience savvy - I doubt you'll see this on an American screen any time soon.

Here's my 2 cents, and I rarely log in to IMDB to actually write anything, I usually just read the threads. I saw this film at the Pusan International Film Festival, and while I feel lucky to have seen it debut there, walked away with mixed feelings. "Rain" is a thoroughly unconventional film, which is fine. Unconventional is not for everyone, so that is not where the film falls short. Where it fails is in the lack of cohesiveness and not feeling like a finished product.

To answer one of the thread questions - yes, Shawn Yue's English is absolutely horrible. He just felt very uncomfortable and awkward. The rest of the cast was not bad, it's clear that English is not their first language, but it's bearable. Lee Byung Hun's is very good actually, and he's able to emote and act very well despite his lack of fluency.

Much of the acting is good - it's not excellent, but it is good. The cinematography is effective, and there's a lot of atmosphere as well as camera work that lends itself to the characters well. The POV is always very interesting and begs something of the viewer, whether it's a desire to see what is just off screen, or how the environment connects with the characters, or even how the lines running on screen draw comparisons to both themes occurring and characters state of mind. Particularly, there is something very interesting the vertical nature of HK, and the way it is captured on camera, and the more natural environment where *beep* is residing in a tent... if you watch carefully there's some visual comparisons drawn that show well thought out cinematography.

As for comparisons, there's also a lot of comparing and contrasting of the films main cast, as they deal with very similar questions of morality but deal with it very differently. This is perhaps the most interesting points of the film.

That much being said, I did not actually enjoy the film. It had its well made aspects, and was very intriguing, but never produces enough substance to turn the intriguing thematic material into anything more solid than mere intrigue. You'll walk out wondering - what the hell was all that about anyway? And you'll have ideas, especially about the messianic and religious symbolism the film draws upon, but there's just not enough substance to call it anything but flimsy at best. It's not even on the level of being ambiguous.

The soundtrack may work for some, and I even enjoy Radiohead, but it was overwhelming for me. Yes, it fits the atmosphere, but it was overused, it felt like the soundtrack equivalent of "Speed Racer's" cartoony VFX. It fit, but was just too much.

Finally, there was perhaps a bit too much unnecessary gruesome imagery that could have been more subtly shown or even implied. I'm not against violence in film, but "rain" took it beyond what was necessary, the audience simply did not need to see everything that was shown. I felt like this was enforced by the maggots in *beep* eye, which was not violent, but simply felt like it was put in for the explicit shock factor. Some may disagree with me on this point, fine, but I felt like it was a bit much.

I really wanted to like this film, and feel it could have been a very good movie. I don't think it could be a masterpiece of cinema, but could have been very solid, but in the end "Rain" felt like a film that had it been a bit more thought out, and about 30% more well executed, could have been a truly solid art house thriller, but ultimately falls short of not what we want, but rather what we need in order to actually comprehend the film as a whole.

I hope while this clears up some of the major disagreement on the film, that it helps put a perspective as well for those who are highly looking forward to seeing it. I suppose that I might post this as a review as well, as I digressed from the original thread topic perhaps.

OUR MOMENTS CAN SEEM FLEETING.

I absoFREAKINlutely agree with tomaslofdahl. Nice post.

Tomaslofdahl,

I don't really care for the condescending tone of your post. I have a masters degree in film/television and work in the industry. I am not exactly the average plebeian here. Film is as you say, an art form but a very audience-based one.

A great film should not only provoke emotion and thought but also tell story and hopefully entertain as well. This film was not structured very well. It was utterly muddled and incomprehensible at times and really didn't succeed in any of the aforementioned goals. That is with the notable exception of provoking emotion. It obviously did that in spades, judging by the tenor of the responses here. However, I doubt the filmmakers intended to instill disdain in the audience. This was, after all a commercial venture.

I would humbly suggest you consider that for all your implied knowledge of film and natural intelligence, you are still only one member of a reasonably large audience. If this film was judged by Hollywood distributors as not commercial enough for a wide domestic release, that is not the be all and end all judgment on the film's quality. However, it gives us an inkling of what its problems may be. Since this film is most likely not commercial enough for the average cineplex, perhaps it will be released in art houses. I doubt this will happen either.

Rather than being a true art film, crafted with both originality and aptitude for storytelling, this film tries to be an action film, a thriller and an art house picture. The auteur touches that you feel this film possesses are simply clumsy attempts to rip off better filmmakers who truly possess their own distinct vision. At best ICWTR is pretentious and geared to make pretentious (but not terribly learned) people think they have seen something of substance or well crafted. These are the same twenty-somethings who sit in bars and blather on with their misinterpretations of Nietzsche or Blake as if having read "Beyond Good and Evil" makes them intelligent.

In summation, I would beg to disagree with your opinion. However, I cannot question your intelligence for having it but perhaps question your character for the rude and condescending way in which you expressed it (i.e., Don't be a such a douchebag.)

I just found the pacing to be so far off as to make the film hard to watch. Now I'm not a huge action flick type of guy and I'm fine with slow paced films in general, but the pacing in this one was just downright bad.

I think it is fantastic. All around fantastic film, very Neo-noir. The Religious themes were a bit heavy-handed, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.