Reviews

Hey kids, can't criticise (intelligently) without being intimate with the better part of his career! And that stripping him from Korea, into US movie making is one, HUGE, F A I L. Once again, as I watched a film where I had forgotten who Directed it and so forth - I thought - this is an amazing, visual feast, FIRST FILM Failure, (by someone with more resources at hand than talent)... I could not have been so wrong, while being so totally correct! Wam, bam surprise, it IS his first film in THAT cu *beep* ntry. Oh, what have they done to one so beloved! In Korean, Park Chan-wook opens up a fresh world of the most wonderfully and absurdly neurotic characters in cinema history. His violence seems like the funniest, farcically staged, (while being hyper) violence there ever was. UNFORTUNATELY, yankee land HAD to get their hands on him: The violence turns almost garden variety, excessive, and instead of interaction between neurotic characters; the US has injected his screen with people addicted to (lame) pathology and psycho-sex formulas. Now, don't get me wrong, children, I'm not saying the film was a total failure, nor that the US is all bad - it is just a terrible mixture. Things can be the sum of, something more than, or less than, their parts, huh... It's obvious what I'm getting at. For all pseudo- intellectuals (well, that's a lot of who comes to IMDb), who argue on the basis of (false) universalities, I'll tell you now; Neuroses manifest differently in Korea, as they do in the States -- The societies, peoples, their cultures and their relationships to guns, violence and sex are INCREDIBLY different, (it's a shame, that if more than one person will read my post, I probably HAVE had to make this clear!) SO anyway, it doesn't work. With the style of his Korean films, and the interaction of all the above elements, he doesn't even need story, but usually has a fairly loose one. Whereas here, 'Stoker' looks like an amateur mess of narrative. (That tries to save itself with surprise, surprise, not - re the uncle and India). And lastly, hey, we can still give Park credit for an extremely sumptuous, aesthetic fest! (I.e. feat and feast, and from the Latin, festa = party/ festival). Unlike all you children, I won't even give this film a grading, not until he returns to form and/or Korea.

Wow. Funny about who are now old school film makers and their latter works. Nice coincidence (for me) that the ideas to write about Saraband come str8 after talking about Lynch's personal psychology recurring in his films.

Apparently, Bergman's youth was horrendous... Let's go and "study" that to reconfirm, wait a moment... Ha. I am SO very forking switched in and on. During the film, as I was thinking about my own knowledge of the Swedes, I couldn't help criticizing how they are maybe the world's most childish lot, in terms of being so obsessed with marrying, over and over and over again - always blaming the partner (worst, childish conundrum), and thinking they'll milk yet another to try to get better than what they deserve in the next... marriage. FORGET ABOUT LOOKING IN THE MIRROR YOU A-HOLES, MAYBE THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR MULTIPLE MARRIAGES IS YOU! So, I just found out that, not only in this film but also Bergman himself; ridiculous, incorrigible re-marry-ER's. Too many times over for a decent, responsible person, (let's say, adult). Of course it has a lot to do with this film! But what it has EVERYTHING to do with, is the intense love & hate within a family, which seemingly plagued Bergman until death.

And wow. I think the best art drives even great, creative artists like myself, to clichés. It is an emotional tour DE force, thoroughly compelling and entertaining. I reflect on 2 scenes which rival any scene of personal confrontations one could ever imagine, whether in reel life or real. If you are heavily, emotionally & intellectually inclined, this is powerful stuff.

The Indians, at least one or some branch of Hinduism believes that the best way to deal with addiction is to increase your indulgence in it, until you may be purged. If it kills you, even better, (authorial reflection). So if you've read anything else I reviewed and saw my hackneyed, anti USAlien rants - here's one more.

Whereas Yank crud would have the WOW kiss between father a daughter become some important disaster, our Swedish friend, Bergman implants one as a subtle, mere accent above a note to highlight the tension, and pretty much natural, psycho sexual, familial tension at that. Bergman is Freud incarnate in cinema; I wonder if his illustrious fans (incl. one of the world's most famous pedophiles, Woody Allen) acknowledge that, OR, like so many beepers around here, feel that good film reviewing consists of waxing lyrically about banal crud, (while nothing so bad in itself), yet - NEVER GETTING TO THE HEART & CORE of the matter - IE. film makers and their films, the real motivations behind it all, and what's really going on. G darn it!

If everything carries meaning, how amplified is it in (better) cinema!?

Because I have provided insights and intelligence for you, maybe you can return the favor by hypothesizing: WHY oh why is granddaddy most obsessed with his dead daughter in law, while (I believe) there is absolutely no mention of his own, nth wife, IE. the mother of his poor son and much beloved cellist grand daughter!? Is THAT something relevant to Bergman's screwed up life too?? (I'm sick and tired of whatever research about total losers, even those that make great films).

Do NOT answer with your nerdy, technical, literal calculations - this is the fleshing out of psychology and intelligence, not rocket science.

NB. IMDb ripped me off by not allowing spelling differences, let alone swear words! Is this the Imperialist Movie DB or what - FORCING me to spell with z's instead of s's!!? And what may be the prohibited words!? You post puritan losers!

Reviews about this film being "universal", about "love and loss", well, they half touch a point, but pretty bland, unimaginative and nothing profound whatsoever. Another had a title such as 'Australian Nature' - good title, but the review said NOTHING of interest, expanding on that. This French woman has done the marvellous work of seeing very deeply into Australia's soul. Maybe as only a foreigner could. As Australia is rightly coined, "The country with Apartheid, but without the name", don't expect an Australian to give credit to a foreigner . . . . . . . . ..................... for understanding their land, better than most Australian's understand it.

Yes, Australia is an extremely tough land. Extremely dry one season, then flooding areas the size of Europe the next. Nature is Australia's wonder and speciality, not really the post-British, neo-Yankee, people. Don't get me wrong, the film shines a positive light on Australians. Trust on them in the hard times, but beware in the good (times). If I'm wrong, (just watch the difficulty of anyone liking this review, particularly parochial Aussies), don't blame me - is the "tall poppy syndrome" a fallacy!? I didn't invent the idea! But more than my personal feelings and reactions to the film; the film maker has brought a unique touch to themes and a story that could be otherwise bland. Just when you thought you were going to experience a purely emotional adventure, bang, a better than "Tornado", people against nature ACTION opens up before you: The Death vs The Tree (it's roots and life force being a symbol of us, dead and alive - hanging on - too much?) vs The Family vs The Climate, (ie. mother nature, we mostly abandon or disrespect her, even, or especially, "country folk"). Re: cuntry folk - live on the land WITHOUT making profit from it, THEN tell me what city people don't understand or give credit to. I LOVE The Country. PS. last cute point - when the girl sees the jellyfish, does that represent potential danger? It's funny when you meet a foreigner who knows about the danger of swimming in Australia, quite unlike a majority of the rest of the world - even where there are safety nets, deadly stingers can get through... Who knows the world knows that ALWAYS people are saying "BEWARE" even when the REAL danger is non-existent, more chance of being hit by a car or lightning. Whereas in OZ, many times, it's the opposite, danger, danger, everywhere, and struggle - look for the parallel in the people too :)

This film is one of a few prime candidates for being mistreated. All over IMDb there are these sinister little, absolutely not intellectual, parasites. When will far more people allow films to escape their expectations, (read moronic projections). People, baby steps. I project too, that is very human. "Are these animals, aliens, is that planet earth? . . ." BUT HOW FANTASTIC that the film will not deliver what I may have already started imagining, shock horror, my mummy of a film won't give me what I am wanting from it. SICK PEOPLE! You are bad lovers, I won't even say "I guess" or "you must be" - YOU ARE BAD LOVERS. You are mean and most likely, projecting without any conscience. You are stupid and a danger to the environment and people around you. This film is NOT!

It is rich. It enriches. I have seen many hundreds of good or great films, and only in the last year or two or three. This film was a fantastic surprise, a gift whose wrapping kept unfolding, more and more, the people becoming more beautiful as their horror deepened. The humour, more absurd and funnier. I could not pick a fantasy that better echoes, so truthfully, life experience, as Nuovomondo does. Even if all facts happened to be wrong, you certainly shouldn't fix this film in historical context - of course it's incredibly relevant today. AND did I say how incredibly funny it could be.

And many other fine things I could mention but I've run out of late night, early morning, steam. Just let some things be magic, silly. Don't let post modernity turn you into another dissector of everything that's good. PS. something I rarely do - I read an interview with the Director, bless him. He said the valid thing that many things are supposed to be mysteries, but gave away this generous piece when asked why the statue of liberty wasn't shown / seen: "They never see it because they never properly arrive in the USA". BRAVO. Beautiful. If the (somewhat obvious, still) allegories don't appease your feeble mind, ruminate on that, whether you arrived or not. (Don't call me Coolio - I don't wanna see you when you get there, if you ever get there).