Change Your Image
iton-67578
Reviews
Deo geullori (2022)
Plot stolen from Lucifer (2007) and botched
This Kdrama has the same plot-line and most of the plot elements of the older (and much better) Kdrama Lucifer (aka. Devil) from 2007; Lucifer was part of a wonderful three-show trilogy, with Resurrection and Shark as the other two shows. The older drama was a character-based show, with more attractive actors and a much more compelling story-line. This version (The Glory) must have been either script-stolen and partly disguised for sale to Netflix, or the producer may have privately paid for the rights to the script of Lucifer (didn't hear that in all the hype for this over-glorified and super-gory garbage). Watch both and you will see the same character types doing the almost exactly the same things, only with some variations in casting (sex switches for main characters, for example, to hide the steal) and the addition of the much discussed bullying torture scenes -- which confuse the earlier plot-line of Lucifer (creating an unneeded two motives for the main character) and make this (The Glory) story less plausible, likeable, and realistic (i.e., most of the characters in The Glory are total psychopaths or certainly lack all empathy -- which really does not work well in the story, whereas in the original Lucifer they were more believable, human, and even pitiable in many cases). Lucifer's plot was also more clever and original. The Glory is poorly conceived remake with less appeal and more plot points that don't make sense if one stops to think; it tries to distract viewers with scenes of tense confrontations that go nowhere and ultra graphic violence that is unnecessary and sickening. I will not place any blame with the actors in The Glory, but shame on the producers and writer for taking a better show and turning it into this mess.
Heojil kyolshim (2022)
For Lovers of Tang Wei
Just thought I would throw in a few thoughts to consider. First, I enjoyed the film (and have seen several others with Tang Wei -- always a joy). This plot seemed at times a bit contrived for the sake of the theme, which I would call: when you cannot be with the one you love, the next best thing is to make them remember you forever. Tang Wei's character seems to be a person who has received little sympathy in her life, despite attempting to help elders (in her own way); she is very intelligent and capable but perhaps is simply unlucky in life; and she wishes to find a worthy man who will love her, but knows she is not one who can be respectable. IF we can believe anything she tells the detective, she has mercy killed her mother (at her mother's request; i.e., the mother decided to leave), killed her somewhat shady and possibly abusive husband, and eventually another elderly lady (who was on the way out health-wise too) -- so, at best, she has a somewhat questionable sense of moral justifications for her actions. I would not really call her a serial killer, but killing does not trouble her when there is a reason in her mind. This may give her a bit of a thrill when she gets off clean after killing the first husband; but she also understands that it makes her an unsuitable match for the moral homicide detective. Yet, she likes him once he falls for her and treats her well, and she truly feels badly when she realizes she has broken his spirit. To show her love and leave him with an odd gift (one which her mother, who decided to leave earlier, also left to her -- a poignant memory of the loving-departed), she tries to rebuild his confidence and make her love known to the detective. Understanding that they cannot realistically be together, she then decides to leave him (and her own ruined life) but in such a way as to leave a lasting memory of her in his mind. In her way, she does love him and is satisfied if he will always ardently remember her. (I think the ending suggests that he will.) It is an odd story, but it reminds me a bit of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" in that the main character cannot enjoy his life but becomes excited when doing his detective work (like this detective needs a murder case to get excited, says his wife), and winds up falling in love with one of the subjects he is hunting/investigating (an android in Deckard's case; Tang Wei in this detective's life) -- who provides him more excitement and love than his co-workers and wife (with whom he cannot relate emotionally). He longs for a thrilling and personally fulfilling escape, and the found lover provides that (in both stories; and in both stories, the female lead does not stay physically with the detective), even if pursuing this relationship ruins his staid career and marriage. For Tang Wei's character, this is perhaps the best end possible, and satisfying in that she believes he will always remember and long for her. She knew him well enough to be confident in that, and I think she was correct. If you are into Tang Wei and wish to see a film that is not a blockbuster-styled flick nor an action-based and simplistic moving comic strip, but rather one you can think a bit about and perhaps watch twice (to get the finer plot details in the second half), give it a go. Then you can consider and debate whether the female lead is a possible personality (I will vote yes, but hopefully not a common type). Bravo from me! I truly enjoyed the film and could watch it again now. Nice work, to all who contributed!
Vincenzo (2021)
Vincenzo is a symbolic story about crusaders
For those who want a crime drama, this is not really it. References to the Mafia mislead most viewers; watch it to the end. The Mafia here is an idealized organization that helps family and the oppressed (like Don Corleone in Puzo's novel); or if Vincenzo felt he was wicked due to his prior acts (fighting evil men), he redeems himself by becoming essentially a crusader. In fact, the main point is that Vincenzo represents a crusader, such as the Knights of Malta (formerly the Hospitallers and then the Knights of Rhodes). With his glassy black eyes and cool demeanor, and unfailing victories, he is a tool of God who fights evil (the monk tells him something similar at the end, though using Asian mythologies: these co-exist and mingle with Catholicism in Korea). Note that crusaders were sinners who undertook a vow to conduct an armed pilgrimage and to defend the meek (for the sake of personal redemption). With this perspective, the show becomes symbolic and makes sense (doves as angels, dying younger brother is redeemed by V's example and his own decision to take action against a terrifying evil foe, and even the denizens of the building where V. Stays in Korea -- he leads them to rediscover their strength and unity in the face of oppression). Vincenzo is thus also an exemplar, who leads others to discover their own strengths so they can go on fighting without his direct presence (but inspired by him). In the last episode, Vincenzo buys an island. Look at what he does with it. Think Hospitallers and Knights of Malta. (Other tidbits that fit: The gold is topped by a Buddha, which later remains and represents the Godhead; and the hunt for the treasure is a bit like the hunt for the Maltese Falcon too!) There are many additional symbol interpretations to find, as well as frequent references to other shows -- this Malta crusader idea is only a main connecting theme. But don't be looking for realism, a perfect plot or deep characters, or a crime story. This is mostly action and symbolism, the fight vs. Evil powers and oppression of the innocent. It speaks to the commoners of Korea and all nations. And it's clever too (satirical in its uses of humor and exaggeration for social criticism, like Swift's often misunderstood "A Modest Proposal"). Give it a full viewing.
ADDED: A modification to complicate this assessment (above): Vincenzo begins as a self-interested and self-absorbed fellow who is treasure hunting for purposes known only to himself; he had two (even three) families in the past and lost (or thought he lost) all of them. He is a loner, but works with a partner whom he trusts just enough to be business-workable. But once in Korea, he meets the people he will interact with here and seeks news of his mother, which misdirects his initial goal a bit. In the process, he becomes just enough involved to be a co-victim of a deadly assassination, and when he awakes, his new side-goal is personal revenge (I think I am correct in that). This is morph one in his goals. As he pursues this (almost to stay in practice as a mob-type attorney, but to get those who attacked him along with the father of the female lead character (who is not yet as important to him as he will eventually become), V. Gradually gets more involved with the local people and female lead, and then his direction morphs again, this time to revenge for her as well, with a splash of social justice to justify the action (rather than it being simply personal). Vincenzo is incrementally moving in the direction of his final persona at Show's end. While pursuing this new direction (a slight shift from the last), he falls in love -- a love which will alter him further, and he finds his mother (and her love) again. Then, he takes his final direction change -- the morph now is to fight the evil in this society (represented by the bad guys, who are obvious and mostly one-dimensional), but not for personal revenge, and not for abstract social justice, but now for others too and his own redemption (at least a step in that direction -- as before, he thought he was personally unredeemable and wicked; this haunted him in his dreams). Love has shown him (in a Christian sense) that even he can be redeemed and forgiven. Then, he becomes the teacher-exemplar-crusader (as above described), helps the others to find their strength and unite, and he leads them while serving as the tool of God to beget justice against the prideful and vain evil representatives, while helping the downtrodden and meek. He helps not only the female lead, but also the local people, his own "family" in Italy, weary warriors, and himself. He becomes the crusader (of Malta). END.
Jiok (2021)
Hyperviolent Trash on Netflix
I very much enjoy many Korean dramas and films; I have been watching them for well over a decade (also many Japanese and some Taiwanese selections, and started with now older HK films). Netflix somehow manages to select the worst (this is not their first poor choice) -- no doubt catering cynically to a faction of the US audience who have little cultural taste, no apparent appreciation for good character dramas or depth and variety in human-oriented stories, and who love hyperviolence (such as in recent video games and lots of US films that feature endless tedious action, violence, sometimes sex, and little compelling or meaningful plot). I won't waste too much time here. Made it through three episodes of this series (won't bother with the rest), and though I like the main actors/actresses (and have seen them in other shows), this show is one of the worst and most undeserving of praise that I have seen amid many, many good to excellent shows (series and films) from Korea. I can like simple entertainment such as Train to Busan, but not this nightmare. Sad choice, Netflix. You really could do much better, and you could use your choices to advertise numerous demonstrations of storytelling excellence that have driven Korean TV, cable, and film entertainment to its current heights of praise. This is not a watchable example (it is in fact nauseating on many levels and may even be insulting as a representation of typical K-Dramas); it ought to be trashed; and this is (again) why I do not subscribe to your service. I can find and have found many far better Asian shows (by all measures) on my own, and will continue to do so.
The Savage Is Loose (1974)
Memorable
I watched this film when I was very young -- maybe 12; it was either a TV or cable movie then. Taped it, and had it for years. I sympathize with the other reviewer who said he showed it to his Taiwanese date -- my wife is Taiwanese, and somehow, I don't think she would like it either, though not due to prudishness. She's just not into savages, Tarzan-like figures, or Christianity. I did like this film when I was a kid -- and well into my 20s, but have not seen it since then (now in my later 40s). Yet, I still remember most of it vividly. Kudos to George C. Scott -- and I am very sorry for him that the film did not do better, but also I am in no way surprised. Many out-on-a-limb worthy efforts fail to win over the majority of viewers. (I recall my grandmother saying she walked out of A Clockwork Orange when she somehow went to see it in the theater in the early '70s -- and I loved that film too; still do.) I wonder how Savage would do now, if it were released on DVD in good quality. I would advise seeing it, especially to younger people with imagination, curiosity, and a capacity for deep thought. (I could not watch Scott in Day of the Dolphin, however -- not due to any acting problem, but because that film struck me as terribly heartrending -- I felt badly for the dolphins.) This one didn't trouble me a bit, except I wondered what would come next at the end.
Firelight (1997)
Would never be published in the 19th century!
Having read the other reviews here, I understand why many enjoyed the film -- it runs something like a potboiler romance story that one might read on a beach on a lazy afternoon. It is enjoyable for the look, Sophie (hard to dislike), and the strong female lead role (though the other women are typical 19th century figures). But this would never be published as a novel (Romantic or otherwise) in the early 19th century -- too many morally questionable doings here for that. More on this in a second -- but let me begin by saying that if you lay aside all ideas about the reality of this story, you can enjoy it. If you begin to wonder at the plausibility of the plot, it quickly becomes nonsensical. That does not mean you cannot like it - - most films are nonsensical in terms of plot, and they still bring in loads of viewers and big bucks. Certainly, the limited settings made it easy for the writer to ignore the real 19th century here, in the main (despite some suggestions that it was a hard time to live for many people).
Spoiler below:
The parts that struck me as modern and unacceptable to 19th century publishers are: surrogate motherhood, indomitable feminine will that conquers all obstacles, adultery (more than once -- and not excused by the alleged initial purpose), acceptance of the live for the moment in pleasure theme, euthanasia, and getting away with all of this with no deep fear of the retribution that was commonly thought to await all such disturbers of conventional morality. We might attempt to justify that all of these were certainly possible in the early 19th century -- no argument there (and the Romantic and early feminist movements did encourage fantasy for women readers); but much of the action here never would have been seen in a 19th century novel without the required, related punishments for their accepted standards of immorality that here are notably missing. I point this out only so that the uninformed will not mistake this story as something that is truly a product of early 19th century thinking -- no, I would say it is modern in its messages.
I will not speak about how this may have copied other stories, or further about how much of the real history of the 19th century is left out -- that does not really matter much. My main point here is that no one should believe this would have flown within its purported time period; the story, had it been written then, would likely have been burned. That said, it does speak to modern audiences (on several levels), does raise some interesting points for discussion (moral issues, feminism, the reality of the educational system featured, how all 19th century medical realities were ignored, and attending historical comparisons, and finally, whether upright and admirable behaviors can somehow excuse or make more forgivable several clearly morally unacceptable behaviors exhibited by the same characters), and the film is somewhat entertaining, or at least not too difficult to watch (I have watched it several times in fact, though always when someone else put our copy of it into the machine).
Modernized film versions of stories like "Sense and Sensibility" and "Pride and Prejudice" come to mind in terms of ignoring 19th century realities and acceptable behaviors, but still being very enjoyable for modern audiences. Maybe this helps truly interested people to study history more deeply, to see how we are so very different in many ways today (especially in England and the USA) than people who lived 200 years ago.
To finish, I do not dislike this film -- though I would say it is not really a period piece in its themes, and it does have several plot points which are ludicrous (those are discussed in other reviews here; one is even rather funny -- the sister's request that Sophie love the gentleman for both of them). As a simple entertainment that can please on a quiet evening like a Harlequin romance, it is fine. I do not think I would have enjoyed it without Sophie Marceau, however (she solely keeps the film alive with her presence -- it would be nothing without her).