BuddhaWake

couldn't agree more. and the american direct to video comment is just how i see it. if it were an american movie it would be one of those with ex-stars or b level stars that would be rumored for a release but end up with a weekend theatrical release and dvd right after. its being remade in the US but I don't understand why. there must be 100 scripts just like it out there why by the remake rights.

BuddhaWake

I think this is how many (not all) of us see it. if there's a cheap HK release of it i would maybe venture for t otherwise is not worth a $30 korean release. because at $30 it will be dissapointing.

toddly6666

That's exactly how I percieve most recent Asian flicks. People tend to support an amateurish foreign film by saying it's not because it's amateurish, but as being misunderstood due to translation problems, cultural differences, or not being "Hollywood enough". Straight-to-video for a reason.


Did anyone see Japan's ALWAYS SUNSET ON THIRD STREET - it's a downright amateurish, poorly acted film. A big hit in Japan which got a sequel, but that is a bad film.


Is anyone interested in seeing another bad Japanese film? I'll sell my DVD of the live-action version of GRAVEYARD OF FIREFLIES for $10 including shipping if anyone is interested.

eXcentris

There is a cheaper HK release, that's what I ordered.

eXcentris

See, i think that's the reason people get annoyed with your film "criticism". Whenever you don't like a film, it automatically goes into the "bad amateurish film with poor acting" folder. "Always Sunset on Third Street" for example, received both popular and critical acclaim. Ok, you didn't like it and that's fine. But why oh why must you conclude that every film you don't like is a bad film???

"Like/hate" do not automatically translate into "good/bad". And if you cannot understand the difference (i.e. between personal taste and the the value of film as art), then any "criticism" of films you make is pretty much worthless.

slop101

I never stated or implied that it was "amateurish". In fact, it's just as well-made and professional as the average Hollywood flick It's just not a big and slick production - it's more like an above-average budget indie flick. It's production design is first class.

newginafets

Couldn't agree more.

nitin77

I liked Always Sunset on Third Street too.

toddly6666

USA's Oscar-winning CRASH got popular and critical acclaim too.

Why do you keep assuming that Im telling you that it's a bad film for youself? When I talk about a certain film, I don't need to start off with "I personally believe in my own opinion" Miss Universe opening before I rip apart a film. I just explained why I think certain films are bad which is my personal opinion, not yours. ALWAYS is a poor film, because it's amateurishly acted, not emotional, dull, full of filler, and poorly written. The whole movie looks like a set rather than a time period. I know why it's a hit in Japan. If the comic book didn't exist and have such a following, the film would be nothing. Japan's obsession with youth is annoying because it tends to get into their screenplays which are poorly developed writing of romance and/or relationships. When I watch a movie about relationships between people, I don't want to see something written by a manga artist for pre-teens. I want a professionally-written film. Maybe it's a good adaptation of the comic book. I don't know. But I'm nuts over WATCHMEN and people are nuts over HARRY POTTER, NARNIA flicks, LORD OF THE RINGS, and PASSION OF THE CHRIST, but these are other films which have gotten mixed reviews - great reviews by fans and fair reviews by non fans...All you have to do is explain why you liked ALWAYS. Don't tell me that I don't think it's a bad film. You don't have to tell me that a movie is good because it got good reviews. Tell me how you feel about the film.

Every film I don't like is a bad film? That doesn't make sense, because I love films which are considered bad as well. It's known that THE READER and CRASH are critically acclaimed films that are actually commonly known as really bad films. There's "word on the street" that "why did these films get anywhere?". If that common negative belief exists in America, does it exist in Asia? Maybe? No? All critically-acclaimed Asian films are actually good films too?

If there is a negative view towards the Oscars, which there is by a lot of film buffs in America, in which the best films or best actors actually don't always get picked, do you actually believe that the equivalant of these Oscar-type awards in other countries don't do the same? Most American average joes respect the Oscars. A typical American film buff does not respect the Oscars, because they would be more supportive of the not-as-popular awards shows such as Golden Globes or Independent Film Awards. The average joe picks the typical mainstream Hollywood films as the best films/actors of the year. The film buff picks the obscure and usually better films/actors. That's how it roles. But if you are the type of person that identifies yourself as a film buff, how can you be an average joe when it comes to foreign films? Does anyone know what I mean? If THE CHASER, THE GOOD, THE BAD, THE WIERD, or THIRST were American films, what would they be? They would be a typical thriller film, a typical action comedy, and a typical good horror film.

I'm still curious to see what Wong Kar Wai or Lars Van Tier is going to do next, but it doesn't mean I like them or think that they are good filmmakers. At least im not some harsh, senile boycotting critic. Some people straight away don't want to see filmmakers they don't like. I want to see films by filmmakers I don't like. Is that a crime?

BuddhaWake

So, eXentris, what was your opinion of Always Sunset on Third Street?

I agree with todd with one thing, everything looked like it was in a studio or sound stage. it was typical melodrama often seen in Japan and other Asian countries. I didn't hate it but I didn't love it either it was just better than ok but I'm glad I saw it. If I want an overly melodramatic period piece I'll do I'd rather be a shellfish wish was excellent. but taking into consideration what slop said, being an above average indie film, they did a decent job. some of the cgi stuff took me out of the film a bit. but this is one of those films that tries to get a cheap emotional reaction from you. bring on the violins type. but that is the type of story it is so no one should expect anything different and knowing this one could get more enjoyment out of it. is one of those "remember the good old days that weren't that good but still remember them" type movies and within that frame it works. so while I dissagree with todd on this one, like I do on many many others he has explained himself hundreds of time by now, we get it. but I'm guessing you already saw it based on your response to toddly so I'm looking forward to your opinion of it.

BuddhaWake

so which part are you agreeing to? that toddly is off his bunkers? and what would you know, you've been here 2 months. so someone posting in 1 thread gives you enough information about them to form an opinion about that person? eXentris has been here for a decade pretty much, he's like a grandpa here (not calling you old eX, just wise). so if you are going to have an opinion about someone make it your own don't be a hype man. and you yourself said this in this very thread:

[qoute] what i was trying to say is we can't justify what's best for us upon others' opinion. Art is subjective. [/qoute]
so you changed your mind?

nitin77

that was deliberate though you know (shot on a studio look), whether you like it or not is a separate issue.

Also, this is not really going anywhere. No one is willing to back down from, let alone discuss, their opinions or views which are pretty much diametrically opposed. Seems like heels have been dug in and thats that.

BuddhaWake

is it? I didn't realize that. any particular reason to make it look "artificial" like that? romantisicm purposes? I didn't take it like that but if that was their intent then it works. I wouldn't consider it "magical realism" per say but I guess it works in making in story bookish.

I have to dissagree with you a bit here, no one should back down from their opinion if they don't wish. is not a debate but a discussion but we are not having that either because if you say something negative you have to justify yourself or be insulted those with positive comments only have to say they liked it but not why hence no discussion. even posting positive gets you insulted because "contributions" from dvdtalk members are not as good as from some other places to some. look at the european thread. no problems there.

nitin77

I am not saying people should back down from their opinion but they way they are currently being put, there is no room for discussion. There are blanket cover all comments being thrown about which are not conducive to any discussion.

Anyway, thats my opinion and I am sticking with it. So there

And yeah the 'artificial' look is mainly to reinforce the romanticised nostalgia for 1950's Tokyo, which is what the movie and its themes are aiming for IMHO (ie the longing for that era which cannot be replicated now only recreated).

BuddhaWake

that makes sense. maybe i'll revisit it with that in mind and see if i like it more. i never thought of it that way, i just figured it was more to do with budget limits.

nitin77

it may well have been due to budget constraints too (not sure), but its implementation in the way I mentioned above works for me.

toddly6666

I would say that the old school time period set worked smoothly and nicely in KUNG FU HUSTLE, but it didn't work in ALWAYS. Something just didn't click right with ALWAYS. That has to do more with the director than the budget. If the director can't get his actors to believe that they are in that time period, then it's going to look like a set. (Think of the George Lucas prequels - Lucas is a bad director because he didn't inspire his cast to act better with all those CGI backgrounds. So the Star Wars prequels looked like a film with actors acting in front of a blue screen. A true good director can inspire his actors to act in a way in which they blend flawlessly with background CGI or CGI characters, such as Peter Jackson's King Kong or Lord of the Rings.)

Actually with K-20: LEGEND OF THE MASK, a film I didn't like, did a pretty good job with capturing an old school time period nicely, just like KUNG FU HUSTLE.

I've actually noticed that more recent movies that try to do a certain time period (the 1930s for example) have trouble capturing a sense of that time period without reminding the audience that it's a set. A lot of these directors get tons of money for their budget, but have trouble capturing a time period. I think it was done a lot better in cinema of the 1970s and 1980s, which didn't have bloated budgets (Bugsy Malone, The Sting, Last Emperor, etc.). When I see a 70s/80s movie that's about the 1930s, it's as if im really there experiencing it, unlike these newer films which just make me feel im watching a set. I think it got worse in the 90s (think of Batman, The Shadow) when a certain time period just looked like a set.

I have yet to see a film that didn't mess up the Renaissance time period. Those films always seem to capture that time period. Whenever I watch those films, I can't think of a time once where I thought "oh they are just a bunch of actors from our time period dressed up in costumes". Even watching Les Miserables on stage - it's done so well, that it doesn't even seem like a set or a bunch of actors.

Dane

Well, sometimes a given actor/actress just arnīt any better regardless of CGI background or not. Hayden Christnesen just isnīt a partucular any good actor.

In this regard, I have to point out an outstanding job done by BoB Hoskins i Who Framed Roger Rabbit

BuddhaWake

yeah I think Bob Hoskins is the go to test when it comes to things like this, and he had to interact with the rabbit and others, it wasn't just background. hell, even brad pitt in cool world wasn't bad compared to no talen anakin.

toddly6666

There is nothing wrong with the talent of any of the actors from the Star Wars prequels. All of them have shown talent in other movies (Hayden Christensen was good in Life as a House and Shattered Glass). But to make Natalie Portman, Samuel L. Jackson, Christopher Lee, Ewan McGregor, and Liam Neeson look bad in a movie - that takes a BAD director and George Lucas is an awful director...the only ones that actually acted well in those prequels were Ian McDiarmid, Temuro Morrison, and Ray Park. They were the only ones that seemed like they were Star Wars characters instead of actors wearing Star Wars costumes. Those prequels would have been better if they were directed by McG, Uwe Boll, Stephen Sommers, or Brett Ratner.

mrhan

I don't know if these have been mentioned but I recently saw them. Ichi (female version of Zatoichi) is good but not worth a second look. I really wanted to like it more since it starred the actress from Cyborg Girl; a movie which I really enjoyed. However, Crazy Racer is worth your time and repeated viewing. An excellent film imho.

Crazy Racer:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0851515/


Ichi:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1060256/

toddly6666

Can you post a link to a trailer for Crazy Racer? I couldn't find one online...

mrhan

Here you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbXPqGC65Cw

If I saw this first and wasn't recommended the movie by friends I wouldn't have had any interest in watching it.

flixtime

TheDoug, though I forgot to do so earlier, I did ask this question to someone at my local Korean grocery store, problem is now I've sort of forgotten exactly how she pronounced it...I think it might have been pronounced Hey-oon-day for the movie HAEUNDAE. I can ask again (and this time try and do a better job of remembering and phonetics)...if you're more curious to know.

TheDoug

Flixtime thanks for your phonetic efforts. I'm not losing sleep over it but was just curious. Maybe if I download the trailer on YouTube they'll pronounce it somewhere...:-)