I Come with the Rain

"I Come With The Rain," is a film that is hard to define. In some ways it is a redemption story, in other ways it is a reinterpretation of Christian mythology, and in yet further ways it is a study of evil. If anything, the film is ambitious in the themes that it tries to explore. As with most ambition, a degree of prudence is often needed for reaching higher quality. For example, one may wish to change the world for the better. However, trying to affect a whole planet is beyond the capabilities of most. The prudence enters in defining one's world more strictly. The wish to change the world changes into a wish and drive to change one's immediate world or community. The ambition becomes tempered by practical and manageable constraints. Unfortunately, ICWTR attempts more than it is capable of handling well. The film touches on the three interconnected themes mentioned above in a less than coherent way. By the end of the movie, one is left with the sense that valuable ideas have been brought to the table but never developed into anything that can be useful or fulfilling to the audience.

The premise of a damaged detective searching for a messianic figure amidst the corruption and evils of modern life is promising. The film falters by attempting to create three interconnected and artfully ambiguous tales about the detective, messiah figure, and the personification of modern corruption and evil. One of the hallmarks of parables is that they are rather simple. The parable usually develops a story around a single moral or epistemological rule. ICWTR attempts to tell three parables in tandem. The result is not a smooth synthesis commenting on the complexities of the human condition. Rather, the film comes of as confused and lacking in relevant concrete development. To be clear, the film itself is not overly difficult to understand; the attempts of the film to convey deeper meaning are muddled and shallow. In fairness, the raising of interesting questions may have been the goal of the film. The problem is that the film does not arm the audience with any tools to continue the discussion later on. As an example, how would you respond to the following question if asked by a random stranger: "Is 'good' tainted when it is saved by 'evil?'" Hopefully this is a jarring question and one that defies immediate answer. In one sense, the question is interesting and plumbs the depths of moral/ethical thinking. In another sense, the question is too brash and off putting. Such a question almost begs for some sort of established framework to deal with it. In essence, the above question comes later in the discussion after some context and philosophical norms are established. ICWTR asks questions like this without giving the audience any real framework to deal with said questions. The film methodically, and beautifully I might add, simply presents scenarios that lead to these questions. The result is a confusing and somewhat disjointed experience. As a viewer, I know I am supposed to have been exposed to some deeply meaningful symbols and questions; yet I do not really know what to do with these symbols or where to go with these questions. In the end, one really wants to find deeper meaning in this film and unfortunately cannot.

While the above may seem a harsh review, the film does offer a great many good points. The cinematography is beautiful. The scenes vary from lush tropical forests to oppressive and over developed cityscapes. The actors assembled are an international powerhouse. While Hartnett may be less than A status in America, Kimura and Lee are considered first rate stars in Asia. In this sense, the film is an international blockbuster. The acting by these stars is somewhat uneven. Of the three, Lee is the most consistent, turning in a nuanced performance that aptly captures the variegated emotions connected with his personification of modern corruption and evil. The editing and pacing are very well done and match the attempted themes. The Radiohead soundtrack adds a pleasant ethereal touch which aids in setting a more contemplative tone. In essence, the film is extremely well made, it just attempts too many messages within the story.

On a personal note, I really wanted to like this film and was somewhat saddened that I was underwhelmed. I enjoy having my knowledge and interpretations of symbolism expanded. Unfortunately, this film merely referenced a great many known symbols without expanding or deepening their meaning. For this and the above reasons, I will probably not recommend this film to many. I tend to see this as a film that attempted something artistic and philosophically profound. No doubt, many people will agree and furthermore extract something from the film. Sadly, I was not able to pull any greater meaning from this movie. 6.7 stars of 10.

I do love IMDb. Look up a movie...any movie...and you'll find at least one moron crying about how it's the worst thing they've ever seen. Fair enough, but if you can point to just one movie and tell me it's the worst thing ever then you obviously have not watched enough crap. Just glancing at the board section below reveals two people who share this sentiment without even going past one page. This movie is strange, a little disjointed, and it certainly has it's flaws...but the worst movie ever? Please.

If I had to sum up Josh Hartnett's career in a word it would be "odd". It's kind of like he went from being fodder for women's fantasies and decided "screw this...let's get weird". That really worked with Lucky Number Slevin, but not so much here. The story follows Hartnett as an investigator hunting down some rich guy's son. That sounds like something you've seen a million times, but that's just the start. It's full of poorly timed flashbacks, mismatched edits, and stuff that just plain doesn't make any sense. I'm probably missing something since I did catch a few religious undertones, but I was too busy trying to piece together what the hell was going on to pay much more attention to it. Other than that the films comes across very well in an almost dark, mildly unsettling way. The story has a lot of substance to it, but maybe a bit too much at times when it seems like too much is going on. All in all though it's really not that bad.

I had to watch this film twice as I missed the first fifteen minutes, so when it popped up again on Sky, I was finallly able to piece the puzzle. Josh Hartnett is an experimentalist of an actor gladly . As a private investigator hired to find a hermetic son of a pharma billionaire, he has his own mental battles to fight due to a serial killer in his police past which resulted to him quitting the force, and he delivered well that you will not be distracted by his handsome features at all. The missing party has turned into a faith healer meantime. Why- see it for yourself. This film has strong religious undertones , violence and horrific dead victim images. This film is for those who can take the aforementioned description and may not be suitable for impressionable viewers.

Just too contrived. We start in the Philipines with a sort of lost in the jungle story and end up with "over the top" Chinese gangsters deep in recreational ultra violence... unrelated. I must have missed what all these bad guys had to do with anything. Could this have been two different rolls of film joined into one? Acting is wooden, accents are terrible and the poor American pretty boy looks as confused as I feel! There is some side story of a gangster trying to cure his dreadful girlfriend of heroin addiction in a lost cabin. Nothing to do with anything. The bare chested scenes are simply irrelevant and stick out like sweaty soft porn. Avoid.

The main reason why I decided to see this is because it has Byung-hun Lee in it although he isn't the main character in this. I wanted to see more movies where he is in mainstream Hollywood movies. Besides him being a top actor in Korea, I enjoyed few of the movies he was in and few dramas as well. And thought the movie was at least going to be interesting because of Lee's charisma and coolness he portrays on screen. He just didn't stand out in this and his character is wasted, plus the direction of it all made it a disaster. This is far from one of the best thrillers I seen, but it's a explicit thriller with violence and nudity. It's basically a thriller with shock value, but it sort of lacks in that department to some degree as well. It isn't really a clever thriller or anything like that although it has symbolism, it just seemed a bit forced at times. It also isn't really all that psychological either, even if it tries to be. While also trying to get the female audiences attention by getting the main actors to take off their shirts constantly, which might have worked. But it takes away from the movie because it just seems like a they are at a photo-shoot or shooting a commercial. After the first hour the movie starts to really drag with nothing much happening and without the plot progressing all that much. I also disliked the girl that played Byung-hun Lee's character's lover in this, I didn't like her presence in this movie and her acting was terrible. It would have been nice if Thea Aquino got a bigger role in this although currently she is a unknown actress, but her presence in this seemed much better and it's not only because she takes her clothes off. I know it's trying to go for the artsy approach but it fails in that level, it just didn't seem all that artistic. The second half of the movie just didn't feel the same as the first half and not in a good way either. When I first saw the trailer to this I thought it was going to be at least a decent movie, but was left disappointed. It just tries too hard to be something it's not. It should have just went with the direction of the first half without the crap that is thrown in for the second half.

3.8/10