Avis des utilisateurs

"To me, the world is a mystery."

Burning as childhood trauma (Jong-su forced by his father to incinerate his mother's clothes as a child), burning as a desire to know the meaning of life, or to have never existed at all (Hae-mi's memories of the Great Hunger dance in front of a bonfire in Africa, and the blazing sunset), and burning as sheer nihilistic sociopathy (Ben torching greenhouses for kicks, and that's of course not all he's up to). Three indelible characters, three brilliant performances.

The class distinctions are a little sharp between characters that live on a farm near the North Korean border, in a cramped apartment in the shadow of Seoul Tower, and in a luxurious suite in Gangnam, but serve to pose an underlying, smoldering question - how can we make sense of a world where a college graduate can't get a job that isn't dehumanizing, while the entitled rich blithely toy with people's lives without a care in the world? A masterpiece from Lee Chang-dong.

Based on the short story "Barn Burning" by Haruki Murakami: in Paju, South Korea, Jong-su (Yoo Ah-in) is a young aspiring writer from a dysfunctional family doing odd jobs while also looking after the family farm nearby. He reconnects with a former classmate Hae-mi (Jeon Jong-seo) whose affections later turn to the very rich Ben (Steven Yuen). Ben's unusual character take everyone down a mysterious path.

At two and a half hours, the film is perhaps too long especially as the first half begins to get dull at a certain point. This thankfully changes when the story and its energy get very mysterious. Here is where the film earns many points for its uniqueness and its subtle ways to lure the viewer into its web. In a good way, this segment is rarely frightening but always intriguing. Also, class difference plays a major role but without being obviously so.

The audience is teased overall with only a minimal amount of information - just enough to understand while still yearning for more by the end. While a bit more information might have raised the film overall, it's still fair to say that the tease pays off for the most part. - dbamateurcritic

It's the rare film that gets its value upon reflection rather than during watching. It's not boring as such, but with its extremely long runtime it does generally feel slow paced and often runs the risk of being quite dull. Luckily though, the pure sense of mystery that surrounds the three core players (our protagonist included) and the film's world as a whole keeps things intriguing throughout. As the narrative progresses, however, and the core mystery of the piece arrives, things get a lot more intriguing and this intrigue lasts long after the haunting finale. That's where the film really gets its merit. None of the enigmas are definitively answered, and this leads to an extremely subtle - yet wholly rewarding - experience that allows you to draw your own conclusions of what it was actually about. The picture could be about several different things, and it all depends on the individual spectator response. This, as well as the complete lack of on-the-nose exposition, is very refreshing in today's age of cinema where nothing is left to the imagination anymore. We are not told, or even explicitly shown, anything integral to answer the core mystery and this allows you to reflect on all of the intricacies of several different scenes in order to draw your own conclusions. It really is a one of a kind experience that will leave you scrutinising for days, discovering a new narrative possibility upon every thought. Its slow pace and the sense that it's not really going anywhere might make it seem hard to get through initially, but once it's over it becomes a rich, rewarding experience. 8/10

Wow. Didn't do it for me. Characters were bland. Story was bland. Pacing was plodding and slow. I know I'm going against the grain here, but something definitely went over my head.

While the movie has some good acting, direction and cinematography, the overall plot is paper thin and drawn out. This is based on a short story, and a short film would probably suit it better. I completely understand it is a "slow burn" movie, but it really did not have to be 2,5 hours long. The first 1,5 hour is simply to set up the premise. Should have been 30min at most to get it going.

That being said, the film does feel smarter in hindsight, when reflecting back on what characters said and you understand the underlying meanings of what they were actually implying and talking about. Don't expect a huge mystery plot though. This movie is 75% drama, with some mystery and thriller elements sprinkled on top.

I must say that this is one of that kind of movies with slow pace but great reward at the end, the three main characters are interesting (specially the girl which is lovely) and even if superficially you don't see anything particularly special, you feel curious enough to see what is going to happen with the three of them, specially when you start to see the key elements that make this movie awesome.

With a wonderful cinematography, great acting and direction, and beautifully adapted from a short story by Murakami, I still can't believe this is not nominated for the Oscar.

If you don't care if a movie is slow and for a long period of time nothing is going on, try this one because it has a deep story and the production in general is great.

An amazingly graceful Korean story, exciting the viewer's attention and not letting go until the end. The film isn't for a wide audience, lasts 2 and a half hours, it goes slowly and asks a lot of questions. But the plot is built correctly, so that the viewer can understand the characters and start thinking about the questions that have arisen. The independent film seems to be divided into 2 parts: the first tells the story of a love triangle, and the second goes to a fascinating detective thriller. Director Lee Chang-dong wonderfully plays with the viewers' imagination who are trying to understand the thoughts of the main characters and their intentions. I liked very much the juxtaposition of the main characters - the writer Lee Jong-soo, who cannot see the hidden meaning and thus awakens a strong hunger inside himself, which doesn't allow him to sleep and to enjoy a life, to create; his opponent, Ben, a kind of rich Gatsby, quite the opposite one, he is filled with inspiration and understands the true beauty of all things, thus filling himself and everyone around him with a mysterious special flame. The narration is slow, during this time you can fully enjoy the visual component, excellent camera work. Scene setting, editing, actors' play - everything works for the picture and its success. No wonder that the film won a prize at the Cannes Film Festival.

Thanks to the quarantine, I finally saw "Burning". What a long and overrated movie! Based on a Japanese short story, it is not a bad film, it has inspired directorial moments, and a very good performance by the charmingly sinister Steven Yeun, but it's one of those movies that critics, the film "intelligentsia" and filmmakers, all addicted to Netflix (where they know what makes their subscribers tick), adore and excessively praise, because the ambiguous plots, mysteries, alleged murderers, psychological mazes and other clichés, all lead them to delirium... like Jong-su, the protagonist.

Jong-su (Yoo) is a poor, reserved and humble boy, a product of a very dysfunctional family, with literary pretensions, and who is torn between beginning to write the novel that will accredit him as a writer, and his obsession with Hae-mi ( un), his ex-classmate, who is also poor, has mystical aspirations that she confuses with her primary eroticism, and who leads Jong-su to meet Ben (Yeun), a well-off man, of uncertain profession and with small tastes and secrets like anybody else. Meanwhile, boy and girl have to solve family matters and pay debts, and when she disappears, the film becomes a little livelier than the 90 previous minutes, following the stereotypical steps of the "thriller" that you have seen hundreds of times and... degenerating? into a kind of «Psycho»... a little more explicit. Check it out... but don't believe the story of the 150 nominations and awards. There are better films that never won a banana, in which you can better waste your time.

Okay, guys. This is one slow-paced movie that adds no value whatsoever. You waste two and a half hours looking at a "brain-dead" guy walking around doing moronic investigation. The dude is a total redneck, mouth half opened, slow and stupid. Pure in his heart, but dumb in his brain. So, that's what you get in the end. A story of a kind stupid kid and his crush. It would've been a hell of a thriller back in the days when the original story was written. But this story in 2018 is pure boredom, unless you are completely in love with this particular actor playing a limp dummy, or perhaps with the decorations, that are beautifully shot, I must say. For the overall pretty wrap of a simple idea I give it 5 stars, but would never want to see it again.

Burning is an excellent psychological thriller with the veil of mystery around it. The movie that intrigues you and leaves you with a lot of questions to ask yourself why and to give it a try to connect the small pieces of mosaic. The more you think about the story and dialogs more questions starts to go on surface. Many of them don't have definite answer. It leaves a lot of space for imagination and analysis. It is a great study of characters. Atmosphere in the movie is dark with a lot of suspense. Acting and direction was on the spot. But the story is the one that is really unique. I haven't read the short story of Murakami ,,Burning Barn'', but now I am more than interested. I think that the movie is worth watching more times in order to catch all the small details that you maybe missed when you watched first time.Recommended for the people with more time,patience and with the tendency to analyze.

"Burning," to stick with the heat metaphor, builds itself to a low simmer and gradually turns up the heat until the whole thing boils over in the film's last moments. But I'd be lying if I said the movie didn't risk losing me along the way.

If you can't handle enigmas, stay away from this film, because that's all it is. It's fascinating to a point, and I enjoyed its refusal to easily hand over its secrets to its audience. In fact, many of the questions the film poses don't get answered at all, or at least you have to make up your own answer if you want the satisfaction of closure. It's stylish too, I'll give it that. But it's also very slow and languorous, almost too much so, and it ultimately feels like the pay off isn't quite worth the time invested.

Grade: B+

Intriguing and mysterious, but those qualities get severely diluted as the film drags on for way longer than it should. Aside from being painfully long, the ending is as predictable as it gets. Not a bad film by any means, but it could have been so much more.

Korean cinema produces highlights that quite a lot of people are not aware of. Landing Steven Yeun (who's internationally known) in one of the lead roles might help change that. But just because there is "Hollywood" star in this, does not make this a Hollywood movie or a movie that is easy to digest. And I'm not trying to make a judgement here.

If you want to, you can call it a "warning". A warning because the pacing here is quite slow. And it is rather character driven with a difficult to define goal or theme. The latter is only really true in the beginning and of course the director has a clear idea of where he wants to go or where the characters have to be. Very low key, but still high on drama and mystery. The movie dares you to make your own conclusions but also gives you hints, not facts. And we are left wondering a couple of things. Very weird indeed, but also very good

The film Burning (2018) starts off slow in the first half and builds up pace in the second half. By the end, some viewers will be left wondering, "is that it?" Whenever this sentiment washes over me, I have to wonder if I have missed something. For many great films, I had indeed, and a close rewatch and/or investigation of others' interpretations can help to point out details that were missed.

In this spirit, there are some truly interesting interpretations for Burning. Perhaps this is a meditation on the fractured nature of a man's inner psyche and the male and female leads are actually the same person. Perhaps we witness the lustful paranoia of a simple man with aspirations to become a writer who weaves his own life into a dramatic plot that culminates with his own committing a murder. Perhaps the entire film is a metaphor for society's rule of law and our sense of justice crumbling. Perhaps none of these things. There's precedent for all of them, and it is no crime for a film to commit to metaphor or subterfuge for the entirety of the film in the service of leaving a profound effect on the viewer. But films that take so bold an approach can be praised or lampooned as a result of this risky approach.

Fight Club (1999) is heralded for its masterful use of two characters who actually were the very same, as revealed by the ending. Mother! (2017) meanwhile was less charitably received for their use of extended metaphor throughout the film. Mulholland Drive (2001) is praised for its surreal disruption of coherence and challenging the audience's expectations for narrative. Shutter Island (2010) carries us with a narrator who actually we discover may in fact be paranoid and insane. There are many many other films which do these things. Whether or not any of these films deserves praise or scorn is less important to me than the fact that they each committed to their design, and thus the audience is able to decide whether or not the director/writers/actors were effective in producing a great film.

Burning, on its surface, is somewhat simple. While the score, color palette, and pacing should be appreciated for their work in generating a sort of listless unease, the rest of the film is simply good. It progresses coherently, the characters behave with internal consistency, etc. However, attempts to dig deeper, to justify the film as a masterpiece, to me must be met with some skepticism. Sure, there are interesting ideas for what the film can represent, but the text of the film itself simply does not provide sufficient basis for these interpretations. In this way, the film is perhaps a classic Rorschach test for the viewer, whereby some will see a wonderfully clever subplot amidst it all. The variety of interpretations to me speaks most to the lack of real basis for any one in particular because, crucially, Burning does not commit to any of these designs.

Burning would have been far more compelling to me if it had pursued any of the avenues which some reviewers have already praised. What's remarkable to me is that it would not have taken much. As an example, had they provided some actual clues to suggest that perhaps Hae-mi had indeed fled on her own, the viewer may thus be left to ponder what the actual nature of her disappearance was, was Ben a murderer, had Jong-su rushed to conclusions and condemned an innocent man? What ought one do in this case, what would I do in this case? Etc etc. Some fans suggest that this indeed was the goal of the film. But if you look back through the plot, they don't give real evidence to suggest this would be true, and instead *almost* all of the evidence points to something having "happened" to her. That a few crumbs for doubt are thrown in (e.g. Why did Ben agree to meet Jong-su if Ben had been told that Jong-su and Hae-mi wanted to meet him with Ben already knowing that Hae-mi is dead) only adds to the frustration because these crumbs hardly count as counterevidence given the lack of support from and coherence with the rest of the story.

Ultimately Burning feels like the scaffolding for a great film hidden amongst its reality as a good film. It would only take a few small tweaks to cross that threshold. However, without them, the film doesn't provide enough to justify the many clever interpretations others would suggest. Sometimes an ink blot is just spilled ink.