Hyeongsa

I cannot feel the love betwen them, but i love the action scenes

I saw this movie in the Pusan International Film Festival. Director Myung-se Lee said it is the third edition, after the screening. Maybe, it was post-Toronto & Vancouver Festival Version.

The image is so beautiful. Films which shoot in front of blue screen (a lot of CG) won't have this charm. Costume and architecture of the Lee Dynasty are interesting, too. I wasn't bored one minute. I felt two hours short.

I think that the casting is a big success. Ji-won Ha performs the sometime-funny role of female detective Namsoon greatly. Sung-kee Ahn gives the tone to this movie. And, mysterious Sad Eyes, nobody will be able to do excluding Dong-won Kang.

Selection of music makes this movie not sophisticated. At this point, it looks like Lee's previous work "Nowhere to hide-Injeong sajeong bol geot eobtda-". (However, selection of music might be a charm of the Lee works!)

I praise that all characters are solitude and independent. I saw a number of Korean movies and dramas, there are a lot of works of complex story based on the family relation and the sickness. In this movie, a simple story permits intoxicating it beautifully of the image.

The pronunciation of Japanese well known tanka is incorrect. I expect it to be corrected before screening in Japan.

While perusing IMDb comments lately I've noticed a rather interesting perspective that glorifies cinematography as if it's the only meaningful aspect of film-making. I always thought that things like directing, acting, scriptwriting, action choreography, and post-production (only to name a few) are all important parts of making an entertaining film. Realistically, almost every film is lacking in some of these elements, but the good movies make up for it by excelling in others. Unfortunately, lots of people apparently think that cinematography alone can carry a film. I disagree, and Duelist provides a case in point.

This movie is essentially an action/comedy, which to me automatically signals an emphasis on action choreography and humor. The most entertaining films of this genre take the fight scenes to exceptional levels while sprinkling in some good laughs along the way – e.g., The Legend of Drunken Master (1994). Duelist, on the other hand, provides subpar humor and downright atrocious sword duels. I actually liked the lead actress and actor in other Korean films I've seen, but they were not utilized well at all here. Quite frankly, this film is a disaster. If I had known it was directed by Myung-se Lee (Nowhere to Hide), I probably would have never watched it to begin with. Shame on me for not doing my homework.

For the record, there is a lot of action here, but it is utterly destroyed by inept directing because the camera-work used during the sword duels sucks to high heaven. It's almost as if the director's sole purpose was to sabotage his own movie. Here are a few examples:

1. The opening scene was nonsensical, schizophrenic, and overly sloppy in its execution. A wagon full of money crashes and sprays on a road. The officials try to stop people from stealing it. The scene is nothing more than amateurs scuffling and falling over each other. Not good. There is a very brief duel at the end, but it only entails one or two sword swings.

2. One particular night duel had this viewer's blood boiling as the only discernible "action" was a series of special effects sparks on a pitch black screen. Two of the lead characters are in a dark alleyway, but instead of having them fight where we can see them, the director cuts to total blackness and adds some sparks. This kind of copout really grates on my nerves, because the director knows that he can take the easy way out and not even bother to map out carefully choreographed sword motions or character movements. This sequence, in and of itself, solidifies Myung-se Lee as one of the laziest directors in the industry today. Hey jackass, do us all a favor and don't even bother shooting an action scene if you're too lazy to do it right.

3. Another brief duel takes place in a courtyard and would have been pretty good had the director not placed the camera directly behind an obstruction, thereby showing only portions of the characters as they fought. Seriously, he could have placed the camera just about ANYWHERE else and it would have been acceptable. Instead, he tracks behind a thick fence. What an idiot.

4. Yet another scene has a character in a room with dozens of baddies, but every time he swings his weapon the director moves the camera behind a pillar to obscure the action. The scene itself lasts a matter of seconds and ends prematurely with a freeze frame of the protagonist screaming. At this point, I wanted to break something.

The aforementioned points convincingly argue against other IMDb comments that assert that the action scenes are entertaining. On the contrary, they are not the slightest bit entertaining for viewers who actually want to SEE the characters fight in well-choreographed sword duels. I'm perplexed that so many reviewers enjoy having so many events occur off-screen. You people need to raise your standards a bit.

Someone should seriously tell Myung-se Lee that the Andrew Lau/Wong Kar Wai Wuxia method of "slideshow" photography is the single worst way to film a fight scene, primarily because the viewer cannot see what the hell is going on (ala Storm Riders and Ashes of Time). Someone should also tell him to stop aiming the camera at walls and start aiming the camera at the actors. After suffering through Lee's Nowhere to Hide and this feat of idiocy, I pray to God this imbecile never makes another action film. And if he does, I pray that I'm not stupid enough to watch it.

Which brings me to the cinematography. Lots of reviewers here have claimed that the cinematography of Duelist carries the film. I see this reasoning often, and quite frequently the most overrated movies are those with good cinematography, because the people who love them conveniently forget that everything else sucks badly – e.g., Akira Kurosawa's Dreams. Hey, I love great cinematography too, but the movie has to have SOMETHING else, lest it be a very pretty but hollow shell. For example, Kiyoshi Kurosawa's films have excellent atmosphere, but without innovative philosophical concepts they would be practically worthless, like this film.

Everyone mocks me because I consider The Twins Effect (2003) to be one of the most entertaining in this genre, yet I'm vindicated every time a crappy action/comedy like Duelist comes out. Go figure.

You're probably wondering what the heck my title means.

There's a memorable scene where the soundtrack features a hard rock thrash song and a quiet piano sonata ...playing simultaneously! How the audio engineer pulled this off without it sounding like a train wreck is beyond me. But you can distinctly make out the two clashing pieces of music.

The whole movie is much like this phenomenon. First of all, it boldly crosses the line between "art house" and "martial arts flick". If you're looking exclusively for either, you'll be disappointed. But if you're sharp enough to follow the jumps, you'll love this picture.

Almost every other reviewer has criticized the plot for being too thin. I think they're missing the point. The classic Japanese film SEVEN SAMURAI can also be said to have a weak plot, if you're get right down to it. But the point is not to look for an intricate Alfred Hitchcock weave; the point is to enjoy how expertly the visuals can bring a fairy tale to life. And this is a great fairy tale, at times leaving you wondering what is a dream and what is real.

And then suddenly you're holding your sides because you're laughing so hard at the comic routines. Like I said, this film mixes it all. You gotta be quick to keep up.

Visually, I can't praise this film enough. Vivid colours, smooth camera motion, graceful movements (to the point where a mob scene looks choreographed) and gorgeous sets give this movie a fantasy quality that few directors have been able to achieve. And the computer animation (if even there was much at all) was not noticeable, unlike a lot of modern films that use CGI for everything. Instead, the director uses very creative lighting and shadows to accentuate the swordplay. At times it looks like a Star Wars light sabre duel, but so realistic.

Enjoy this film for what it is. Expect nothing, drop all preconceived notions, and I guarantee you'll have a great time.

Oh, I also thought I'd mention... no nudity or gratuitous sex, no blood splattered across the screen, no animal cruelty. Fun for everyone.

I'm giving it 10 partially because its score is so low. The film, from what I know, was received as poorly in Korea also. I suppose it's not for everyone, although I think it's possible if one watches it one more time. When I first watched it, I hated it. It was boring, weird, and never seemed to end. but then, I felt cheated for paying for it (I watched it online.. small screen, still paid for it..) so I watched it again cuz I could re-watch it within 6 hours or something like that. And now I have the DVD.

This movie is very unkind to people who are used to traditional story-telling format in movies. We (at least I) usually want to hear things out loud. Have things explained to us. I didn't know before, but I guess we must depend a lot on the dialogues.

At first I hated some parts with its echo effects and how everybody would sing-song a line or divide them into neat parts as they would NEVER do in real life. It was hard for me to understand (and I'm more of a Korean speaker. Later I watched the DVD with the Korean subtitle on;;;) and very annoying. You don't get much of the storyline by listening to what they say. A lot of things happen that can only be seen and much emotion is conveyed through the actions/movements of the visual items on the screen (including the actors and actresses, of course) instead of being delivered straight forward in narrative 'words' to our ears.

On my first viewing I thought the film doesn't show enough convincing evidences or hows or whys of the main characters falling in love. It seemed unreal and to happen so fast that I felt they were getting away by themselves, leaving the audience behind.

But on the second viewing, it touched me much more than at the first time. I could feel how the characters felt and acted, how their feelings changed throughout the passage of the movie. Those things no longer unconvincing to me. This time, I was with them. I felt what they felt. (as opposed to just knowing what I'm "supposed to" feel) And after my second viewing, I could say this is a very emotional film. (not boring.) A lot of people accused the director of being conceited and just showing off how pretty he can make the screen look, but not trying to communicate with the audience.

But there was also a sector(?) of mania fans who viewed the film over and over again, raved about it, protested for a second viewing in the theaters. (cuz the movie was out of the theaters quickly for not making much money.) I think the reason is 1) the way of story telling was something that most people were familiar with. They were expecting something else. And 2) Maybe it just is a film that needs a bit more concentration or work from the audience. (more active participation?) Maybe one does need a second viewing to enjoy/appreciate it more. (but I've heard of people who loved it instantly on the first viewing. Maybe I just didn't concentrate or look for the right things?) Well. I own the DVD now. and I don't buy lots of dvds. Actually it was the first DVD I ever purchased. (although I still haven't finished viewing all the supplemental features;;) and the second one was this k-drama series. and now I want to buy the movie Bittersweet on DVD. (or is it Bittersweet Life? Don't know the exact English title.) I just wanna say that for those who really hated it and thought it was boring the first time they watched it, give it another chance if you ever get around to it. The chances are, you are not gonna regret it and will grow to love it like I did. (I think it improves upon repeated viewings. You see things you didn't see before every time you watch it again. the movie has lots of symbolism that's fun to try to figure out.) Hm. that was kind of a long review. but really, it's quite a lovely film, I think. ^^