Only God Forgives (Nicolas Winding Refn & Ryan Gosling team up again)

dreamers75

Poor movie, pretty much no story in it.

e_e

dreamers75 wrote: »

Poor movie, pretty much no story in it.

1. There was a clear story.
2. There's a tonne of great films that happen to have very minimal plot.

almighty1

Absolutely hated Drive and won't be looking at this. Too pretentious, boring, arty and plotless.

Hallyington

almighty1 wrote: »

Absolutely hated Drive and won't be looking at this. Too pretentious, boring, arty and plotless.

If you gave reasons for hating it, rather than using buzzwords. Someone might take your opinion seriously.

don ramo

Hallyington wrote: »

If you gave reasons for hating it, rather than using buzzwords. Someone might take your opinion seriously.

he said he didnt see it, which completely invalidates any opinion he has on it, why someone would come to a film thread to say they didnt see the film is beyond me,

tupac_healy

almighty1 wrote: »

Absolutely hated Drive and won't be looking at this. Too pretentious, boring, arty and plotless.

Since you have such god given ability.....


Any chance of the lotto numbers??

e_e

If I had a euro for every time somebody justified using "arty" and "pretentious" on this film board I'd be homeless.

Seriously all those 2 criticisms mean are either "I didn't get this and am using buzzwords to flaunt my own ignorance." or "I know better than you what the director is doing! Look how much smarter I am than all you sheeple!" Does anybody see the obvious irony there? :pac:

Dempsey

e_e wrote: »

If I had a euro for every time somebody justified using "arty" and "pretentious" on this film board I'd be homeless.

Seriously all those 2 criticisms mean are either "I didn't get this and am using buzzwords to flaunt my own ignorance." or "I know better than you what the director is doing! Look how much smarter I am than all you sheeple!" Does anybody see the obvious irony there? :pac:

Its a shít film, there is no defending it.

Its funny the amount of people desperately clutching at straws trying to get some sort of reward from it.

almighty1

don ramo wrote: »

he said he didnt see it, which completely invalidates any opinion he has on it, why someone would come to a film thread to say they didnt see the film is beyond me,

I've seen the trailer for this movie. I've seen the directors previous attempts at movies like this.

My review on Drive.

don ramo

almighty1 wrote: »

I've seen the trailer for this movie. I've seen the directors previous attempts at movies like this.

My review on Drive.

not gonna check it, ill just stand by my original post,

e_e

Dempsey wrote: »

Its a shít film, there is no defending it.

Its funny the amount of people desperately clutching at straws trying to get some sort of reward from it.

I saw the film, I enjoyed it and got the point pretty easily.

Why is that hard for some people to believe? Don't speak on others behalf when attempting to review films. It just shows that you can't deal with differing opinions.

e_e

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOPZURubLyU

Good summation of the entire film here, I really don't think there's anything all that complex to either the plot or the symbolism of this film. Hell compare it to recent films like Holy Motors, Post Tenebras Lux and Uncle Boonmee and it seems like a pretty basic A, B, C revenge film that's ultimately about redemption.

tupac_healy

almighty1 wrote: »

I've seen the trailer for this movie. I've seen the directors previous attempts at movies like this.

My review on Drive.

Eh, I seen the trailer for man of steel and it was brilliant.... whats your point?

Duggy747

Visually and audibly hypnotic but that's it.

The story, visual imagery and themes weren't really as complex or as deeply ambiguous as I imagined as some were repeated so much it was hard to miss them. Pieces like the constant switching of Julian's hands from fists to flat out in what seemed to be flashbacks / dream sequences, the foreshadowing of

Chang cutting his hand off near the beginning of the film in a trance-like sequence, that Julian killed his father, the incestuous relationship implied with the mother, Chang's Godlike status, etc

I thought there were quite a few silly bits that didn't fit though.

(The torture scene seemed more unintentionally funny than shocking, the full karaoke scenes everytime Chang dished out punishment.............the point was made, Asians have a big thing for karaoke but we didn't need to see so much of it, the...........eh..........womb bit.)

I didn't mind the pacing, I felt it suited the hypnotic feel of the film though it felt like I was watching a movie starring androids with their slow movements and blank stares.

It was interesting, I'll give it that, and not an awful movie by any stretch but I fail to see it as something greater than mediocre.

MakeEmLaugh

SPOILER ALERT

I was just wondering what people thought the back story was between Julian (Ryan Gosling) and his mother Crystal (Kristin Scott Thomas). Most people seem to think there was something incestuous going on there, though that was never explicitly stated. Or maybe I'm missing something.

Peter Bradshaw, in his highly complimentary review in The Guardian, wrote that

"[Crystal] is a widowed mob matriarch who knows very well what Julian can do: she is at once grateful and resentful and contemptuous, for reasons that emerge towards the end of the film, and which will make sense of Julian's behaviour."

Eh? What reasons emerged at the end of the film that made sense of Julian's behaviour?

The reference to him protecting Crystal from his father

?

Duggy747

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Most people seem to think there was something incestuous going on there, though that was never explicitly stated. Or maybe I'm missing something.

Talking about how big her sons' dicks were was one moment :pac:

LuckyLloyd

Visually stunning but totally devoid of substance. I was reminded of De Palma moments watching it - not that De Palma movies are anything like this - in terms of the way the film feels as a piece of work. It looks like the process is backwards. Like Refn sketched out some scenes and backgrounds in his head and banged out a flimsy movie to fit around them. The visuals are the only consistent and well honed thing on show here, everything else feels neglected in comparison. The plot, dialogue and 'themes' come across as skethched out on the back of a napkin over a lunch break. That might not be the case of course, but as a viewer the film felt like:

- I have some images for scenes that I really want to do;
- I want it to be generally dark;
- I'll worry about the rest later, incidental really;

Even the soundtrack is hit and miss - it felt very misplaced by times.

It is of course correct to say a good or great film doesn't NEED all of strong plot, dialogue, acting, characterisation; that it doesn't have to be bright and uplifting; and that it doesn't have to make a point or grasp an aspect of the human experience. Indeed, you can have all the rest with uninspiring visuals. No one aspect is essential. But when you have nothing other than a tenuously connected set of visual vignettes you are in trouble.

Moreover, and this is just a personal opinion, I think films should earn gratuitous violence. Violence for grit or for impact as part of a visceral film can be vital and feel utterly appropriate. Violence for shock factor alone seems pointless and is irritating to me. Ultimately I felt like I was wandering around the Tate Modern for 2 hours (despite the movie only lasting 90 minutes). Obviously some people will like that but I think it's a wasteful use of the medium.

Hopefully Gosling feels like his itch for this stuff is scratched now. Drive and Only God Forgives are dreadful wastes of his talent. Hopefully he finds a few projects that interest him and we can get immersive performances like Lars and the Real Girl, Half Nelson and Blue Valentine to enjoy again.

Decuc500

I really liked this. In fact I was mesmerised throughout. It reminded me of an early Takeshi Kitano film with the slow pace and sudden violence. For me the imagery and style on display were enough to keep me hooked. I didn't care if the story itself was flimsy, most of Refn's films post Pusher trilogy have very bare narratives.

Tssk

Could anyone tell me the track on the closing credits?Not the closing song being sung,after that..Kind of a heavy electronic number for want of a better description..Cant seem to recognise it on listening to the soundtrack...

Hallyington

Tssk wrote: »

Could anyone tell me the track on the closing credits?Not the closing song being sung,after that..Kind of a heavy electronic number for want of a better description..Cant seem to recognise it on listening to the soundtrack...

Was it Bride Of Chang

or the hidden track, which is electronic.

Tssk

Maybe it was Bride of Chang after all..Any track would sound less imposing after hearing it in the cinema Dolby and then on the laptop..
Thought the film was average,not as bad as I thought it was gonna be after what I'd read online but people were probably so let down after the high water mark of Drive.. If Refn and Gosling are gonna team up again, hopefully they go in a completely different direction altogether

Warper

Very average film. I like dark minimalistic films but this is completely implausible and quite frankly boring. Not one of the main characters are anyway believable and the film just plods along wallowing in its own cinematography. The violence is not as bad as i thought it would be, only one scene that is particular unsettling. Lets just say i have practically forgotten this film already and that about sums it up.

Renn

Wow, someone trying to knock the film on how believable the characters are/how plausible the whole thing is?

Where did that blade come from?!

e_e

A film that's literally about God wreaking vengeful justice in a Thai criminal underworld is implausible? Well I never! :P

johnny_ultimate

When did fantasy and credible, coherent characterisation become mutually exclusive properties?

Man, I've got some Toy Stories to reevaluate...

Warper

Irrespective this film is bland viewing.

nervous_twitch

I generally think films should be appraised on the sum of their parts. It's not much use having elegant and considered cinematography when all of your characters are frustratingly vacuous and the storyline is all but barely there. It definitely showed promise in parts, and some of the scenes were actually great, but as a whole it completely missed the mark. Even on those rare occasions the dialogue featured, it was so hammy and contrived.

e_e

nervous_twitch wrote: »

It's not much use having elegant and considered cinematography when all of your characters are frustratingly vacuous and the storyline is all but barely there.

This is what baffles me about criticisms of the film. Without splashing character descriptions on the screen we do actually learn quite a bit about the 3 main players, consider how many details and allusions to Gosling's past there are and how much of it explains his behaviour in the film. He actually has more backstory here than in Drive.

"All but barely there" means the story has a significant presence right? Although I actually think plot is one of the least important and more overrated aspects of film there is a clear A, B, C succession of events here with a very significant resolution at the end. The absence of a story is not a flaw in and of itself but crucially this has a plot, it just happened to cut out so much of the empty BS that occupies other movies. There is not a single scene here that doesn't advance the story or characters in some way, yes even the karaoke scenes.

nervous_twitch

e_e wrote: »

This is what baffles me about criticisms of the film. Without splashing character descriptions on the screen we do actually learn quite a bit about the 3 main players, consider how many details and allusions to Gosling's past there are and how much of it explains his behaviour in the film. He actually has more backstory here than in Drive.

See, it baffles me that you sincerely believe these characters were in any way developed or dynamic. They were like automatons. In fact, all of their dialogue (apart from the specifics of its content obviously) could have been entirely interchangeable - completely atonal and absent of personality. Their respective histories might have been inferred, but it didnt make their present-day characters any less vacant.

It's funny that you mention Drive because Gosling's character was much the same in that. It worked better there, however, as there was an ensemble of richer characters that made the Kid seem intentionally enigmatic. Here, either Refn wanted all of the characters to be enigmatic or he just didnt know what to do with them. We might disagree but I'm sure it's the latter.

e_e wrote: »

"All but barely there" means the story has a significant presence right? Although I actually think plot is one of the least important and more overrated aspects of film there is a clear A, B, C succession of events here with a very significant resolution at the end. The absence of a story is not a flaw in and of itself but crucially this has a plot, it just happened to cut out so much of the empty BS that occupies other movies. There is not a single scene here that doesn't advance the story or characters in some way, yes even the karaoke scenes.

What I meant was, although we do have an ABC of what is happening, it is again so lazily developed. So much is implied but very little said. The lazy inference of incest; the brief one-liner about Julian having killed his father. I don't need to be spoonfed anything, but at the same time I don't expect the audience to generate all the details from such piecemeal information. If Refn hadn't been so infatuated with getting the perfect shot, he might have spent more time actually creating a story that we could invest in.

Though you're definitely right about plot in film. I recently rewatched the Before Sunrise/Sunset/Midnight trilogy and it's a fine example of good storytelling with little happening.

e_e

I'll at least agree that they are not dynamic, but I don't think they were even required to be. However they were all essential to giving context to Ryan's character. Chang is a fascinating screen presence, becoming like an elemental force in handing out justice while showing great tenderness in singing and looking after his daughter. His omnipresence and seeming invulnerability is an important factor to the film, reflecting on Julian's weakness and how he'll end up dead if going too far in dealing out vengeance. A great signifier of how the film says more through action than dialogue.

His mother is the other side of that and shows some of the poisonous influence he has had since childhood. It's clear that through her Julian feels fear as he is tormented between killing innocent people and betraying her. You could definitely see Chang and his mother as representing a good/bad conscience on his part.

Mai is an important character too as she represents Julian's chance at having a normal relationship. I also noticed that she is kind of representing the viewer throughout that disturbingly funny dinner table scene. Also she may be arguably be the character

that redeems Julian at the end.

This is what I love about the film, there's a great simplicity to how the themes, story and characters are represented. There are no characters there just to rattle off exposition and we learn much through simple actions and body language (I don't find it piecemeal at all). More dialogue would have killed this film as even I'll admit what dialogue there is isn't the film's strongest element.

LuckyLloyd

While I can understand the excitement some will have at such a unique visual feast, I think it's disappointing the lengths said people will go to defending the other sorely lacking elements of the film.

Renn

Ha.

I don't think it was that unique in visual terms. It's got a nice aesthetic and it totally suits the vibe of the film, but it wasn't the only good element of this. Actually thought there were moments of iffy lighting (iirc around the fight scene) but then it looked like he was going for an old school approach at times. It's just an accumulation of everything, for some reason it just works. Kristen Scott Thomas and Vithaya Pansringarm were excellent, the former like someone out of a 40s/50s B Movie and the latter just about stealing the show.

Will be heading to this again this week.

e_e

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

While I can understand the excitement some will have at such a unique visual feast, I think it's disappointing the lengths said people will go to defending the other sorely lacking elements of the film.

Why? If I didn't feel there was some substance there I wouldn't be defending it.

I've been thinking of this film for a good 2 weeks now, can't wait to see it again. If the film were really all that empty I'd have forgotten by the time I left the cinema, which is the case with several films this Summer.

e_e

I can't believe I've been told off twice in this thread for standing up for one of my favorite films of the year. As if discussion on a film discussion board is out of line. :rolleyes:

Warper

e_e wrote: »

A film that's literally about God wreaking vengeful justice in a Thai criminal underworld is implausible? Well I never! :P

Pot calling kettle

e_e

Warper wrote: »

Pot calling kettle

How?

IvaBigWun

A 5 star rating from Empire (not that they count for much anymore) and yet the true quality of it seems to be revealed in this thread.

I loved certain things about Drive but I think I'll give this a miss

e_e

IvaBigWun wrote: »

A 5 star rating from Empire (not that they count for much anymore) and yet the true quality of it seems to be revealed in this thread.

I wouldn't say that. The film is very divisive but it has many passionate defenders, including respectable critics like Peter Bradshaw.

You shouldn't discredit the film based on a few comments here. Some of the best films are those that inspire strong reactions on either side, it's not like everyone in this thread disliked it.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Weird film.The whole thing is very dreamlike, not as good as Drive was (which was a terrific film) but still worth a watch.

Was i the only one who thought at any moment that one of the women in it (including Kristin Scott Thomas) were going to reveal themselves as a man

Goldstein

Always thought this is a funny one - mesmerising use of colour throughout - undoubtedly a stunning film to watch from a cinematographic point of view. There's always been a niggle in the back of my mind whether most people like this just for the sake of liking something weird or for its genuine merits. Visuals aside, the latter is a hard sell imo.

e_e

I'm kind of a fan of weird movies but I don't think this is one. Even the dreamy/nightmarish moments of Only God Forgives are in service of the plot and theme. It's never just surreal for the sake of it.

Uncle Boonmee, Holy Motors, Strange Colour of Your Body's Tears and Post Tenebras Lux are far stranger recent films. Love 'em too, maybe I've just been desensitized by the weirdness of those compared to this.

Goldstein

Ya, I've been on the other side of the fence too often to form a decisive opinion of it based on one viewing. While I appreciated certain aspects of the film on a technical level it didn't work for me as a whole in the same way as some other unusual ones did instantly. Who knows I may watch it in a couple of years and love it entirely.