Member Since: 9/3/2011
Posts: 22,014
|
I finally watched it and OMG I loved it  the gore was a bit much at times but whatever. The visuals were obviously incredible but I liked the story and how much symbolism was used. It's too bad people are panning this without actually putting much thought into it. It's a pretty smart film. Here's a nice post I found on IMDB:
Quote:
For the last few weeks I've been reading review after review trashing this movie. And, having an intimate knowledge of Refn's filmography, I figured this was going to be all beauty and no subtext. But, upon seeing the film over the weekend, I can't for the life of me understand where some of these critics are coming from. Yes, there is something inherently juvenile about the reliance on shocking violence to make a point but I was struck with how earnestly this film approached its Fruedian ideals. The movie is packed with said Fruedian undercurrents and it is outright Oedipal in its connotations (which is appropriate given it's exploration of Frued's ideas). I don't know, nor would presume to say, that this was Refn's intent but it's certainly there on the screen.
For some this is obvious but, upon reading the reviews, it seems that even the intellectual crowd are missing these essential elements of the movie. And I understand some of it: the movie is largely silent and there isn't always an easy way to seperate the reality in the film with the nightmare/fantasy sequences. But, while nothing in the film is directly telegraphed, much of the subtext is fairly obvious. Chang, dressed in the colors of a priest, acts both punishing (although unbiased) and benevolent - he is a furious God or, rather, the Angel of Vengeance. Crystal is the the opposite - a devil in a white dress, beautiful and sexy but venomous and without remorse or care. Her son Billy is the antichrist, the charm in the devils eyes, with only chaos and hate to stimulate him. You see, the Thai are God's people, and the whites have come to corrupt, tarnish and take advantage of the foreign land. Julian is the anomaly - a man which understands goodness but whose loyalty is with the family with which he has derived. His loyalty only serves his inhuman connection to his desire to return to the innocence from which he originated - his mother. But Julian ultimately understands that he cannot be free from darkness until he sacrifices this said connection. This all comes through in the Oedipal symbology rampant throughout the film - his desire to return to the womb and his willingness to embrace emasculation at the hands of Chang (God's good graces). Chang even recognizes Julians innocence when he shows up at the Muy Thai club and claiming that Julian is "not the one". Chang is ultimately the hero, expressing his love through sermons (kareoke) preaching warmth and lovelorn sentiment while dispensing a justice that is feared but misunderstood by those around him (although admired by his 'people').
Julian's journey is our own, how can people of hypocritical goodness navigate this world of hellish conciet yet still see the goodness of a conflicted but, ultimately good, God? Through selflessness and sacrifice.
|
It wasn't as good as Drive but I don't think it's fair to compare them anyway. They're completely different.
|
|
|
|
Drive was incredible. The reviews for this aren't as good but it looks awesome nonetheless. There are some clips on YouTube.
I'm downloading the web rip right now.
don't understand why. There were decent quality web rips online but they had subtitles and I wanted to wait for the 1080p version.