Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Parasite (2019)
10/10
For those who didn't like the movie because of its second half
18 October 2019
Warning: Spoilers
It's not really a review but my attempt to explain how I interpreted the movie to those who complain that the film is overrated, especially if the reason is that they didn't like the second half of it.

It's much easier to understand the message of a movie when the 'good guys' win or the 'bad guys' get punished in the end. I'm not saying that all Hollywood films are so naive in their portrayal of moral values. But still, I believe that Parasite is much more subtle than most other movies that people are accustomed to watching in which there's a character with a clearer 'moral center' whom audiences can easily relate to. So, I think it's no surprise if the message of this film had failed to register for some of the audiences.

Some complained that they don't understand Ki-Taek's motive for killing Mr. Park. But to fully appreciate this, you need to understand the meaning of a recurring expression in the dialogue which is, "crossing the line".

It's a deliberately ambiguous phrase that can either read as one should respect other people's privacy or as one should mind one's own (social) position instead of meddling with the affairs of those in a different position. If interpreted as the latter meaning, it can serve as another image that emphasizes the subject matter of the narrative, along with more easy to notice the metaphor of the two families' respective dwellings.

It would probably have satisfied such audiences who expected more lighthearted drama if the movie focused on an underprivileged, but more likable family exploiting a cold hearted snobbish family in a comical manner. But the movie would have lost all its genuine charms if Bong Joon-Ho chose such a path, and he is too good a director not to see such a danger.

Instead, he chose to make Mr. Park a reasonable enough character, despite his occasional hints that reveal his true nature. He seems to treat Ki-Taek fairly enough at first, but he also warns the latter not to 'cross the line' if Ki-Taek attempts to pry into his private life.

At first, it seems that it's quite easy for Ki-Taek and other members of his family to sneak into Mr. Park's house in various roles and mingle with them. Ki-Taek even compliments how nice Mr. Park's family is, but his premature admiration soon gets challenged when he overheard, when he was hiding under the table, what Mr. Park really thinks of him - almost a different species of the human being who doesn't even smell like him.

Ki-Taek's final disillusionment came when Mr. Park cringes from the smell of the dead basement dweller and shows much more concern for his son's shock while virtually ignoring Ki-Taek's daughter's status who's dying on the ground, spurting blood from the stab wound.

That moment, Ki-Taek realizes how Mr. Park sees him and his whole family as not an equal human being, but something much more insignificant.

And he also realizes the 'line' that separates the two families is not just that of courtesy or proper social behaviour. Instead, it is a line that can even determine the life of those 'lesser' human beings to be less important than the passing unpleasant feelings or mental shock of those 'proper' human beings.

However easy it was for Ki-Taek's family to sneak into Mr. Park's house, or however they try to socialize and mingle with Mr. Park's family, their existence is no better than that of a 'parasite', which is also visualized so effectively by the presence of the hidden basement room inside the house.

With such disillusionment and anger, Ki-Taek chose to kill Mr. Park, as a parasite could to its host, and like a parasite, he keeps hiding deep inside the dead host's body until he could claim the whole of the carcass and use it as nourishment for his offsprings.

The tragedy was not something caused by any exceptional defect or vice of either Mr. Park's or Ki-Taek's personalities. Instead, it's a 'line' drawn by an invisible hand, separating those classes according to their respective social conditions, which can be so brutal as to be able to deprive the two families of their humanity in contrasting manners. And that is what I believe to be the message this film is trying to convey.

Of course, not every movie must make a commentary on society rather than providing a care-free pastime that everyone can understand.

But without if the movie didn't change its gear in the second half to shed light on a serious inherent problem of our society, it would be just another heist gone wrong type comedy, instead of a deserving candidate to be called the best film of the year.
4,727 out of 5,195 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Pirate (1948)
7/10
It could be a cult classic if the music scores were better.
28 October 2013
There's something in this movie which make it stand apart from other MGM musicals of that period, and I believe it was precisely this reason the movie ended up as a marketing flop.

First of all, the whole movie has very exaggerated and stylized tone, which combined with the vivid cinematography of Vincente Minnelli, creates rather fantastical, storybook-like (remember the movie actually starts with turning of storybook pages) mood, which might feel too alien to the audiences who expected to see another typical MGM musical like For Me and My Gal.

Of course, other period musicals like Meet Me in St.Louis or The Harvey Girls are far from realistic also. But while we can say that Esther's family or the Harvey House in those are rather idealized or exaggerated, they are by no means fantastic or surrealistic like such an imaginary Caribbean island where things like a pirate in his hot pants cutting ears off a bunny hat look like 'normal'.

If such an intention can be misinterpreted even by a modern reviewer to make him to criticize the movie, based on ethnic demography of a typical Caribbean island, then it's hardly surprising to see why some audiences from the 40s found it to be 'over dramatic' or 'over the top', for example.

As to the movie itself, I think I should give more credit to Gene Kelly than to Judy Garland even though I'm a big fan of the latter, and actually it was because of her that I first decided to watch this movie.

Aside from the "Mack the Black" or "Be a Clown" numbers, which are nice but can't be said to be top notch, music scores of the movie aren't very impressive, so regretfully we don't have much occasion to appreciate Judy Garland's legendary talent.

But as to Gene Kelly, the movie serves as a great showcase to prove that he's much more than a mere good looking actor with some tap dancing skills. By adapting elements of ballet or even pole dancing, he tries to innovate the musical dancing to a whole new level, and sequences like "Nina" or the "Pirate Ballet" feels like a precursor to his later efforts which successfully enlarged and redefined the field.

All in all, it's one of those movies which can be termed as a 'successful failure', which was successful in making a lasting impression with many bold and innovative attempts, and be a marketing flop for the very same reason.

If there were a bit more memorable music numbers, which would give Judy Garland more chance to shine, it might have been remembered as one of a cult classic of MGM musicals.
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Certainly not the greatest of Judy Garland, but it's Judy Garland still.
21 October 2013
I won't go into plot details, as it's been done by so many other reviewers before me. Instead, I'll just share my observations as a fan of classic musicals, and specifically of Judy Garland.

Personally, I think it was during 43-46 period when Judy looked and sounded the best. And incidentally, it was also the period when the classic MGM studio system was at the apex of its efficiency in churning out one great musical after another before its demise later in that decade.

In Good Old Summertime, one can't help but realize, with much regret, that the greatest period of the good old musical films and of Judy Garland was beginning to wane. And it is noticeable from quality of music scores and from changes in her appearance also.

Of course, it's still a very enjoyable movie, especially if you watched one of the other movies based on the same story. And Judy still looks amiable and sounds great even when she had to sing in such self-deprecating manner as in 'I Don't Care', which feels very different from other instances of similar comic approach of her previous films like 'When I Look at You' in Presenting Lily Mars, or 'Couple of Swells' from Easter Parade, for example.

Even though the movie is categorized as a musical, it's certainly not Harvey Girls where you can enjoy such trademark MGM scenes, like that big, complex sequence as 'Atchison Topika and the Santa Fe'.

Back then, the Freed Unit with so many talented actors and actresses were so efficient that they didn't need too many camera cuts or even extensive rehearsals to create a such captivating 20 min long sequence.

In Good Old Summertime, Judy Garland is almost the only person who sings, and there is no 'sequence' to talk of, as most of the numbers are done by her singing solo, except for the Barbershop Quartet and 'I Don't Care' numbers.

In general, songs are less memorable than those from her other movies. There's a Christmas song which Judy sings beautifully as usual, though it just isn't on par with 'Have Yourself a Merry Christmas' from Meet Me in St. Louis.

Judy still looks attractive, but not more so than in her earlier movies. Her personal troubles in real life begin to take their toll on her appearances by the time she appeared in this movie. Van Johnson is amiable, but he's certainly not her ideal partner in a musical film, as he can't really sing or dance like Mickey Rooney or Gene Kelly.

All in all, it's a still very enjoyable movie, but if you are a Judy Garland fan like me, you might want to try her other films first, preferably one from the 43-46 period, if you haven't seen them all already.

And when you have already seen most of them, and when you are sure to understand why people keep praising Judy Garland and her movies from her better days even today, then with a preparation of your mind for experiencing some regrets and pangs which might result from seeing her lesser self in a lesser kind of a musical, you are ready to enjoy this movie as a devote Judy Garland's fan.

It's something similar to what it requires to enjoy her late year recordings like the famous Carnegie Hall album. It pains to notice how she lost her range and her once impeccable vibrato became one that sounds artificial and forced.

But at least, it's Judy Garland and I believe that would suffice to enjoy it for most her ardent fans. As to what seems deficient, they can supplement it by their memories of what she has been in her prime time.
23 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed