Oldboy is a well-made film, but absolute pulp. It's disturbing in a Silence of the Lambs, manufactured drama sort of way. Your adult amygdala should probably not be disturbed by it all that much.
There's plenty of good fights out there recently... this writer just hasn't watched them.
Korea is putting out a ton of great action. Obviously stuff like Oldboy and Man From Nowhere, but watch The Yellow Sea, or the recent Netflix show Bloodhounds and be amazed (though the ending kinda falls off a cliff). Worst of Evil too, some solid stuff in there. The Japanese show Avalanche had some amazing ones, and the movie Hell Dogs. China's Longest Day in Chang'an has a lot of good fights and is visually one of the best shows in years. Ip Man and countless other martial or wuxia films (though the vibes are different)... Raging Fire (last fight was amazing), anything with Donnie Yen. Indonesia and Thailand are out here too with a lot of lower budget stuff. This is all just off the top of my head.
Admittedly that's all SE Asia, US sensibilities tend more toward gunplay since in this country people pull a gun out when someone looks at them wrong. There's no martial tradition. But film and TV is global now - the US outlook on fights was, frankly, never that great. It took people like Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan to come in and liven things up. If you want good fights, you just have to look outside Hollywood. In a way that's always been true.
I don't necessarily disagree with this as a rule of thumb, but I thought it would be fun to come up with a few counter-examples. Most of these I would consider "artsy-fartsy" or "artsy-fartsy lite" movies that are popular with audiences but less so with critics.
Lost Highway (1997) - 68% Tomatometer - 87% Audience Score
Fight Club (1999) - 79% Tomatometer - 96% Audience Score
American Psycho (2000) - 68% Tomatometer - 85% Audience Score
Requiem for a Dream (2000) - 78% Tomatometer - 93% Audience Score
Dancer in the Dark (2000) - 69% Tomatometer - 91% Audience Score
It's been interesting to watch Korea's breakout in film and television since the 00s. My first steps into it then were Oldboy, Oasis, and Mother, all very rich films, and all very distinct from what Hollywood was occupied with, which for whatever reason I'd found unengaging.
what about Prisoners, In the bedroom, The guilty (2018), Good time, Oldboy (original, not from Hollywood though), Collateral, End of watch, Training day, Drive, etc. - all these were released after and they are better movies (most of them more thrillers than action though, but some straight up action), I can't really recommend exactly same alternative since I don't watch stupid action flicks like Fugitive, now that I have much more options than in 90s
This brought memories back for me, years ago there was a small VHS store that stocked a lot of these. Looking at there catalog is like a trip down memory lane.
List of there titles I saw many years ago. (Pretty much all great movies)
A Tale of Two Sisters
Audition
Battle Royale 1 + 2
Chaos
Dead Or Alive 1 + 2
Gozu
Happiness of the Katakuris, The
Hard Boiled
Infernal Affairs: The Trilogy
Lady Vengeance
Oldboy
R-Point
Ring Trilogy
Save the Green Planet
Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance
Tetsuo: The Iron Man
Visitor Q
As mentioned in the article a lot of people in the UK were introduced to a certain brand of Asian cinema via 'Tartan Asia Extreme'.
I was no different. As a student I'd venture into the tiny world cinema section of HMV and flick through the titles looking for anything that had the 'TARTAN ASIA EXTREME' branding on it.
So many fantastic movies in the collection [1]. Oldboy, Battle Royale, Dark Water, Hard Boiled, Ring, Infernal Affairs, Audition, etc.
Same. 29. I think it's just that we grew up with the internet, and although we haven't 'seen it all,' we've picked the low-hanging fruit.
When I was a kid, the first time I walked into a video store, it blew my mind. I spent every weekend for years binge-watching 3, 4, 5 rented movies. Now, I haven't actually watched a movie in years. I think that although there are new movies coming out, the patterns are fundamentally the same and so movies have gotten boring. After you've seen Apocalypse Now, Evil Dead, and Blade Runner, the Wire, Caddyshack, Oldboy, No Country, Night of the Living Dead, Y Tu Mama Tambien, and on-and-on-and-on, you've seen damn near most of the plot variations that can conceivably be constructed. So, new stuff just looks the same as the old stuff and it's not so exciting.
Same with the internet. I discovered 90% of what I still think is cool by the time I was 13. I picked the low-hanging fruit. So, now I'm at the point where I go deep on things. It's not sexy, but it is pretty rewarding. Used to think Magic-1 was awesome, well now Ben Eater's 8-bit-kit is half-assembled on a table in my living room. Used to think rock climbing was cool, but now I have to put in weekend after weekend at JTree moving over granite. Used to think Fravia was cool, well now it's time to construct my own web-crawlers. Used to think metalcasting and the Lindsay Catalog was fascinating, but now it's time to build actual internal combustion engines from scratch. Used to listen to the old Defcon DVDs on a pre-iPod mp3 player, but the time came to actually work through Erickson's AOE.
I think it's a natural evolution of life. When you're young you make a shallow pass and find what really resonates with you. When you get older, you spend more time digging down deep into those things and it's not as exciting as it once was, but there is a satisfaction from getting good at those things.
An alternate approach is to try viewing the internet through the lens of cannabis. I've had many nights in life where smoking some pot and watching YouTube has segued into a late-night coding session implementing something fun in Python that's been kicking around in the back of my head for a while. Pot has a way of helping you see things you've seen a million times in a completely new light. Some people love it, some people hate it. YMMV.
Most people seem to hit this point in life and just have kids to keep stuff interesting when things start to get boring. They take up a lot of time, teach you a lot of stuff, and suck up a ton of time.
> "I don’t expect much from them since they made Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2 in English."
that movie was awful, especially in comparison to the original. it had none of the innuendo and poetry, more a punch in the face.
imho, the hollowing out of american film began ~20 years ago, with netflix being just a milestone in that evolution. i've been much more interested in foreign films as a result. i'm currently going through the recent back canon of korean films (take care of my cat, oldboy, mother), and it's been great! reminds me of the 90's in american film--while today's films are technically and visually more sophisticated, storytelling and character development has suffered measurably. older french films (and others) are great for that too. the big american blockbusters are fun to watch in the moment but feel like empty calories afterwards.
I understand the sunk cost fallacy, but I agree that I'm not sure this is the greatest example of it.
Or maybe I relate to films in a completely different way from anyone else.
For example, gaping plot holes or impossible character motivations often turn me off. But I love apparent inconsistencies that are fully explained by the end.
I basically want filmmakers to convince me they put more thought into their film in the months of making it than I could in the hours of watching it.
Or... some of my favorite films are a slow burn that suddenly clicks into an intense ending that surprises you by raising the intensity far above the setup. The Third Man, Hara-kiri, M, Oldboy, The Hidden Blade.
By either of these criteria, it can be incredibly difficult to know whether a movie is good or terrible in the beginning. The extreme best and worst could begin very similarly, but they'll end in completely different places.
A bit like if Croesus and Solon were just film critics.
What I don't understand is how Netflix ended up this way. They attributed the success of a show like House of Cards to their data science capabilities - why would they produce bad movies unless that's what the data points to. Then maybe no matter what, the truth is that the content that gets eyeballs, and why Hollywood makes shallow broad movies is the same: they make money.
If you want to watch some actual quality filmmaking, visit a film festival or watch some Criterion films. Everything else will be "trash". If you want to expand your cinematic palate, explore American noir (The Maltese Falcon), melodrama (Douglas Sirk), musical (Singin' in the Rain), Western (The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly), epic (Lawrence of Arabia). Italian neorealism with The Bicycle Thief, French New Wave with Jean Luc Godard (Breathless). Want to go modern international, City of God, Gomorra, Wong Kar Wai, Park Chan Wook's Oldboy (advisory warning), or my favorite Japanese auteur Yasujiro Ozu.
Any of the above films are considered cinematic gems. Recommendations brought to you by my degree in Cinema and Cultural Studies. The true beauty of filmmaking is conversation over time. Films and directors talk to each other like authors and artists, they write love letters. They become self-aware of their medium (Fellini), "postmodern".
Great film can not fall in the limited boundaries of popular filmmaking. That's why Hollywood films tend to be so broad and shallow, to be palatable by all, no alienation, unless when it comes to race or gender. On the other hand, that problem is not unique to Hollywood or filmmaking.
I usually base it on the movie's stars, theme or genre, then read up its synopsis (short movie description on imdb or theater's website), and if it's less likely to have some kind of twist or I don't mind spoilers at the time, then I'll watch the trailer.
I'm also not really picky, so don't mind giving a movie a try without knowing anything about it in advance (Dancer In The Dark, Oldboy, and Snowpiercer come to mind as wonderful surprises, for example).
> MUBI has spent years cultivating that audience with a selection of artsy, obscure films that don't usually appear on Netflix or Hulu. (It originally launched under the name "The Auteurs," before rebranding in 2010 as MUBI — a play on accented pronunciations of "movie," and after a city in Nigeria.) On Monday, the titles available on the company's US site included Bernardo Bertolucci's 1970 classic The Conformist, and Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, by Chan-wook Park. Occasionally, it features more mainstream movies like Sin City, currently available on the French site, though the majority are far more obscure. A new title is added every day as another drops out, meaning that only 30 films are available for streaming at any given time.
In defense of Netflix (not that the "Goliath" in this comparison needs defenders)...but "Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance" has been available on streaming Netflix for, as far as I remember, the time that I've been a customer, which was basically when streaming started. "Mr. Vengeance" is the first in "The Vengeance Trilogy" that includes the more well-known "Oldboy" [1] and "Sympathy for Lady Vengeance"...I think the entire trilogy has been on Netflix for years (including the regrettable American remake of Oldboy, but can't fault Netflix for having it...)
Even as Netflix's blockbuster selection has faded (with the ending of the Starz deal, and in comparison to HBONow)...I've never had a complaint about their selection of the most well-known and recent foreign indies. "Let the Right One In", "The Hunt", "Force Majeure", The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trilogy...though sure, they could always have more (and obviously, I don't know enough of the foreign scene to know all of the gems that they don't have).
But I imagine the problem for Netflix isn't that they do a shitty job of curation...but that the deals end up not being financially valuable to them, as it was in the Starz case. Ang Lee's movies ("Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and "Lust, Caution") were long-time selections, but I've just noticed they are no longer available for streaming.
edit: if you liked Oldboy, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is definitely worth checking out. But whereas Oldboy was entertaining on top of being emotionally extreme...I'd argue "Mr. Vengeance" is much more of an artistic achievement, but at the cost of being "entertaining". In fact, I get a little ill at the thought of re-watching it, even though I own it on DVD.
[1] http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/oldboy-2005 -- Ebert's review here is so glowing that not only did it get me to seek out Oldboy, but it changed the way I think of foreign movies in comparison to Hollywood.
Whew...I thought this was going to be an indictment of the Oldboy remake. Sure, the original was great, but I was interested in how an American director would handle the material.
That said, this was probably not the kind of controversy Spike Lee needs attached to this project.
side note: Roger Ebert's raving review of Oldboy was what got me to watch the original Oldboy and that spurred a whole new appreciation of independent foreign films for me:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/oldboy-2005
Would've loved to see what he thought about this one, though Ebert's successor only gave the remake 3 stars
Could you give more examples of films in the past you've seen that you considered "stupid"?
I haven't seen "Jack Reacher" or "The Last Stand", but both garnered pretty lukewarm reviews, and at first glance, seem like the typical uncreative blockbuster fare.
How many independent studio films have you seen? How about foreign films? I've always been a fan of Kurosawa flicks, but a lot of Western movies follow in his thematic footsteps. After watching Park Chan-wook's films ("Oldboy" being the most internationally famous), I started to realize how formulaic Western blockbuster films were and have generally stayed away from them.
That said, blockbuster films can still have a predictable end but still be very entertaining. The first three Indiana Jones movies are the best examples of that -- i.e. you know Indiana Jones is not going to die at the end, and yet each (literal) cliffhanger is shot and structured so well that you suspend disbelief.
Well, the story is a combination of typical archetypes retold with pretty pictures. That much I cannot argue about. And I think that what you are really saying by "the plot sucked" is "it's too archetype driven". I'm basing this on:
>I personally found the warmed over "Stupid White Man penetrates exotic closed society and rises to be leader of it, seducing the native woman" plot tiresome, repetitive and tedious
Sure the characters ranged from a bit 2-d (the Col.) to well fleshed out (Neytiri (watch it again if you don't believe me)) and the acting ranged from "will probably win an award it was so good" Saldana to "thanks for showing up and picking up your paycheck" Weaver. But that's nothing different than you'll find in almost every movie -- the principles are fleshed out and the supporting cast is flat.
Why can't we have more 'smart' movies like Erin Brockovich/Schindler's List/Fight Club/District 9/Oldboy/etc. (archetypes of David vs. Goliath, Greed and Bullies) or The Incredibly True Story of Two Teenagers In Love/Léon/American Beauty/Mississippi Masala/South Pacific/Moulin Rouge/West Side Story etc. (Forbidden Love) or Lawrence of Arabia/Dune/Hunt for Red October/etc. (Lovable Turncoat)... you ask? And I'd counter that all of those are as archetype driven as any other well known flick (archetype stories provided in parens).
You see where I'm going with this. Even if you don't agree with all my movie choices as being "good" or "smart" you'll at least have to agree that most movies that are at least reasonably well known are pretty much based on a dissection or aggregation of common archetypes. How many times has Romeo and Juliet been retold almost verbatim? And by and large the audience enjoys these things and says "oh the plot was so good" when really, they are just a rehash of old story ideas. We even group movies into archetype driven categories "love story", "ghost story", "suspense", etc.
So yes, I was being "cute" with my notional art-house flick. But if you want to find something not driven by archetypes, where the artists consciously try to avoid those things, you have to go there, or to France or Italy perhaps. Here, http://www.imdb.com/chart/top this is the top 250 movies on IMDB not by dollars but by rating. How many of these are "smart" movies meaning "not a rehash of archetypes"? Very few if any.
It's pretty simple really, if you don't want your intelligence to be insulted (meaning you don't want an archetype driven story), you end up with a movie about a vapid cowgirl/model with giant thumbs or a movie director that can't focus on making movies because he's too busy with all his mistresses (which is actually just a retelling of the "guy with too many girlfriends archetype"). And given that non-archetype driven movies are typically poorly rated and attended by the open public, either you are particularly "smart" or those movies tend to suck.
For a minority group, Asian-Americans can be surprisingly racist.
Especially against each other. Nothing like telling your Korean friend how much you enjoy visiting Japan and watching Miyazaki and Juzo Itami's movies to stir up some good old-fashioned hatred. "They raped my grandmother. They're not human. They don't have souls." And then you have to pretend to like Oldboy to calm them down.
Hacker Cinema
22 comments on Hacker News
Oldboy is a well-made film, but absolute pulp. It's disturbing in a Silence of the Lambs, manufactured drama sort of way. Your adult amygdala should probably not be disturbed by it all that much.
There's plenty of good fights out there recently... this writer just hasn't watched them.
Korea is putting out a ton of great action. Obviously stuff like Oldboy and Man From Nowhere, but watch The Yellow Sea, or the recent Netflix show Bloodhounds and be amazed (though the ending kinda falls off a cliff). Worst of Evil too, some solid stuff in there. The Japanese show Avalanche had some amazing ones, and the movie Hell Dogs. China's Longest Day in Chang'an has a lot of good fights and is visually one of the best shows in years. Ip Man and countless other martial or wuxia films (though the vibes are different)... Raging Fire (last fight was amazing), anything with Donnie Yen. Indonesia and Thailand are out here too with a lot of lower budget stuff. This is all just off the top of my head.
Admittedly that's all SE Asia, US sensibilities tend more toward gunplay since in this country people pull a gun out when someone looks at them wrong. There's no martial tradition. But film and TV is global now - the US outlook on fights was, frankly, never that great. It took people like Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan to come in and liven things up. If you want good fights, you just have to look outside Hollywood. In a way that's always been true.
I don't necessarily disagree with this as a rule of thumb, but I thought it would be fun to come up with a few counter-examples. Most of these I would consider "artsy-fartsy" or "artsy-fartsy lite" movies that are popular with audiences but less so with critics.
Lost Highway (1997) - 68% Tomatometer - 87% Audience Score
Fight Club (1999) - 79% Tomatometer - 96% Audience Score
American Psycho (2000) - 68% Tomatometer - 85% Audience Score
Requiem for a Dream (2000) - 78% Tomatometer - 93% Audience Score
Dancer in the Dark (2000) - 69% Tomatometer - 91% Audience Score
Oldboy (2003) - 82% Tomatometer - 94% Audience Score
The Prestige (2006) - 77% Tomatometer - 92% Audience Score
Joker (2019) - 69% Tomatometer - 88% Audience Score
It's been interesting to watch Korea's breakout in film and television since the 00s. My first steps into it then were Oldboy, Oasis, and Mother, all very rich films, and all very distinct from what Hollywood was occupied with, which for whatever reason I'd found unengaging.
what about Prisoners, In the bedroom, The guilty (2018), Good time, Oldboy (original, not from Hollywood though), Collateral, End of watch, Training day, Drive, etc. - all these were released after and they are better movies (most of them more thrillers than action though, but some straight up action), I can't really recommend exactly same alternative since I don't watch stupid action flicks like Fugitive, now that I have much more options than in 90s
"Also in agreement with a poster above how the Korean cinema is just now taking off since around 2019."
Oldboy, which was made in 2003, was a pretty popular South Korean film... though nowhere near as popular as Parasite.
This brought memories back for me, years ago there was a small VHS store that stocked a lot of these. Looking at there catalog is like a trip down memory lane. List of there titles I saw many years ago. (Pretty much all great movies) A Tale of Two Sisters Audition Battle Royale 1 + 2 Chaos Dead Or Alive 1 + 2 Gozu Happiness of the Katakuris, The Hard Boiled Infernal Affairs: The Trilogy Lady Vengeance Oldboy R-Point Ring Trilogy Save the Green Planet Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance Tetsuo: The Iron Man Visitor Q
As mentioned in the article a lot of people in the UK were introduced to a certain brand of Asian cinema via 'Tartan Asia Extreme'.
I was no different. As a student I'd venture into the tiny world cinema section of HMV and flick through the titles looking for anything that had the 'TARTAN ASIA EXTREME' branding on it.
So many fantastic movies in the collection [1]. Oldboy, Battle Royale, Dark Water, Hard Boiled, Ring, Infernal Affairs, Audition, etc.
1: https://www.benoakley.co.uk/tartan-asia-extreme
I think not knowing when this is ending is worst part. I now know what the protagonist of the movie 'oldboy' meant by that.
also on a unrelated note, "you will see in two weeks" crowd seems to have completely disappeared.
Same. 29. I think it's just that we grew up with the internet, and although we haven't 'seen it all,' we've picked the low-hanging fruit.
When I was a kid, the first time I walked into a video store, it blew my mind. I spent every weekend for years binge-watching 3, 4, 5 rented movies. Now, I haven't actually watched a movie in years. I think that although there are new movies coming out, the patterns are fundamentally the same and so movies have gotten boring. After you've seen Apocalypse Now, Evil Dead, and Blade Runner, the Wire, Caddyshack, Oldboy, No Country, Night of the Living Dead, Y Tu Mama Tambien, and on-and-on-and-on, you've seen damn near most of the plot variations that can conceivably be constructed. So, new stuff just looks the same as the old stuff and it's not so exciting.
Same with the internet. I discovered 90% of what I still think is cool by the time I was 13. I picked the low-hanging fruit. So, now I'm at the point where I go deep on things. It's not sexy, but it is pretty rewarding. Used to think Magic-1 was awesome, well now Ben Eater's 8-bit-kit is half-assembled on a table in my living room. Used to think rock climbing was cool, but now I have to put in weekend after weekend at JTree moving over granite. Used to think Fravia was cool, well now it's time to construct my own web-crawlers. Used to think metalcasting and the Lindsay Catalog was fascinating, but now it's time to build actual internal combustion engines from scratch. Used to listen to the old Defcon DVDs on a pre-iPod mp3 player, but the time came to actually work through Erickson's AOE.
I think it's a natural evolution of life. When you're young you make a shallow pass and find what really resonates with you. When you get older, you spend more time digging down deep into those things and it's not as exciting as it once was, but there is a satisfaction from getting good at those things.
An alternate approach is to try viewing the internet through the lens of cannabis. I've had many nights in life where smoking some pot and watching YouTube has segued into a late-night coding session implementing something fun in Python that's been kicking around in the back of my head for a while. Pot has a way of helping you see things you've seen a million times in a completely new light. Some people love it, some people hate it. YMMV.
Most people seem to hit this point in life and just have kids to keep stuff interesting when things start to get boring. They take up a lot of time, teach you a lot of stuff, and suck up a ton of time.
> "I don’t expect much from them since they made Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2 in English."
that movie was awful, especially in comparison to the original. it had none of the innuendo and poetry, more a punch in the face.
imho, the hollowing out of american film began ~20 years ago, with netflix being just a milestone in that evolution. i've been much more interested in foreign films as a result. i'm currently going through the recent back canon of korean films (take care of my cat, oldboy, mother), and it's been great! reminds me of the 90's in american film--while today's films are technically and visually more sophisticated, storytelling and character development has suffered measurably. older french films (and others) are great for that too. the big american blockbusters are fun to watch in the moment but feel like empty calories afterwards.
Minor point but the following isn't a Korean proverb:
>When you laugh, the world laughs with you. When you cry, you cry alone.
It was in the film Oldboy but it's actually from an English-language poem. Ella Wheeler's Solitude:
Laugh, and the world laughs with you; Weep, and you weep alone. For the sad old earth must borrow its mirth But has trouble enough of its own
I understand the sunk cost fallacy, but I agree that I'm not sure this is the greatest example of it.
Or maybe I relate to films in a completely different way from anyone else.
For example, gaping plot holes or impossible character motivations often turn me off. But I love apparent inconsistencies that are fully explained by the end.
I basically want filmmakers to convince me they put more thought into their film in the months of making it than I could in the hours of watching it.
Or... some of my favorite films are a slow burn that suddenly clicks into an intense ending that surprises you by raising the intensity far above the setup. The Third Man, Hara-kiri, M, Oldboy, The Hidden Blade.
By either of these criteria, it can be incredibly difficult to know whether a movie is good or terrible in the beginning. The extreme best and worst could begin very similarly, but they'll end in completely different places.
A bit like if Croesus and Solon were just film critics.
What I don't understand is how Netflix ended up this way. They attributed the success of a show like House of Cards to their data science capabilities - why would they produce bad movies unless that's what the data points to. Then maybe no matter what, the truth is that the content that gets eyeballs, and why Hollywood makes shallow broad movies is the same: they make money.
If you want to watch some actual quality filmmaking, visit a film festival or watch some Criterion films. Everything else will be "trash". If you want to expand your cinematic palate, explore American noir (The Maltese Falcon), melodrama (Douglas Sirk), musical (Singin' in the Rain), Western (The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly), epic (Lawrence of Arabia). Italian neorealism with The Bicycle Thief, French New Wave with Jean Luc Godard (Breathless). Want to go modern international, City of God, Gomorra, Wong Kar Wai, Park Chan Wook's Oldboy (advisory warning), or my favorite Japanese auteur Yasujiro Ozu.
Any of the above films are considered cinematic gems. Recommendations brought to you by my degree in Cinema and Cultural Studies. The true beauty of filmmaking is conversation over time. Films and directors talk to each other like authors and artists, they write love letters. They become self-aware of their medium (Fellini), "postmodern".
Great film can not fall in the limited boundaries of popular filmmaking. That's why Hollywood films tend to be so broad and shallow, to be palatable by all, no alienation, unless when it comes to race or gender. On the other hand, that problem is not unique to Hollywood or filmmaking.
The actor in the film Oldboy ate a live octopus for a scene. He ate three before he got the scene right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv_OxuZzIxY
It's a good film, but this scene really puts me off it.
I usually base it on the movie's stars, theme or genre, then read up its synopsis (short movie description on imdb or theater's website), and if it's less likely to have some kind of twist or I don't mind spoilers at the time, then I'll watch the trailer.
I'm also not really picky, so don't mind giving a movie a try without knowing anything about it in advance (Dancer In The Dark, Oldboy, and Snowpiercer come to mind as wonderful surprises, for example).
> MUBI has spent years cultivating that audience with a selection of artsy, obscure films that don't usually appear on Netflix or Hulu. (It originally launched under the name "The Auteurs," before rebranding in 2010 as MUBI — a play on accented pronunciations of "movie," and after a city in Nigeria.) On Monday, the titles available on the company's US site included Bernardo Bertolucci's 1970 classic The Conformist, and Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, by Chan-wook Park. Occasionally, it features more mainstream movies like Sin City, currently available on the French site, though the majority are far more obscure. A new title is added every day as another drops out, meaning that only 30 films are available for streaming at any given time.
In defense of Netflix (not that the "Goliath" in this comparison needs defenders)...but "Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance" has been available on streaming Netflix for, as far as I remember, the time that I've been a customer, which was basically when streaming started. "Mr. Vengeance" is the first in "The Vengeance Trilogy" that includes the more well-known "Oldboy" [1] and "Sympathy for Lady Vengeance"...I think the entire trilogy has been on Netflix for years (including the regrettable American remake of Oldboy, but can't fault Netflix for having it...)
Even as Netflix's blockbuster selection has faded (with the ending of the Starz deal, and in comparison to HBONow)...I've never had a complaint about their selection of the most well-known and recent foreign indies. "Let the Right One In", "The Hunt", "Force Majeure", The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trilogy...though sure, they could always have more (and obviously, I don't know enough of the foreign scene to know all of the gems that they don't have).
But I imagine the problem for Netflix isn't that they do a shitty job of curation...but that the deals end up not being financially valuable to them, as it was in the Starz case. Ang Lee's movies ("Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and "Lust, Caution") were long-time selections, but I've just noticed they are no longer available for streaming.
edit: if you liked Oldboy, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is definitely worth checking out. But whereas Oldboy was entertaining on top of being emotionally extreme...I'd argue "Mr. Vengeance" is much more of an artistic achievement, but at the cost of being "entertaining". In fact, I get a little ill at the thought of re-watching it, even though I own it on DVD.
[1] http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/oldboy-2005 -- Ebert's review here is so glowing that not only did it get me to seek out Oldboy, but it changed the way I think of foreign movies in comparison to Hollywood.
Whew...I thought this was going to be an indictment of the Oldboy remake. Sure, the original was great, but I was interested in how an American director would handle the material.
That said, this was probably not the kind of controversy Spike Lee needs attached to this project.
side note: Roger Ebert's raving review of Oldboy was what got me to watch the original Oldboy and that spurred a whole new appreciation of independent foreign films for me:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/oldboy-2005
Would've loved to see what he thought about this one, though Ebert's successor only gave the remake 3 stars
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/oldboy-2013 http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/oldboy-2013
Could you give more examples of films in the past you've seen that you considered "stupid"?
I haven't seen "Jack Reacher" or "The Last Stand", but both garnered pretty lukewarm reviews, and at first glance, seem like the typical uncreative blockbuster fare.
How many independent studio films have you seen? How about foreign films? I've always been a fan of Kurosawa flicks, but a lot of Western movies follow in his thematic footsteps. After watching Park Chan-wook's films ("Oldboy" being the most internationally famous), I started to realize how formulaic Western blockbuster films were and have generally stayed away from them.
That said, blockbuster films can still have a predictable end but still be very entertaining. The first three Indiana Jones movies are the best examples of that -- i.e. you know Indiana Jones is not going to die at the end, and yet each (literal) cliffhanger is shot and structured so well that you suspend disbelief.
What specifically do you think is missing? Remember, it's only the 20 most popular films in a given year.
Oldboy (Korea), City of God (Brazil), Pan's Labyrinth (Mexico), and Spirited Away (Japan) are all on those, and that's not an exhaustive list.
Well, the story is a combination of typical archetypes retold with pretty pictures. That much I cannot argue about. And I think that what you are really saying by "the plot sucked" is "it's too archetype driven". I'm basing this on:
>I personally found the warmed over "Stupid White Man penetrates exotic closed society and rises to be leader of it, seducing the native woman" plot tiresome, repetitive and tedious
Sure the characters ranged from a bit 2-d (the Col.) to well fleshed out (Neytiri (watch it again if you don't believe me)) and the acting ranged from "will probably win an award it was so good" Saldana to "thanks for showing up and picking up your paycheck" Weaver. But that's nothing different than you'll find in almost every movie -- the principles are fleshed out and the supporting cast is flat.
Why can't we have more 'smart' movies like Erin Brockovich/Schindler's List/Fight Club/District 9/Oldboy/etc. (archetypes of David vs. Goliath, Greed and Bullies) or The Incredibly True Story of Two Teenagers In Love/Léon/American Beauty/Mississippi Masala/South Pacific/Moulin Rouge/West Side Story etc. (Forbidden Love) or Lawrence of Arabia/Dune/Hunt for Red October/etc. (Lovable Turncoat)... you ask? And I'd counter that all of those are as archetype driven as any other well known flick (archetype stories provided in parens).
You see where I'm going with this. Even if you don't agree with all my movie choices as being "good" or "smart" you'll at least have to agree that most movies that are at least reasonably well known are pretty much based on a dissection or aggregation of common archetypes. How many times has Romeo and Juliet been retold almost verbatim? And by and large the audience enjoys these things and says "oh the plot was so good" when really, they are just a rehash of old story ideas. We even group movies into archetype driven categories "love story", "ghost story", "suspense", etc.
So yes, I was being "cute" with my notional art-house flick. But if you want to find something not driven by archetypes, where the artists consciously try to avoid those things, you have to go there, or to France or Italy perhaps. Here, http://www.imdb.com/chart/top this is the top 250 movies on IMDB not by dollars but by rating. How many of these are "smart" movies meaning "not a rehash of archetypes"? Very few if any.
It's pretty simple really, if you don't want your intelligence to be insulted (meaning you don't want an archetype driven story), you end up with a movie about a vapid cowgirl/model with giant thumbs or a movie director that can't focus on making movies because he's too busy with all his mistresses (which is actually just a retelling of the "guy with too many girlfriends archetype"). And given that non-archetype driven movies are typically poorly rated and attended by the open public, either you are particularly "smart" or those movies tend to suck.
For a minority group, Asian-Americans can be surprisingly racist.
Especially against each other. Nothing like telling your Korean friend how much you enjoy visiting Japan and watching Miyazaki and Juzo Itami's movies to stir up some good old-fashioned hatred. "They raped my grandmother. They're not human. They don't have souls." And then you have to pretend to like Oldboy to calm them down.