BaldFerrets

The second half definitely felt draggy to me. I don't want to see predictable action sequences over and over and over again. Thrillers are engaging when you feel something is at stake, not when characters move the plot along via mindless CG and WWE fighting. I could sit through any Hitchcock, Welles, Fellini, Ozu, and Kurosawas. But I got bored of this.

Nah, most ridiculous part with the guy cop was when he stayed on the dirt path and thought he can go outrun a car, and a Porsche at that too.
If someone is trying to run you over with a car, run off-trail!!! Your chances of survival will be much greater than just running straight lol.

🤣🤣 This thread. You guys are funny.
What happened is Seong Ha cut up Si Hyeon's limb to fit him into her suitcase. She wiped away the blood and DNA with bleach (but forgot the blood on the record).
Bleach is a weak base, and it's not acidic. It'll take longer than acid to melt the bones. If Seong Ha had a kit and a strong basic component like lye, then maybe she'd be able to melt him, but it still takes around ~24 hrs. And let's just assume she used some magical compound that allowed her to melt the child within the night, if she pours down 70 pounds or so worth of organic matter into whatever plumbing system, it's going to clog/destroy it. That's why even Breaking Bad or any gangster/thriller movies involving melted bodies put the liquified waste in bags or barrels and chug it into the ocean or something.

@David because he blocked me lol

I think all attitudes are perfectly fine. Whether it's blind hate or blind love, it exhibits something that was satisfying or dissatisfying, however trivial or deep the reasoning is.
With that said, what I am encouraging (especially people looking to discuss) is for us to try to be more specific and accurate in our thoughts instead of using these vague and flowery language that don't mean anything.
You are looking at the hateful comments that may not be saying much, but you're also overlooking the vast majority of vacuous positive comments which doesn't help with the problem either. All I'm saying is, we're all rolling in mud right now trying to act as if we're superior when we're covered in shit... It's more sensible to bring up actual debateable discussion points if we are seeking higher quality discussions and more accurate ratings

Instead of calling it hate, why don't you point out what you thought in the drama was good? That way people can explain why they think the drama didn't work.
Most people here just praise superficial features. And sure they are subjective and almost impossible to dispute against, but that also makes way for a superficial discussion.
If 'haters' of a film say, "the film failed in almost everything it set out to do, the execution fell flat, and it doesn't make sense."
Then supporters say, "that's cause you only enjoy romcom, didn't like its pacing or couldn't comprehend how deep it was!"
Well, okay? You responded, but you left nothing substantial on the table for the 'hater' to discuss about.
However, if supporters said something along the lines of, "I thought the two motifs of The Frog expressed by the famous thought experiment and the Korean saying were quite deep."
That at least gives something for the hater to respond with, "Even if the drama sets up for the motifs, it does not show anything beyond their conventional wisdom and the execution is ultimately befuddled."
These are mere examples and I presume the discussion will have more details.
So if you want higher quality "hate" (I'd prefer 'criticism'), give us higher quality analysis.

I have written a critical review without resorting to such verbiage. In fact, I think the opposite is true. Most reviews that review this drama positively point to nonessential things like its cinematography, editing, and score, where you can replace the drama title with an entirely different title and it would barely impact someone's understanding of the review. That's how you can tell many of the reviews here are filled with fluff.

I mean their original statement doesn't stand either because these are the types of drama I'm exclusively looking for.

MDL has these really braindead takes where it assumes people only rate thrillers lower because it's too dark and gritty. Like, no... I hate to break it to you, but it just sucked. Bring up what you thought was good about the drama instead of pointing to trivial examples, such as its cinematography or editing, and I will deconstruct why I thought it failed on various levels.

truthful* but 'reliable' would be the better word choice.
You might want to brush up on your own grammar before making judgment of other's. ;)

Yeah, they'd have to point it out because all I saw was parlor tricks and a half assed story.

My favorite Korean movies are: The Chaser, I Saw the Devil, Vengeance Trilogy, Saving the Green Planet, Burning, Friend, New World, Gangster High, The Wailing, A Tale of Two Sisters, etc.

My favorite Korean dramas are: Kingdom, Signal, Beyond Evil, and Strangers from Hell

I thought this drama was shit.

The drama has a pretty drastic tonal shift halfway through, from psychological thriller to action, if you're into that.
Ending ends on a bright note.

"Yeongha's insistence on keeping the vacation house—both in refusing to sell it and in avoiding scandal to the point of cleaning up after murder is so heartbreaking when you think of how it was his last gift to his late wife. He just wanted to keep that house sacred for her."

What a strange, passive-aggressive comment. Why didn't you just directly comment under my review which is what you were directing it at, given the timestamp? And I would have responded:
The mistake the drama makes is it keeps applying factors that occurred in Koo Sang Jun's motel with Yeong Ha's guest house even when the factors are not similar. Yeong Ha could have easily striked a deal with the police and kept the invasiveness of their investigation down to its minimum. Why? The suspect is on the run and she took the body with her; all that the cops will find at the scene is that it's completely wiped clean. Since there isn't a corpse and there isn't probable cause that Yeong Ha is involved, they wouldn't be able to search the property without Yeong Ha's approval (or a search warrant for which, what would the justifications for one be?) and he can tell the cops his situation of the house with his wife. Either the police comply to a 'respectful and anonymous search' that he approves of or they can go through the legal procedure and get a search warrant issued while Yeong Ha involves his lawyers. This is not the same as the motel incident as much as the filmmakers try to draw parallels. Koo Sang Jun's situation literally had a serial killer dump a dismembered body all over the bed while guests were still inside the motel. Of course, it would garner media attention as well as an unconditional full-on investigation. The situations are completely different and so it's foolish of the drama to make the fears of the two characters be the same. It's lazy writing at best.

The point of the movie is about wrestling with faith. There are three direct possibilities: a natural one and two supernatural ones. The natural explanation is what the authorities suggest but what the villagers and the doctors reject, namely that psychedelic mushrooms are the cause of all this. For the two supernatural explanations: either the shaman is honest and the Lady in White is evil or the Lady is honest and the shaman is evil. In any case, viewers will be able to justify an explanation by assuming each one from the get go.

Yes, both rituals were shown simultaneously to trick the viewers, but it's also to justify the mob behavior onto the viewers. Upon closer inspection, we know that they are two different rituals since the Japanese stranger is performing a ritual onto the zombified man in the car. However, just as the mob in the movie accuse and kill the Japanese man without due process, the unsuspecting viewer simply assumes they are happening simultaneously by the editing choice.

We don't know whether the first family had a exorcism ceremony (it does show the withered plant and a nest to indicate the Japanese man had been there), but every other family, beside the ones part of the mob, had done an exorcism.
No, not all the victims had mushrooms in their blood. One of the victims had mushrooms in their blood and the vender admitted he sold psychedelics as tonic to the elderly. As a result, the authorities believe this to be the cause. However, the doctors admit they don't know the cause.

Try to approach this film as a procedural with horror aspects than a normal (survivor) horror movie. Pay attention to the dialogue, the details, the clues, the mise en scene, and try to connect them. There is not a single scene that is out of place.

Unfortunately, there are popular threads on Reddit where the posters jump to conclusions and overlook the details, allusions, and symbolisms to push their naive theory as canonical (which also requires details and concepts never given by the film). If the thread you read boldly proclaims that all the theories about the shamans being evil are wrong, and in fact they are good, then this is the one that I am referring to (it doesn't help that the idiot started spamming his "correct" theory into various forums to only confuse people further).

But to be fair, the actual ending IS supposed to be ambiguous to an extent. This is because the father disobeys both the shaman and the Lady in White's instructions. The shaman tells him to ignore the Lady and go straight to his house; the Lady tells the father to enter only after the rooster crows thrice. The father disobeys the shaman by speaking with the Lady, but also wavers from Lady's instructions when he enters the house before the third crow. It would be as if there was a bomb and two buttons. One person says press the blue one while the other says press the red one to stop the detonation. The father, in this case, chooses neither and the bomb explodes. How can we deduce to a reasonable degree that one button was the better decision? We can't and so we are left in ambiguity.

However, you can still use the dialogue of the shaman and the Lady, rely on one testimony, and there will be enough evidence to justify what we think happened (although it will always be imperfect as not every detail in the film is explained) for either accounts. Furthermore, there is a more favorable theory (that the Lady is good and the shamans were evil) as the extended ending shows this ending.
The "gap" or details not explained will primarily be on what caused the boils, what was the Japanese shaman's ritual about, and what led to his death. There are various theories out there that try to fill those. Ultimately, however, I don't think trying to uncover the Truth is the main point of the film even if it may be a fun exercise. It's really about the father's wrestlings with the unknown, and showcasing his desperations when his daughter gets involved.

But if you have further questions about what happened, feel free to drop any questions. I'll do my best to answer so long as I see them.

Hey, let's not read properly and misinterpret people based off strawman arguments! Yay! If you've got one thing to learn from being here, try to at least read properly before levying criticisms.

The reviews are hilarious. This is a rom-com, yet y'all want the plot to be as consistent and logical as, say, a psychological thriller? That's like getting upset at Marvel movies for not applying proper physics - it's clearly not what the writers are aiming at.

If you aren't some contrarian edge lord, please gauge whether QoT was successful (or unsuccessful) for its intended genre.

Plagiarized who..?

Lee Jung Ha's bubbly personality felt a bit too forced and fake to the point it got really annoying. Beside that, no complaints; pretty fun show.

"also maybe finish the show you might look at it in different ways too instead of being very tunnel vision on one thing instead ‘mansplaining’ the plot of the show to me"
I don't know how I'm mansplaining if I don't even know if you're male or female and you don't even know mine. Did you just assume my gender? How dare you? (I'm joking. Hopefully, you're also not serious using 'mansplain' unironically lmao).

Anyways, feel free to womansplain the drama to me. I'd like to know whether you actually understand it because you're asking me questions that are directly explained by the show and making claims that are contradicted by the show. Furthermore, I read the synopsis of the final episode - it doesn't change from what the show had shown and explained previously.