Maggi64

Thank you. I thought your reply was reasonable and helpful. You also made it clear that your reply was based on personal experience, so there was no reason for those other people to attack you for daring to state your personal experience. They merely dropped a lot of fashionable terms like "colonialism" and "racism" into a conversation where such concepts were irrelevant.

Remember, I had asked an objective question about the differences in sexual mores between Asia and the West. I did not in any way say that one was better or worse but, rather, noticed that the mores were different and asked if this was true or a just a false media impression. Hence, dropping ideological terms like "racist" and "colonialism" was irrelevant to the topic.

It was a simple question which they apparently misunderstood. They dropped those terms because they thought it made them look smart when, instead, they came off looking like fools who lacked the reading comprehension to glean the meaning of my original question. I teach college English, and if they were my students I'd have failed them for not even being able to understand the original question.

Ugh, I shall simply copy/paste what I replied to the other foolish young person above, because this is not worth my differentiating you two with individuated replies (and yes, it's clear you are both young and in your 20's based on your rhetoric; I am a college professor and can spot the silliness of your generation on sight).

//

Why are you picking a fight over a simple, objective comment over comparative sexual mores vis-a-vis Asia and the West? Clearly they are different. I placed no judgment of "better or worse" between the East and the West, and only wondered if the difference was realistic or one exaggerated in the media. I asked the question politely . You, however, replied in a hysterical manner as to create discord in this thread by hustling up a political argument. Well, you shall not get an argument from me.

Because I am only interested in replies that actually address the true content of my original comment. Which your reply most certainly did not. To the contrary, your reply was stuffed with sophomoric rhetoric designed to make yourself sound educated and which, alas, did quite the opposite. Because you come off as typical 20-something tossing around empty, inflated, socio-political jargon whilst incapable of conducting a genuine, mature, intellectual discussion.

Why are you picking a fight over a simple, objective comment over comparative sexual mores vis-a-vis East Asia and the West? Clearly they are different. I placed no judgment of "better or worse" between the East and the West, and only wondered if the difference was realistic or one exaggerated in cinema. I asked the question politely . You, however, replied in a hysterical manner as to create discord in this thread by hustling up a political argument. Well, you shall not get an argument from me.

Because I am only interested in replies that actually address the true content of my original comment. Which your reply most certainly did not. To the contrary, your reply was stuffed with sophomoric rhetoric designed to make yourself sound educated and which, alas, did quite the opposite. Because you come off as typical 20-something tossing around empty, inflated, socio-political jargon whilst incapable of conducting a genuine, mature, intellectual discussion.

Thanks for your reply. However, I had specified East Asia because I noticed that East Asian cinema represents sex before marriage as more taboo than the South East cinema does. Thus, I am not surprised you experienced more leniency about sexual mores in Thailand and Vietnam. I am also sure plenty of people had sex before marriage in East Asia too, but the cinema seems to still represent it as more taboo. This is just a generality of course, but still. Thanks again.

Yoomionj -- thank you for giving a reasonable reply. Two other people here gave hysterical answers looking for fights. Your answer, however, was helpful.

Not just the History series, the quality of ALL the Taiwanese BL's have been going down. Meanwhile, the Koreans have been kicking ass with shows like Blueming, To My Star, Where Your Eyes Linger and Semantic Error. In 2 years, the K-BL's have totally outpaced the Taiwanese, which is odd, since Taiwanese BL's used to lead the lead the pack.

Yes, this director did a phenomenal job. I am reading the novel and I am so impressed by how she managed to condense the essence of this story in such a short space (just 6 eps of 25 min each).

Scroll down a couple of comments to see my explanation of the subs mistranslation of "disgusting" :)

And, yes, it was an absolute 10/10 for me too!

ASIANS & VIRGINITY

Was anyone else struck by Seung Hyun being a virgin at 29? I watch a lot of East Asian cinema and continually see Asians this age depicted as virgins. Even more odd, I notice that the other characters around them regard this as perfectly normal. I am American and can tell you that the only way a Western film could make virginity at that age believable would be if the character were autistic, unattractive, or obese (ie, the way Hollywood depicts it). Because the average person in America and Europe loses their virginity in high school or college. Thus, no Western film would ever portray a gorgeous man like Seung Hyun as a virgin at his age because the audience simply would not buy it.

Could someone from East Asia comment on this and tell me if it's true that people remain virgins until marriage in East Asia? Or am I getting a false impression from these movies and shows?

The 1st half of "You Are the Apple of My Eye" was a sheer delight! The male lead's voiceover depicted his teen years with an authenticity that makes one feel an actual teenage wrote the dialogue. It has a fresh, goofy quality that is the very essence of youth. I was either smiling or laughing for every frame of the entire first half of the film. It had such innocence that even the masturbation jokes were bereft of the kind of vulgarity we get in Hollywood teen movies such as "American Pie." The Asians can hit this tone in a way that Hollywood cannot, because Hollywood only knows how to depict teen sexuality with vulgarity. The teens in this film did not even kiss on their dates. Hell, these teen characters felt that even holding hands on a date was a big deal.

Observing these teens undergo the trials and tribulations of first love, overbearing teachers, college applications, and the pressures of making career choices, was handled with charm, humor, and a tender kind of nostalgia for those years. The script and director handled all of this deftly. Alas, the plot fell apart in the 2nd half.

To begin, in what universe does a beautiful girl (whom every boy chased throughout high school), choose to date a fat, dorky, unattractive, boring guy with glasses (whom she ignored all through high school), while rejecting a super sexy, well built, fun guy with tons of charisma (whom she'd paid tons of attention to all through high school)? ANSWER: none.

Oh, and then she ends up marrying an old, dull looking man instead of the young, super sexy dude who's her own age; who's been chasing her for years; and whom the entire movie had portrayed as The One. Why bother portraying a sexy male lead as The One if you're going to have the female lead first date a fat guy, and then marry an old guy? But what really killed the movie was the montage at the very end (during the wedding scene), that revealed how the female lead had loved the male lead just as much as he loved her the whole time. She even told her BFF on high school graduation day that she wanted him to confess his love to her. Umm, he did. Dozens of times!

I think the screenwriter must have somehow forgotten that he'd written that his male lead was freaking CHASING his female with all his might! Hence, she certainly had plenty of opportunities to reciprocate after telling her BFF that she loved him. I mean, daily opportunities. Christ, he was telephoning her daily from his college dorm and declaring his love constantly. Yet she responded to his constant declarations by refusing to date him. Hell, the movie even made it clear that she never so much as held his hand. And then, on the rebound after a fight, she proceeded to date the fat kid with glasses for a couple of years and held HIS hand. Then, years later, she marries the older man.

These two plot points made no sense and ruined what had started out as such a fun, charming movie. Really, I'd give the first half a 10 because it was so delightful, and then it totally fell apart in the second half, to which I'd give a 2. And that was only because the male lead was so damned likeable. He was so watchable that I stared at every frame in which he appeared despite the second half's plot making no sense. In total, my rating of a10 for the first half and a 2 for the second half, gives my rating an average of 6.

A movie about redemption so powerful that I wanted to give it a 10/10 throughout the entire thing. Alas, I then saw an ending so outright pointless that it upended the entire venture, such that I was forced to deduct 3 points based on that one minute finale alone. In short, I had to give it a 7/10 because that final one minute ruined the entire thing because it made all that came before it meaningless. It was as if the director wanted to shock the audience and, instead, it came off as simply meaningless.

Strange, cuz I am reading the novel right now (someone has translated about 2/3's of it, but still has to finish it), and I think they fit their roles beautifully. Sure, some physical details are different, but that always happens when a book is adapted for film. But I guess some of the novel's fans are fanatics, huh?

Do you mean it was badly received cuz they'd be playing gay guys? If so, did people change their minds after the show was released? I mean, the show was so good that I must assume it was a hit in Korea, but I could be wrong.

The cop is an undercover.

Then it's revealed that the masseuse to the gangsters is an undercover agent.

Then it's revealed that one of the gangster's girlfriend (who's also the cop's lover), is an undercover agent.

Then it's revealed that the big boss himself used to be an undercover with the FBI.

By the end, there were so many flips with the characters' identity that nobody in the audience could possibly care anymore.


The big boss was interesting for a while, as he was conspiring to build some global network with a weird cultist bent. But the film never fully explains what he was up to with this goal, so this guy who's presented as an enigma at the film's start, remains an enigma to his death.

The only good storyline was the subplot about the young gangster who was raised in a cult and found other kids who'd been raised in cults, and befriended them as adults. That was a good storyline but the movie wasted it. They simply dropped this storyline and had the hero kill this kid in the end. In other words, they killed off the only interesting character in the entire movie.

I didn't think he was played as a saint so much as a guy with slight Aspergers who connects on a different level, but still imparts a certain wisdom. I thought the show did a great job of portraying this without being schmaltzy. It also did a nice job of connecting behavior in the animal kingdom to what was happening with human characters on the show. I even googled some of the info from his zoology lectures and was impressed by how the show did its homework on this. Somebody with an ace background in science wrote this script. At any rate, I agree with all the people on this page who also loved it.

To begin, the Japanese authorities wiped out the Yakuzas years ago, just as the FBI wiped out the Italian Mafia years ago. But the Japanese film industry keeps making Yakuza movies like this just as Hollywood keeps making Mafia films as if it were the era of The Godfather. That's fine, I don't mind a movie with fantasy images of the Mafia or the Yakuza. But for god sake, give us a plot. This was just a lot of guns, blood, fighting and killing and a plot that made no fucking sense.

The plot descriptions tell us he's an undercover cop who infiltrated the Yakuza, and he's portrayed as a mad dog on a quest to kill everyone who wronged innocents in the past. His motive is played as a big secret throughout the film, and when it's finally revealed, wow, what a big nothing. As for the undercover bit, well, I don't want to give spoilers, but when a film keeps revealing this one and that one to also be undercovers, the dramatic tension is reduced to nil. I groaned at the first revelation, but began to laugh as more of them kept mounting. In short, this is a bad film. But hey, there are lots of hot men. At a certain point, that's the only reason I kept watching.

I had said there is no such thing as a located psychopath gene, but it's plausible and something researchers have studied. Because we know genes dictate behavior. Hence, it's a realistic premise. The brain transplant is not. Simple as that

Wait, I thought that assistant was cute. I guess it's a matter of taste. I like the goofy vibe of this show. Especially the way the kid walked with a hardon and sang a national anthem to distract himself from it in lieu of a cold shower. I like it better than Happy Ending Romance, which really disappointed me. But this show might be one of the few things on which we disagree Tim, cuz you and I are usually in synch.

This show was so brilliant that I must assume it did well in its native Japan. But this came out 4 years ago and I haven't found a season 2. Unless, perhaps, season 2 has a different title?? Anyone know?

I agree that OFC generated a lot of sexual heat. It did that because those actors were so good. I mean, you could feel sexual tension in the way Togawa looked at Nozue with so much yearning and longing. And man-oh-man, sticking his thumb in Nozue's mouth was hot as hell! lol. Nevertheless, I thought Nozue had a big bridge to cross in accepting himself in a male-on-male relationship and that a tender, deep kiss would've portrayed this acceptance. Again, I still LOVE this show and, as I'd said, it's in my Top 3.