Like most of Khavn's films: experimental and controversial. In this movie, the younger generations take the center stage as we watch half-naked, gun-carrying children terrorize the streets of (post)apocalyptic Manila. Leaving nothing but violence and corpses in their wake, the children grow up to be adult gangsters in a corrupt world. And whilst Khavn packages it all in some colorful cinematography and funky compositions, there is no denying that the movie paints a painfully real and ironic picture of the actual violence that proliferates in the slums of Manila.
I liked it for it's philosophical undertones. The scene on the beach, when Hins witnesses two men having sex after being washed ashore, reminded me of Plato's allegory of the cave. It seems to be the first time that Hins sees reality/his sexuality for what it is (not the shadows of what he thinks it should be).
Sure, lots of "hoeing" but I'd say that was hardly the overarching message of the director. The movie encourages us to question the status quo of our own lives. Are we doing things simply because they are deemed normal? Or are we doing things because we truly believe they are the right thing to do? (Hence Socrates' quote "an unexamined life is not worth living"). Hins and his girlfriend realise that their way of defining and expressing love doesn't have to be as straightforward and limiting as society suggest. And while they may take it to the extreme, this movie is hardly a call for hedonism: if anything, it is a plea for introspection and critical thinking.
You can also apply this message to the current state of Hong Hong's political system, which is becoming increasingly like that of mainland China (which many activists see as the slow demise of democracy). Since Hins' mom also speaks of this briefly, it seems like the director is suggesting that Hong Kong's citizens must be conscious of the island's political climate.
Life is short, people are bad, religion persecutes us and requires us to sacrifice ourselves eternally (no matter…
"In trying to find the film you will likely end-up on some porn sites where watchers have edited together the graphic sex to be something for masturbation."
Phenomenal analysis! I discovered this movie in exactly this way: as a short clip floating around on a random porn website. Ironically, this only reinforces the message of the movie: it depicts how people devour and exploit of the male body while neglecting the psyche of the person that inhabits it. The edited porn clips-- which are cheap consumption for the masses--erase the entire philosophical message they were meant to have. The scenes become demarcated entities devoid of their original context. In the movie, they may have been about rape and the loss of innocence; on porn websites they are considered sexy. Those who consume these scenes might not be that different from the cannibal in this story after all.
Also, to echo your comment about the director: what is his role here? Did his film provide social commentary or did it merely perpetuate the violence that is already prevalent in the industry? Like, freaking hell, that comment of the last guy on screen ("if we're asked by the director to eat shit, we may") brought me to tears. Am I imagining it when I see him glancing at someone off-screen when he's saying that? I kept it together during the entire 1.5 hours but those interviews killed me. I still don't know whether they are real or acted. And maybe that is exactly the point.
This destroyed me... but in the best way possible? Thought-provoking, poignant, and philosophical. I actually really appreciated the symbolism of the murder and cannibalism since it the captures the way that, throughout his entire life, the main character's body has always been a product ready for consumption. Trained as a performance artist and working as a sex worker, he knows nothing else than being devoured: everyone has always wanted a (metaphorical) piece of him. His dismemberment seems to be the mere materialization of already present violence.
So was the nudity and violence necessary to convey the message of this story? Probably not. We could have seen less dick and still have had ample opportunity for meaningful scenes. That is probably also the reason that the movie is rated poorly virtually everywhere I look. But it does serve it's purpose: this is a movie about exploitation and violence. The story has done well with showing the dichotomy of the carnal human body and the spiritual/metaphysical message. Why shy away from nudity if the main character is a sex worker? Having said that, this is probably one of those movies I'll never watch again because it is too emotionally draining to sit through this again.
Three individuals--a wife caught up in an unhappy marriage, her estranged lesbian daughter, and her much-younger female lover-- must choose what they deem more important: their individual happiness or society's acceptance. In a society where there are certain (gendered) rules about how (and with whom) to live, prioritizing one's personal interests is no easy feat. While the plot isn't really that original, this is probably the first Lee Sang Woo movie I've seen with half-decent actors and a (very subtle) feminist commentary.
That was... strange. I was all hot and read to write a raving review after seeing the first two episodes--stunning cinematography and the actors had some serious chemistry-- and then the plot let me down majorly. This had no overarching storyline: this was just a compilation of all BL tropes we have seen since the dawn of time. What a waste of great potential. Ended up having to bump down my rating from a 9 to a 6. I'd love to see the same actors in a show with a better script.
I knew I had to watch this when I saw someone on Letterboxd describe this movie as "a hyper-violent rap opera about a gangster who torches an entire city to the ground to compensate for his micro-penis" lol.
note:Ep1In my opinion What they shoed on police investigation was really pour🤔. The evidence against JunManChun…
The whole court scene didn't make sense anyway. All that the criminal did was deflect his charges by shifting the blame onto Sung Joon (and everyone took this seriously? Like, had the guy even spoken to his lawyer at all? All evidence and information ought to be known by the lawyers prior to the actual trial). In reality, if Sung Joon were to be investigated properly, he would have to stand trial himself. This would take several weeks following yet another police investigation, and it would also bring about a conflict of interest considering his brother is the judge. The whole court scene was majorly sensationalized.
I'm not completely sure why but I always struggle to get into dramas led by Taec Yeon. I do usually like the script of his shows--he's got excellent taste in choosing interesting thrillers-- but maybe he's just a bit too pretty (?) to be playing the hardboiled detective. Something about his vibe feels off to me.
1
1
You can also apply this message to the current state of Hong Hong's political system, which is becoming increasingly like that of mainland China (which many activists see as the slow demise of democracy). Since Hins' mom also speaks of this briefly, it seems like the director is suggesting that Hong Kong's citizens must be conscious of the island's political climate.
Phenomenal analysis! I discovered this movie in exactly this way: as a short clip floating around on a random porn website. Ironically, this only reinforces the message of the movie: it depicts how people devour and exploit of the male body while neglecting the psyche of the person that inhabits it. The edited porn clips-- which are cheap consumption for the masses--erase the entire philosophical message they were meant to have. The scenes become demarcated entities devoid of their original context. In the movie, they may have been about rape and the loss of innocence; on porn websites they are considered sexy. Those who consume these scenes might not be that different from the cannibal in this story after all.
Also, to echo your comment about the director: what is his role here? Did his film provide social commentary or did it merely perpetuate the violence that is already prevalent in the industry? Like, freaking hell, that comment of the last guy on screen ("if we're asked by the director to eat shit, we may") brought me to tears. Am I imagining it when I see him glancing at someone off-screen when he's saying that? I kept it together during the entire 1.5 hours but those interviews killed me. I still don't know whether they are real or acted. And maybe that is exactly the point.
So was the nudity and violence necessary to convey the message of this story? Probably not. We could have seen less dick and still have had ample opportunity for meaningful scenes. That is probably also the reason that the movie is rated poorly virtually everywhere I look. But it does serve it's purpose: this is a movie about exploitation and violence. The story has done well with showing the dichotomy of the carnal human body and the spiritual/metaphysical message. Why shy away from nudity if the main character is a sex worker? Having said that, this is probably one of those movies I'll never watch again because it is too emotionally draining to sit through this again.
Three individuals--a wife caught up in an unhappy marriage, her estranged lesbian daughter, and her much-younger female lover-- must choose what they deem more important: their individual happiness or society's acceptance. In a society where there are certain (gendered) rules about how (and with whom) to live, prioritizing one's personal interests is no easy feat. While the plot isn't really that original, this is probably the first Lee Sang Woo movie I've seen with half-decent actors and a (very subtle) feminist commentary.
Manami, hyperventilating: *grabs both boobs*
Okay, Sono... 😂