Change Your Image
icon_of_sin
Reviews
February (2003)
full of plot holes, clichés and bad acting
to make it short, i really dislike this movie. I usually enjoy asian films- if they're good.
one of february's major flaws is the almost missing plot. i won't give away any detail now, in case you still come around this flick and decide to give it a go nevertheless.
still, stretching the already ultra-thin story over a time of almost 2 hours results in a complete narrative vacuum. this artistic void is further drained soulless by the lead actress' bad performance. displaying the same facial expression of stupefied amazedness for almost the entire length of the movie annoyed me beyond belief.
to make things even worse, the sound designer opted for outfitting "february" with a cheaply produced "melodramatic" soundtrack. you know what i'm talking about, cheap synthesizer chords underlined with some wannabe "deep" guitar solo. shudder. this is pulp hollywood melodrama gone thai.
additionally, the movie plays around with ambient sounds, like passing cars, which are suddenly cut off when the camera focuses on some actor. this destroys the last essence of credibility, if there ever was any in this dull, pointless, waste-of-time movie.
Peulraseutik teuri (2003)
bad!
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** I don't know why the previous poster praised this movie. in fact, I consider it extremely bad for various reasons, some of which I'll sum up right now:
1. character development and setup
the three main characters are clichéd and act completely unnatural- quick example 1: lead girl character gets raped by male character no.2 and subsequently falls for him. "i love you", a couple of scenes later. this is beyond all rational and believable character setup, and utterly sexist as well. example 2: the two men are mere stereotypes designed to oppose each other in character- a) timid loony with a mother complex b) rough daredevil "i know it all" womanizer. watching them act and interact literally made my stomach turn, this is pure soap opera- which leads straight to point two:
2. horrible "dramatic" music
I believe one of the crucial quality flaws is the music in "plastic tree". it overly dramatizes certain passages of the movie and sounds af if produced by a 12 year old on an old casio keyboard. worst of all, flashback scenes are introduced by a sudden burst of a trumpet or some equally tuned synth, offering unnecessarily guidance, hence treating the viewer like a stupid bovine animal.
3. plain uninteresting cinematography
utilizing calm, long shots is no quality flaw in itself. what struck me in this case though: the composition of the shots, the camera movement, the color-- none of these create any additional meaning in "plastic tree". this movie is utterly bland, and in no way comparable to dogma movies, where almost every shot yields abstract meaning created by cinematography itself.
the previous poster talked about "realism" and the way "plastic tree" allegedly created a realistic effect; i strongly question that impression. combining the three points mentioned above, the effect is the exact opposite- melodramatic soap opera atmoshpere at its best.
don't get me wrong, I usually like south korean movies. if you'd like to see something more worth your time, i heartily recommend:
"camel(s)" AKA "nakta(dul)": even the (digital) film grain yields meaning
"lies"(1999): now there's your "realism"; complete mastery!
or.... "at the turning gate": long shots forever, though in complete symbiosis with the story.