vincentywang
Joined Jan 2002
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews6
vincentywang's rating
I agree with my Czech buddy: this is a total waste of time---an inept, pretentious, boring, ugly distortion of life. A wretched exploitation film.
What does it exploit? To name a few: (1) the wretchedness of old-age loneliness; (2) our guilt at finding the characters somewhat annoying and ourselves less than full-heartedly sympathetic; (3) the tolerance of art-house audience for inadequate narrative and threadbare characterization.
You would think that out of the extraordinary tedium and pointlessness, something unusual may be found; originality of any kind can nevertheless be the last saving-grace. But none is to be found. The bag of tricks is pretty flat: oh yes, Lee did see his Kieslowski alright. There is a scattering of visual clues that re-emerge from time to time, as in "Red", and we may pick up as glue to tie the nondescript narrative together. The painted canvas, the shreds of newspapers, the rear mirror view from a motor cycle, etc. And in case you think Lee is not well-versed in Brunuel, the deliberate voyeurism of the camera placement is supposed to make us roll over and extol the virtue of a new auteur.
But art is not the sum of trickery. Punishing one's audience does not warrant worship. Not all of us are masochistic.
What does it exploit? To name a few: (1) the wretchedness of old-age loneliness; (2) our guilt at finding the characters somewhat annoying and ourselves less than full-heartedly sympathetic; (3) the tolerance of art-house audience for inadequate narrative and threadbare characterization.
You would think that out of the extraordinary tedium and pointlessness, something unusual may be found; originality of any kind can nevertheless be the last saving-grace. But none is to be found. The bag of tricks is pretty flat: oh yes, Lee did see his Kieslowski alright. There is a scattering of visual clues that re-emerge from time to time, as in "Red", and we may pick up as glue to tie the nondescript narrative together. The painted canvas, the shreds of newspapers, the rear mirror view from a motor cycle, etc. And in case you think Lee is not well-versed in Brunuel, the deliberate voyeurism of the camera placement is supposed to make us roll over and extol the virtue of a new auteur.
But art is not the sum of trickery. Punishing one's audience does not warrant worship. Not all of us are masochistic.
After seeing this film, I can no longer bear to watch the stylishly violent Hollywood pulps: they do not only seem pointless, but simply obscene! In the strong light of reality offered by Haneke, the Hollywood "perspective" on violence becomes not only boring, but downright immoral.
This is what violence really is: unpredictable, extreme, sordid, pointless, and tragically relevant. It is interesting to note that the film is hardly gory---more attention is given to violence's physical and psychological aftermath on the victims, which are sadly given little notice by Hollywood. As we can see from previous comments, the victims' powerlessness inspires violence in some, and anger (towards the director) in others. Haneke refuses to give the audience any relief---no cavalry charging against the bad guys, nor payoff for the good. That's why he's so hated by so many. But I hope that some can still see his uncompromising honesty. Haneke is the greatest realistic moralist now working in world cinema.
I have the feeling of having my hair relentlessly pulled back when the violence gets too much to watch. Who ever says that violence is just???
I feel that after this experience, I can no longer talk about violence with the glibness that so many others still try so hard to hang on to.
9 out of 10.
This is what violence really is: unpredictable, extreme, sordid, pointless, and tragically relevant. It is interesting to note that the film is hardly gory---more attention is given to violence's physical and psychological aftermath on the victims, which are sadly given little notice by Hollywood. As we can see from previous comments, the victims' powerlessness inspires violence in some, and anger (towards the director) in others. Haneke refuses to give the audience any relief---no cavalry charging against the bad guys, nor payoff for the good. That's why he's so hated by so many. But I hope that some can still see his uncompromising honesty. Haneke is the greatest realistic moralist now working in world cinema.
I have the feeling of having my hair relentlessly pulled back when the violence gets too much to watch. Who ever says that violence is just???
I feel that after this experience, I can no longer talk about violence with the glibness that so many others still try so hard to hang on to.
9 out of 10.
