Mark Kermode reviews Oldboy
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 12. 2013
- Mark Kermode reviews Oldboy. Spike Lee remake of Chan-wook Park's 2003 hit about an advertising executive who is kidnapped and imprisoned for 20 years in solitary confinement. When he's inexplicably released he seeks vengeance and answers.
Please tell us what you think of the film -- or Mark's review of the film below. We love to include your views on the show every Friday.
www.bbc.co.uk/5live
Fridays at 2pm on BBC 5 live. - Krátké a kreslené filmy
"Oddly toothless"
and he's talking about Oldboy I get it. I hope that pun was deliberate!
As Kermode said with the "Let the right One in" remake. If you're not up to watching a movie with subtitles, you're not up to watching a movie like this.
I find unbelievable that people can't read subtitles. Is not rocket science
I used to work in a cinema and you'd be dismayed how many people will walk out of a film once they discover that there are subtitles. I remember well the man who demanded to know when we would be showing the 'dubbed' version of Apocalypto (as he refused to watch it with subtitles). He became extremely angry and called me a liar when I tried to explain why it wouldn't be dubbed.
I don't like looking back and forth between the subtitles and the actors
That's a american thing man, because they are used to everything made by them, the resto of the world that don't talk english don't have that.
@@hubblebublumbubwub5215 But you don't though, As the movie goes on your brain gets accustomed to it and you can subconsciously pay attention to the imagery and the captions at the same time, It's like how you don't constantly feel the clothes your wearing in your body at all times, You just get accustomed to the feeling of wearing them you forget they're there
@ That's different because you don't have actively try to not feel your clothes. The human eye physically can't focus on two things at once. It can see stuff around the thing you're focussing on but not in detail.
Remaking Oldboy makes as much sense as remaking Fight Club - there is absolutely no need for it, it was masterfully executed, it wasn't old or outdated and THE ONLY reason they dared remake it was because it wasn't in English, which is .. not exactly offensive, but it is in a way saying 'not-English is a flaw', since nothing else was significantly changed.
Same thing with Let The Right One in or Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.
But at least Fincher left his style over it and made it his own book adaptation.
The Park Chan-wook original is arguably my favorite foreign film of all time, so when I first saw this trailer, I was 60% apprehensive and 40% interested. The original is a masterpiece because it's beautiful, sad, thought-provoking, and has a slightly ambiguous ending. This, however, changes what it shouldn't and keeps what ends up making it slightly awkward as an American film. There are small plot changes that are actually more graphic, and needlessly at that, but they also make the film shallower. There were people in my audience laughing because it was so odd at times, but that really isn't anyone's fault; cultural differences elicit different reactions, and this will definitely not work for the mainstream. If they did want the film to play better for others, then they should have revised the script. This version, even standing as itself without it being a remake, feels empty and woefully unnecessary. It just doesn't work at times. The main example is the recreation of the legendary hallway fight scene, which here feels suddenly cartoony and tongue in cheek, like something out of Kick-Ass. The ending and its reveal are skimmed over and changed a bit, making it seem more tasteless since it isn't handled as well, and just cementing its forgettable nature. The original's visual style and symbolism are lost, and there are little thrills, no great characters, and no good dialogue. 5.6/10, lame, two thumbs down, below average, etc.
well said. so tired of pointless remakes
"Incestuous"? SPOILERS, MARK.
MagnificentFiend Also, toothless, haha
Trouble is, most (not all, but most) remakes are pretty redundant, especially with their prevalence these days, and this one certainly is. So, so many people have seen the original and love it so much, they wouldn't even bother with the new version. It's also a mistake to asume that these days, people won't put up with subtitles; I don't know anyone who hasn't seen the original. The fact that the original is #80 on the IMDB's Top 250 is testemant to just how popular it is, subtitles or not.
I disagree, for years I am singing the praises of Oldboy and a lot of Korean cinema to my family and friends. Some have seen it and thought WoW others are just not willing to watch a subtitled film, none, even if it is only partly in a different language and partly subbed.
I think the reason with some of them is, a subbed film is all engaging you have to watch it all and can't turn away, you require a higher level of concentration with them. You will find they don't love cinema as much. As they are truly missing out on some of the worlds greatest film masterpieces.
I have no problem with remakes, but to what I hear this is not a remake, so I have an issue with calling it Oldboy, as this would ruin the reputation and esteem of the brilliant original.
If they won't watch a film with subtitles, all you have to do is pry their teeth out with a hammer until they agree to it.
I disagree too, there are perfectly good reasons to remake a film, for instance:
-The original had a good premise but was either poorly executed or didn't reach it's full potential
-The original is dated and just isn't as effective any more
-There's some kind of cultural barrier that prevents it from fully reaching it's audience on a personal level
I mean I can watch foreign films perfectly fine so the last one isn't too huge for me, but there's definitely been a few instances in which I just couldn't relate to a film because I'm not part of it's culture and the barrier was too prominent. So with the average audience in mind, I image there are plenty of people who WANT to watch great foreign films such as Old Boy, but just find them too inaccessible.
Unfortunately this remake didn't actually change any of the blatant cultural influences, so it's probably still just as alienating to those people.
This is exactly how I imagined he would review Spike Lee's Oldboy! :-D
I remember when Film4 showed Park Chan-Wook's version on Christmas Day or so ...
Just watched it on Netflix. Yep, what he said. If you’ve seen the original... don’t bother. If you haven’t seen the original... you’re missing out.
USA: The country where foreign movies get remade because people can't read fast enough..
100% correct, americans are so damn lazy
I think that's such a big generalization on your part, you could say that about any country that re-makes a film not in its native language. India (the Bollywood film industry particularly) is notorious for it, they re-made Oldboy in 2006 and countless other films. Japan remade Unforgiven in 2013, should we say the same for them? I say it as a cultural interpretation, updated for its countries audience, pointless yes, but there you go. So if you want to see Oldboy with song and dance sequences track down the Indian re-make.
pathofoblivion I don't understand your point.. Yes Bollywood does the same thing. Do you want to compare Hollywood with Bollywood? If so be my guest but that doesn't make things any better for US..
Remakes show inability to watch a movie made by a different culture as well as laziness. Hollywood can do better than this. It has done so in the past and people like you that accept the remakes and the endless galore of stale ideas just make things worse and harder to change.
Nikos A I like seeing different countries interpertations of a source text. I am saying though that should we also say that Indian people are too lazy to watch subtilted films as well? Or any country that re-makes films
pathofoblivion Yes of course, any country that recycles ideas instead of creating something original has a lazy mind set and people that accept it are lazy.also..
Many people can't cope with original concepts. They need familiar ones. This is true when it comes to remakes, true when it comes to dubbs and also true when it comes to filming a certain way (the new starwars film is a very good example of keeping a movie familiar and unoriginal).
US audience is not used to the original old boy's long cuts , general insanity and odd language so hollywood remade it as a more straight forward action oriented flick.
I would suggest to check the original if you haven't already and try to notice the differences. It is the same movie but focus on what is missing and how things are filmed..
Surely if it's purely been remade to attract people who don't want to read subtitles, why wouldn't they just watch a dubbed version of the original?
there is a dubbed version of the original, I wouldn't watch it, I do prefer subtitles. but there is a little bit more in making this film than just that one issue. I disagree that the film is entirely "toothless." there is some good things going on here. Brolin gives an excellent performance, and his imprisonment is handled well. I think the problem is that, that's where Spike Lee thought the story's real meat was, so to speak. he didn't realize just how carefully constructed the original was, and that practically no other version of the climax would likely be as strong.
Mark Bush To be fair, dubs almost never work...it's hard for me to understand not being able to deal with subtitles because it's just so natural for me. I notice them for maybe two or three minutes and after that they literally become unnoticeable, they're something on the screen that I absorb just like the color of a sets wall would be absorbed but it's completely subconsciously. It simply ends up where I'm hearing the original dialogue but the subtitles kind of bypass it and it's almost as though I'm "hearing" or perceiving the english. That being said, if someone does have trouble with them for whatever reason, dubbing almost universally seems clumsy and feels out of place in all but the most rare of occasions. It takes many people out of the movie much more than the subtitles do.
*shrug* it really sucks for hose people because I've really almost never found an english remake of a foreign film that matches the quality of the original. MAybe the rare one in a thousand, but in 99% of cases you take a movie that's brilliant and it winds up with a, perhaps passable, but inferior copy. I'd suggest for those people just suck it up and watch the subs for as many movies as possible until it begins to feel natural or just avoid foreign cinema/remakes altogether...
If you don’t want to read subtitles u probably don’t want to see old boy ! Enough said !! Kermode at his best
I agree with everything apart from Sharlto Copley doing Richard O'Brien, he isn't doing Richard O'Brien, he's doing Derren Brown.
When I listen to a song cover I need it to either be better than the original, or significantly different to the original. Spike Lee's old boy was neither
Who’s here after the High and Low announcement?
It didn't even make the cinema here in the uk, Sky box office are showing OLDBOY/SPIKE LEE MOVIE as of 07.04.14. - So it must be bad, it's not even on Blu-ray in England
Thoroughly agree with this, It only served to annoy me, as a lover of the original this shambolic remake felt as though it had been made for somebody with attention deficit disorder, it was one of the least enjoyable films that I have seen this year.
"you have to do something special in order to make the remake justified" Guess Spike Lee thought Elizabeth Olsen will be special enough.
i think remakes should only really be for films that previously weren't very good. My favourite remake is David Cronenbergs the fly. It is much much much better than the original, fixing upon the lack of emotional connection with the scientist and improving upon the surreal and brilliant real-ness to the design of the fly
***** See, I disagree...putting aside the obvious stuff (just the sheer improvement in the technology of special effects and such for example which is true just universally all around for anything) those films both work for me albeit on different levels. The original is a Vincent Price masterpiece, it's beautifully over the top in that classic sci-fi manner. The image of the scientist in the web screaming "help meee! help meeee!" is synonymous with the genre now. Cronenberg's version is just as seminal but turns it from a camp masterpiece to something of a true tragedy in the Greek sense. If I said I liked either one "more" I'd honestly be lying, I just like them differently.
***** Totally agree with this statement. The Fly is also one of my favourite remakes due to the connection with fear of the flesh and such that Cronenberg is known so well for.
Remakes that are made of beloved movies that are well written, well directed and well recieved are never, NEVER a good idea. This is why the new Ghostbusters will fail on so many levels due to it being totally unwanted. Even if it is a reboot lol.
Completely ruined a masterpiece. From the colour palate to the score. To set design and direction, incredible acting, so many wonderful themes and references. It could never have stood up to the original. Park chan wook needs to be recognised for this film even more I think. The theme of mirrors throughout representing a fractured mind and an almost Jekyll and Hyde. To oh dae su's name directly referencing Oedipus who blinded himself after he learnt a truth he was seeking and oh dae su cutting out his tongue. Woo Jin trying make dae su understand he loved his sister inspite of what people said is his master plan not just revenge. One of my favorite films ever and to me it would be like trying to re create citizen Kane or the wizard of oz
I have no desire to see this remake. Spike is a very good director but lately he has lost his edge. There was no reason (and money is not a good reason) to remake this film, The original served it's purpose. If you can't read subtitle or just too lazy to do so, then don't watch foreign language films.
Yeah, saw the 2003 Film and enjoyed it. Thought the half hour of the remake was a bit pointless and couldn't watch the whole thing. What surprised me though was the original was a Japanese Manga Novel 1996-98 and an English reprint 2006-7 neither of which I'll ever read. There will be people who have seen all four formats, others a number between nought and three and none of them care what I think.
Simon Mayo is so funny and he really adds so much to Mark's reviews. I just wish Mark would have told him what was in the clip so that Simon could have done it for us. That would have been so funny, I mean, who honestly wants the time assigned to Mark to talk about films actually given to Mark to talk about films when you can have such funny jokes as Simon Mayo doing impressions of film clips?
Hey maybe Spike could remake Battle Royale now while he's at it!
Oh wait.
No.
we have the first hunger games for that though...
bodacioused1 Seriously...the instant thought I had when I heard about that as a book series and people were describing the plot was "isn't this pretty well a complete Battle Royale ripoff?
There is nothing new under the sun. Everything gets remade at some point people.
I wont bother then!
Remakes of asian cinema should be banned. Even the Departed was not needed . Infernal affairs can stand on its own. And for us subtitle readers, have the luxury of the 2nd and third movies which are equally as good. Next i bet they make lady vengeance remake.
Thanks for making that point - I agree. The Departed was heavy-handed, obvious and frequently unnecessarily foul, whereas the original had an easy grace to it, though I thought the soundtrack was pretty intrusive.
textthing you got to admit infernal affairs sound track is pretty epic . even though they do play it a lot ;)
textthing you got to admit infernal affairs sound track is pretty epic . even though they do play it a lot ;)
Is it a shot by shot remake? If so, that would be good. If it's not a total remake, what is it? You're not really clear in your review!
I thought he was pretty clear.
It's a remake for the sake for those that don't like subtitles that's not nearly as well done as the original, probably on the account of lazy directing.
***** When he says that the new movie makes the plot holes of the original even more apparent, it suggests that it's not at all a shot by shot remake (as the plot holes would be pretty much the same). Note that the one image we have is a much younger man emerging from a trunk in a field instead of a middle-age man on a rooftop. Is it the same or not?
Plot holes becoming more apparent are results of lazy directing, poor story telling on Lee's behalf. Like he says there's no magic like there was in Chan's original quasi-mythical film. That would entail that it's less art house and more of a conventional US flick. It's probably not a shot by shot remake because of the radically different director but from what he says you could extract that it's more or less the same story but streamlined for a more mainstream audience, thus killing the original's magic.
Why would you want a shot by shot remake anyway?
Nope, its what people call a "soulless" remake;) The moment they chose "spike lee" to remake this film, it was in trouble, about as bad as picking Zach Snyder or Michael bay, in any of those cases none of them would have a grasp on the tone or visuals necessary to make it justified.
Why would a shot-for-shot remake be good? I didn't work when Gus Van Sant did Pasycho and it wouldn't work for anything else. You might as well see the original instead of seeing someone do an impression of the original.
While the original is a true classic, I was rather hoping this english remake would stand on its own, Going on this review, Such a pity..!
When are someone going to tell Mark that suit is way too big for him?
This pretty much how I predicted Kermode would review Spike Lee's take on Oldboy. I had no real desire to see it, just some mild interest to see if it was going to be any different from the excellent original. Ahhh well, nevermind. Try coming up with more original ideas Hollywood, stop catering for the Illiterate and dumbed down.
I think english language remakes of popular films can work well, I loved Let Me In, and I had really high hopes for Oldboy. Shame that it is such a disappointment
Let Me In was a rare example of a remake done well, but it was ultimately a pointless exercise seeing as the original did the job well in the first place and only came out a few years before...if it ain't broke...
I dunno, Let Me In seemed pointless. Less character dept and more vampire stuff, and no subtitles. Then again the original is one of my favourite films ever so naturally it's something I will be highly critical of.
Ben Keeler Break it!
Kermode is right - toothless. I thought it was hugely inferior.
Incestuous! Spoilers!
Didn't need to exist.
What a stupid movie to remake in the first place
The film’s well casted, well acted & visually stylish, however the film’s poorly written, poorly directed & is an unfocused US remake. (38%) (2/5 stars) (mixed)
"old boy quickly". Quickly?
A western auteur tackling a (horrorish) genre film by an eastern auteur? This is what classic Kermode reviews are made of. Please don't skim over stuff like this.
Please spend more time on stuff like this and less on Free Birds and lectures on why misogyny and the French are the worst ever.
ragnare i agree. Poor editorial decision to skip over this movie and even omit the planned clip. Should have been at least a 5 min review.
Spike lee annoying af.
Spike Lee is a ridiculously bad director.
The Mayonnaise guy is so bad.
How DARE you!