aylwardpaul

One Spring Night (aka Bombam) Vs Something In The Rain

Anyone who has seen both these series will recognise that they are two peas from the same pod. They have same director, and writer, similar soundtracks, and many of the same cast, albeit playing different characters in a different story.

In my opinion they are both romantic masterpieces, and should satisfy anyone that loves British period romances, because although they are set in the present, the oppressive nature of Korean society affords these series a subtlety that is similar in tone to Jane Austen.

Each series is slowly (but perfectly) paced, with realistic characters and relationships.

A minor flaw in both series is the repetition in the dealings with the ex-partners (Perhaps ex-partners are actually this persistent in Korea).

SITR is further marred by the overbearing character of the mother, which seems just too over the top (Not the actress' fault who by the way is superb playing a completely different mum in OSN), and by the slightly muddled last two episodes.

However both series have wonderful acting, sympathetic protagonists that you will love, and numerous subtle and realistic romantic set pieces.

So which series is better?

SITR has a faster paced first half, with some of the most enchanting romantic scenes ever as the relationship between the two leads develops.

However SITR somewhat messes up its ending, with events in the last two episodes seeming a bit out of character, and only redeemed by a rushed last 10 minutes. The script definitely needed some more work here.

SITR features a more glamourous lead character, played by actress Son Ye-Jin. In contrast Han Ji-Min (who is just as beautiful in other series) is clearly meant to be playing a more dowdy, introverted character in OSN.

Both lead actresses are very good in their roles, playing characters with completely different personalities (One is soft, one is tough), although I think Han Ji-Min has better acting chops.

While the various romantic exchanges between the lead couples are terrific in both series, OSN is greatly enhanced by the numerous additional scenes with the couple's respective friends and family, which serve to offer a sort of running commentary of the story's events. The dialogue with the friends is particularly good, and often amusing.

I felt that most of the greatest scenes in SITR are in the first half, whereas there are great scenes scattered throughout OSN.

OSN is more consistent and realistic, has a better second half, and a perfect resolution.

Upon repeat viewing of both series (multiple times), I definitely prefer OSN. I think that the creators of OSN made a concious effort to fix the errors that they made in its predecessor SITR.

However it is well worth seeing both series...multiple times if you are a true romantic.

I am yet to see any western made, present day drama/romance series as touching as these.

Liked this a lot.

The plot involves an assassin who is targeted by his employer after he messes up his latest hit, and how he goes about seeking retribution.

This is a smart Assassin film, with a meticulous protagonist, and no over-the-top action scenes.

This film is a kindred spirit to 2010's "The American" starring George Clooney.

Michael Fassbender's character is not unlike the assassin in 2009's "The International".

The film includes an ongoing voice-over narration by Fassbender that outlines his thoughts and philosophies.

It's not action packed, but the action when it happens is very professionally done.

You'll like this if you liked either of the other two films mentioned above.

This series is a compendium of stories about a group of friends and acquaintances living in a seaside town on Jeju Island.

The stories weave in and out of each other, each taking a turn at prominence.

While the whole series is well acted, well made, and well intentioned, I found that only about half of the stories are really worthwhile.

I have given the 7 stories descriptive titles, and ranked them below based on interest and impact from best to worst (in my opinion):

1) The Expecting Teenagers - The young actors playing the central couple are so engaging, with their characters reflecting maturity beyond their years, while also not losing sight of the fact that they are still schoolkids. Meanwhile the feuding parents provide a lot of amusement.

2) The Captain & The Mystery Girlfriend - Han Ji-Min is such an amazing and enchanting actress, she carries this story.

3) The Two Best Friends - This is the shortest of the stories and is both riveting and amusing at the same time. The two confrontations toward the end are extremely well done.

4) The "Abandoned" Child - Some nice drama here.

5) The Peddler & His Depressive Love Interest - Can be a slog at times, but the male lead (Lee Byung-Hun) keeps it interesting.

6) The Gold Digger - I found the male lead too unlikable. The female lead (Lee Jung-Eun) is excellent.

7) Mother & Son - The story goes on way too long and in my opinion has a very unsatisfactory resolution. I also don't like its message which basically says respect your parents no matter how undeserving they are.

If a romantic drama series is going to conclude with an unresolved ending that leaves it up to the viewer to decide whether the couple end up together or not, then the journey toward that ending has to be sufficiently rewarding. I don't think that it is in this case.

The series is very well acted, and has a good ensemble cast, however i found the scriptwriting very disappointing.

This series would have us believe that nearly every Korean lives with their head in the sand, and is unable to carry on a frank conversation, even when they are in private.

I found the main relationship to be unrealistic, with the primary couple failing at every opportunity to behave in a normal human manner.

They appear to prefer talking in riddles, than hashing out their situation like regular people would.

In fact the only main character that seemed to behave in a rational manner was So Kyung Pil, who was too often portrayed as the villain for only being honest to himself and others.

When i compare the writing here to two of my favourite Korean romantic dramas - One Spring Night (Bombam), and Something In The Rain - i find that it pales in comparison.

It is at least better than My Liberation Diary, which meandered along and went nowhere, but not by much.

Despite my frustration with the actions and decisions of the characters, I watched it all the way through in the hope that I would at least be rewarded with a satisfactory ending. Alas i was again disappointed. It is possible to conclude a romantic story successfully with an open ending - watch My Mister for a prime example - however The Interest Of Love fails in that department too, due to the inferior writing.

In the end I felt that my time could have been better invested elsewhere, and am still craving to find another Korean romantic drama of the standard of the aforementioned three series.

I generally love espionage films, but found this to be underwhelming.

I have not done any historical research to see how accurately it depicts the true events, but would assume that the makers have stayed true to the facts, because if they didn't this should have been a much more exciting film.

While it is well acted and reasonably well produced, it just fails to achieve the standard set by recent efforts such as Bridge Of Spies or Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.

I would have rated this a 6 were it not a true story because I understand that there are some constraints when trying to be true to the events, however the story could have remained accurate but been enlivened in many ways, such as by using a better script, adding some directing style, generating a more authentic feel, and detailed appearance, and by perhaps depicting events from additional perspectives.

I guess it's worth watching for those interested in the history, or those who are Benedict Cumberbatch fans, but it's not the sort of film that one would ever consider viewing more than once.

This is a highly enjoyable series in part.

The story follows a husband in an unhappy marriage with two young children, who accepts an opportunity to go back in time and redo his life by NOT meeting his wife. Of course, this leads to him learning some important life lessons.

It takes a couple of episodes to set the scene, but it is worthwhile persisting because it really hits its stride thereafter, and is extremely entertaining until the primary plot climaxes in episode 12.

Unfortunately thereafter it appears that the writers didn't have a clear plan for where to take the story next, so it just meanders along for the final 4 episodes to a pleasant but wholly unsatisfactory conclusion.

The ensemble cast is uniformly terrific, particularly the lead actress.

This could have been rated a 9 or even a 10 if only the writers were smarter, and had executed those last 4 episodes correctly.

The film Mystery Road and its sequel Goldstone are two of the greatest films to come out of Australia. Probably my favourites alongside the Mad Max franchise.

They come off as modern westerns, and would probably appeal to fans of Taylor Sheridan's work.

Both films follow indigenous detective Jay Swan (played very effectively by Aaron Pederson) as he investigates sinister crimes in a menacing but beautiful looking outback, aided immensely by some magnificent cinematography.

The stories are intentionally slowly paced, but each leads to an exciting climax.

The screenplays of both films have a subtle touch, which adds to the pleasure as Jay interacts with the various other characters.

Goldstone is the better of the two, with some terrific scenes between Pederson's Jay and other cast members played by Jacki Weaver, David Wenham, and Kate Beahan.

As for the subsequent two TV series, Season 1 maintains the quality of the two films in both the beautiful cinematography and subtle drama. However season 2 is a sharp drop in form, turning the series into a standard tv policer with stupid writing and plot developments.

The director of season 2 appeared to have no appreciation for the previous strengths of the series.

There is also a prequel TV series that I am reluctant to see given the diminished quality of the last season, and the fact that it contains a new cast, absent Aaron Pederson.

For A Few Dollars More is my favourite out of Sergio Leone's Dollars Trilogy, ahead of The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly, and A Fistfull Of Dollars.

Clint Eastwood plays the lethally skilled Man With No Name throughout the trilogy, although it should be noted that, despite his similar appearance and skills, he actually plays a different character with a different name (Joe, Monco, Blondie) in each film.

While all three films are similar, "More" is my favourite because "Fistfull" is a bit rough around the edges, and "Ugly" is a bit bloated.

"More" also has the marvelously entertaining scene where Eastwoods bounty hunter attempts to intimidate Lee Van Cleef's bounty hunter in the street. This was as close to comedy as Leone ever got.

All three films have great music scores, although I am partial to "More"s over the others.

With the Dollars Trilogy, Sergio Leone created a new style of western, set in a nihilistic and violent world where speed and accuracy with a gun means everything, and love and compassion rarely exist. This style further evolved with Sam Peckinpah (The Wild Bunch) who amped up the violence, but also brought the heart back.

Leone went on to refine the Dollars Trilogy and create his best film - Once Upon A Time In The West - but the Dollars Trilogy (and in particular For A Few Dollars More) is still entertaining today largely thanks to the highly stylised shootouts.

This had the makings of a good film, with a refreshing view of a royal/commoner romance, and a likable cast.

It felt a little bit like the UK TV series Sex Education, except there's no comedy.

Unfortunately there are substantial flaws.

The romance commenced too quickly, and everything in the story seemed rushed. The conclusion left unresolved story arcs aplenty (i.e. The queen, the princess, Lena's unrevealed history, the mystery uploader) as if this is part one of a dilogy or trilogy. However I am not aware of any impending sequels.

I still enjoyed it until the unsatisfactory ending.

Has the look of a spaghetti western, but doesn't play like one.

Clint Eastwood plays an American Civil War veteran who has contracted as a mercenary with the locals in the Franco-Mexican War circa 1866-67. He becomes saddled with a nun (Shirley MacLean) along his journey, and they become reliant upon one another.

It is more like a war film than a western, culminating in a large battle at a French fort.

There is enjoyment in watching Eastwood and MacLean bounce off each other.

It has some nice set piece scenes at a trestle bridge and the aforementioned fort.

Do not go in expecting the regular Sergio Leone style shootouts or you may be disappointed.

Gets points for originality and general entertainment value.

Clint Eastwood's most acclaimed western, Unforgiven is not his best (That honour goes to The Outlaw Josey Wales), but it is very well made, and features a ripping climax.

Be warned that the film operates at an intentionally slow pace as it fleshes out its characters, but this helps to increase the impact of the ending.

This is no good guys vs bad guys story. Every individual is flawed, with Eastwood's William Munny being the most flawed of all.

The cast is top shelf, featuring Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, Richard Harris and others, and everyone turns in excellent performances.

The film is a relatively small scale production, but has an authentic feel, helped substantially by a well written script.

Don't watch this if you are seeking an exciting action packed western. This is more of a slow building drama with an explosive and cathartic final act.

In that respect, it's comparable perhaps to Shane, or subsequent westerns (which may have been influenced by it) such as Open Range and Old Henry.

I find this film immensely disappointing.

It is not the worst Clint Eastwood western (That award goes to Hang Em High), but it lacks in so many areas.

Everyone in it is so unlikable. I get that this may be the point, but it leaves viewers with no-one to root for.

Also in many cases, characters do not act naturally or make realistic decisions.

There is not enough action, and the climactic fight, along with most of what precedes it is unexciting.

I find the whole film to be a conceit.

I am not against the idea of making a western with supernatural elements, but it could have been executed much better than this. The makers seemed to have had the basic idea of "ghost of wronged man comes to town to get revenge" and not bothered to flesh it out properly.

Eastwood took this story idea and used it again in the superior Pale Rider, which leads me to believe that perhaps he too was disappointed in the final product and wanted a second try. Unfortunately he failed again as Pale Rider is also a deeply flawed film.

High Plains Drifter needs a more fleshed out story, a better script, better developed characters, a creepier atmosphere, and a more exciting and satisfying conclusion.

This, along with High Plains Drifter, has got to be the weakest of the Clint Eastwood westerns.

The opening sequence is terrific, but thereafter it becomes very average.

The film is very episodic, and just not exciting enough

The shootouts are uninspiring, the bulk of the film appears to be shot on standard studio backlots, and it doesn't have that gritty feel of authenticity.

Watch the first 20 mins then move on to something better.

In my opinion this is Clint Eastwood's best western and best directing effort.

It is the story of Josey Wales, who refuses to surrender to the Union at the conclusion of the American Civil War, and becomes a fugitive.

It is superior to the more acclaimed Unforgiven because of its more even pace.

It has numerous exciting and enjoyable action set pieces, and is entertaining even in the quieter moments.

All of the shootouts are well done, stylish, and memorable, from the smaller confrontations with the hillbillies, Indian traders, and bounty hunters, to the larger exchanges with the soldiers on main street, the comancheros, and the redlegs at the ranch.

It tempers the myth making of the main character by giving him a dose of humanity and humility.

The idea of saddling him with a ragtag bunch of characters, including a fey girlfriend is clever.

The cast includes a bunch of Eastwood film regulars, and the acting is solid.

The film plays out like an episodic journey, moving from location to location, and it always looks suitably gritty.

Interestingly my two favourite scenes are non-violent, and quite touching, being the confrontation with Chief TenBears, and the closing scene between Josey and his old friend, played by John Vernon.

This speaks very highly of the script, which contains a clutch of amusing and memorable lines, and I think is superior to any of Clint's other westerns.

I have read that John Wayne and Eastwood never made a western together because Wayne objected to the negative depiction of human values in Eastwood films, particularly after the release of High Plains Drifter. He might have changed his mind had he seen Josey Wales.

This is a great film, and I think deserves more acclaim than it receives.

A beautiful looking, very well produced Clint Eastwood western, Pale Rider is also unfortunately a rather stupid film.

It is a remake of the classic western Shane, laced with a large dose of Eastwood's own High Plains Drifter.

It would have been a decent remake of Shane (at least in a physical sense) if they had dispensed with the Drifter elements altogether, which only serve to strain the credibility.

The script is erratic, being good in parts (i.e the negotiation in the office) but generally ridiculous.

Why doesn't anyone ask the preacher's name?

The cast and acting is fine for the most part.

The shootouts are contrived, and prolonged, and would have been better if they had either gone for realism (like Tombstone, Unforgiven, or Open Range), or for speed (like Sergio Leone westerns).

Ultimately we are left with a somewhat unsatisfying product, that is only redeemed by the photography, sets and scenery.

In 1971-1972, Burt Lancaster nearing 60 years old, made three absolute classic westerns - Ulzana's Raid, Valdez Is Coming, and Lawman.

All three films provide terrific action, but also explore themes beyond simple shoot-em-up fare.

Burt is excellent in all three.

Ulzana's Raid follows a troop of cavalry as they endeavour to capture or destroy a small band of Apache, lead by chief Ulzana, who have jumped their reservation to relive the glory days of rape and pillage.

The action is very good, and at times brutal, however the pace is steady rather than exciting, as the film is more concerned with what goes on in the minds of the characters, rather than jumping from one action scene to the next.

The troop is lead by a young and inexperienced (but not stupid) captain, played by Bruce Davison, and guided by a highly experienced tracker (Lancaster) and his Apache companion (Jorge Luke). All characters (not just the three mentioned) are extremely well developed and acted.

The Apache are portrayed as clever, brutal, and honorable. There is no hiding of the brutal acts that they perform, but at the same time you are given an understanding of their mindset. The film also surprisingly depicts a native American as the real hero.

The chase pans out like a game of chess, where each side tries to outwit the other.

The film is very insightful. The effort with which it explains the Apache ways reminded me of the 70's film The Yakuza (One of my favourites), which made a similar attempt to explain Japanese and Yakuza culture to viewers.

The film is modestly budgeted, but this does not detract from one's viewing pleasure. There is an exciting climactic battle, but i find that the game of wits leading up to the battle is of more interest.

This is a great film for those willing to give it the time and respect it deserves.

If you see and enjoy Ulzana's Raid be sure to also check out the other two films mentioned above. I rate all three well above Leone's Man With No Name trilogy, and also ahead of a lot of classic and more generally highly regarded westerns of the 40's, 50's and 60's.

Its difficult to rank these three films, but if I was forced I'd say Ulzana was the best, followed by Valdez, and then Lawman, however all three are great.

This is predictable and cliche like most romance films, but it has Likable characters, good chemistry between the leads, and a decent script and production.

Its probably better than Crazy Rich Asians, which is a recent comparison.

It kept me entertained to the end.

I'm a Taylor Sheridan fan of sorts.

That is to say that I think extremely highly of his 2015-2017 run of Sicario, Hell Or High Water, and Wind River. However since then his work has been somewhat spotty, and while1883 is probably the best of his post 2017 work it does not escape this moniker.

The story follows a wagon train as it attempts to make its way from Ft Worth Texas through to Oregon.

It looks amazing. The physical appearance of the towns, people, and landscape is terrific.

It gets off to a great start, with the first 3 or 4 episodes setting up a great story, with plenty of entertaining action. And unlike other reviewers, the voice-over narration does not bother me at all.

The issues come thereafter, when the focus shifts entirely onto the daughter, at the expense of developing any other characters and stories.

The interactions with the native-Americans come across as less than authentic, being too easy, and with them too often able to conveniently speak perfect English.

Characters played by guest stars Tom Hanks, Billy Bob Thornton, Rita Wilson, and Graham Greene seem superfluous. The character Charlie (played by Sheridan himself) pops up out of nowhere, with no clear backstory, and sticks around for a couple of episodes for no apparent reason, and then leaves just as quickly.

Then as we get to the last couple of episodes the series begins to drag and eventually fizzles out.

As a spin-off of Yellowstone, it initially seems like it is going to be much better than its predecessor, but in the end it disappoints in a way that Yellowstone does not, probably because of the higher bar it sets at the beginning.

Ultimately 1883 comes across as "Lonesome Dove Light". It is certainly far inferior to Deadwood.

Also, given the events depicted in the show, in aid of historical accuracy, it probably should have been called 1873.

That being said, it is still a reasonable achievement, and should be embraced by those starved for decent western films in this day and age.

I'm a Downton Abbey fan, having seen all of the series, specials and films, and I must say that I found this latest instalment pleasant but underwhelming.

It is more like a standard Downton episode (albeit longer), than a theatrical film, and it certainly is not worth forking out hard earned money to view at the cinema.

Having said that, any new Downton instalment is like a warm blanket. One knows what to expect when going in. It's just that this instalment seemed to lack as much drama and urgency as the previous film.

More could have been made of the French locations. Aside from an aerial shot of some cars driving by the coast, the scenes at the villa could just as likely have been set at an estate down the road from Downton Abbey. There was no real continental feel to any of the French scenes, and the opportunity seemed wasted.

The events concerning the filming of a movie at the house, and the evolution to "talkies" was of far more interest, but again I think that there were missed opportunities for more drama here.

What is left is a pleasant but unexceptional experience, with no real surprises or heartwrenching scenes.

Enjoy it for what it is, but don't expect too much.

This is very much a mood piece, and you have to be in the right mood to appreciate its substantial virtues.

It was being sold as a comedy-drama when I first saw it at the cinema, and it's fair to say that I was underwhelmed. I went in not knowing what to expect, and I guess that I was in an upbeat and restless mood, and looking for a rollicking comedy, which this is definitely NOT. It has very little plot, and the comedy is extremely subtle.

However I have watched this film many times since then (Usually at night and alone) and I now consider it a masterpiece.

The story about two lost souls meeting and connecting in an alien environment is so rich in character development and detail, and so realistically portrayed, that it's hard not to relate to the two main characters and their thoughts and feelings.

The performances of Scarlett Johannson and Bill Murray are probably the best work from each of them. They both play smart witty introverts, and this is probably the film's target audience.

The atmosphere is richly conveyed, with many lovely subtle details reflecting Tokyo at night, and the soundtrack is perfect, consisting of a carefully chosen mix of dream pop and noise rock. Listening to The Jesus And Mary Chain's classic "Just Like Honey" play out during the final scene is incredibly uplifting.

In fact if you're a fan of bands My Bloody Valentine, Air, or J&MC, then you'll really appreciate this film. As will people who have experienced Tokyo first hand, or those who enjoy watching very subtle romance films.

Terrible adaptation.

These Woke productions are self destroying.

They are as off-putting as the early Hollywood productions that we no longer want to watch, where members of ethnic groups were portrayed by whites.

What is the point of making a film nowadays that commits the same offence as these obsolete films, and in doing so alienates a large percentage of its target audience?

The film (and others like it) will either sink into oblivion, or (perhaps through weight of numbers) sweep history under the rug. Surely the latter isn't the aim, given one learns from the mistakes of the past.

This film is further ruined by having the main character continuously break the fourth wall.

Stay away.

Interesting film about new recruits going through basic training before being shipped off to Vietnam circa 1970.

Private Bozz (Played confidently by Colin Farrell) is a distant cousin to Private Pruitt (From Here To Eternity) and Private Pitt (The Thin Red Line) - a staunch individualist, who can soldier with the best of them.

However, like Pitt, he sees no point in war, and is determined to maintain his humanity.

He is a born leader who is unfazed by anything that the military throws at him, holds his platoon together through his own strength of will, and uses his barracks-lawyer smarts to get those that can't cope out.

His is a fascinating character and maintains one's interest in a film that is otherwise not that much different from other military training movies.

I recommend this for those viewers who like Colin Farrell, or who enjoyed the characters of Pruitt and Pitt in those other war films.

This is a quality contemporary Korean romantic drama about the relationship between two co-workers consisting of a younger man and slightly older woman. Really, the difference in age is hardly an issue, but she is his senior at work, which means they must use some discretion.

This series doesn't quite reach the highs of similar series like Something In The Rain or One Spring Night, but it probably maintains a more consistent pace than both, and makes for pleasant viewing.

It wisely includes additional stories involving three other couples formed by the secondary characters in order to maintain the interest, and thankfully flashbacks are kept to a minimum.

As you'd expect from a romantic KDrama, the cast are nearly all attractive, and the acting is fine.

It distinguishes itself from the KDrama pack (like the two aforementioned series) by making all characters seem sympathetic and real. There are no goodies and baddies (except perhaps the grandfather).

This is well worth a watch if you liked other KDramas such as My Mister, Encounter, or the other two series mentioned above.

Gattaca is set in a not too distant future where most couples select a cocktail of their best genes when having a child, and those that are born naturally are treated as second class citizens and destined for a life of custodial jobs at best.

Trying to navigate his way through this world is Vincent (Ethan Hawke), a natural birth who wants to travel to space, but knows that he'll never qualify, and hence engages in fraud by switching identities with a down-on-his-luck Jerome (Jude Law), who is a genetic birth that is wheelchair-bound following an accident.

Vincent uses this scheme to join Gattaca, a space academy, but things become complicated when an official at the academy is murdered and Vincent's dna is discovered on site.

Gattaca is a great film with many things going for it. Most important is its look, which is sterile 60"s sci-fi chic (picture The Thunderbirds).

Everybody dresses well and walks around like they have a stick up their butt. The 2011 film In Time stole many ideas from Gattaca.

It's well acted, with the cast all playing it extremely cool, except Ernest Borgnine who plays a natural birth cleaner. Alan Arkin puts in a nice performance as the assistant police investigator.

The screenplay is subtle, and clever, and provides some nice surprises

All of these things add up to form what I consider to be the perfect film for those viewers that enjoy smart sci-fi.

If you liked 2001: A Space Odyssey, Code 46, Equilibrium, Minority Report, or the aforementioned In Time, then you should love Gattaca.

El Cid is possibly the best of the pre-CGI large scale historical epics.

It is certainly in the same conversation as Ben Hur, Spartacus, The Seven Samurai, and Lawrence Of Arabia.

Charlton Heston plays El Cid, the Spanish hero of the middle-ages who fought both with and against the Moors, for the greater good of Spain.

Heston was born to play these roles and provides another fine larger than life performance.

He is well supported by Sophia Loren as both his love interest and sworn enemy.

Historical films these days are expected to make an effort toward authenticity in look, costume, customs etc (Woke productions aside), But El-Cid made a decent fist of this back in 1959.

Effort has been made to target a mature audience, with a sensible screenplay.

The action is good, and the physical appearance of the film is impressive.

All up it's great entertainment.