Oldboy (2013) User Reviews (388)

Conflicted Feelings

[finnbarrett-44041 · 5/10 · 8 August 2019]

This was the first version of the film I watched as I didn't know about the Korean Original (I was just scrolling through Netflix) and on the first viewing, I just enjoyed it as a decent B movie.

However today I saw the original "Oldboy" in the cinema and I have to say, as a stand alone film this version is alright. But compared to the Korean original, it's just absolute garbage.

I'm glad I saw this version first as when I watched the original, I wasn't as shook up as I may have been with how the plot unfolds. The Korean version is in every way superior and much more dark, but this film is a much more simplified version of he story and a decent B movie if you haven't seen the original.

It's worth watching, but watch the original too.

Neither imaginative enough to stand on its own nor inspired enough as a successful remake, Spike Lee's 'reintepretation' is unlikely to find much of an appreciative audience

[moviexclusive · 6/10 · 27 November 2013]

Spike Lee's 'reimagining' of the Park Chan-Wook cult classic 'Oldboy' is a queer creature despite the notable absence of the original's iconic octopus-slurping scene. Those unfamiliar with Park's original, which itself was based on a late 1990s Japanese manga, will likely find it bizarre and even off-putting; and yet those who have seen and loved Park's 2004 Cannes Gran Prix winner are likely to dismiss this as mild and underwhelming compared to the original. But most of all, there is something distinctly Asian in the tale's themes of revenge and solitude that feel an odd and therefore unsatisfying fit for an Americanised "reinterpretation".

Yes, to call Lee's version a remake will be – if you take the filmmaker's words for it – akin to blasphemy. According to Lee, he and his writer Mark Protosevich had not sought to remake Park's movie; rather, they have returned to the manga by Garon Tsuchiya and Nobuaki Minegishi to shape a similar yet somewhat different story that keeps the essential baroque details intact. And so the setup is the same – a cold- blooded businessman is drugged and held captive in a windowless hotel room for 20 years, before being let out in a suitcase in the middle of a field.

The ever dependable character actor Josh Brolin plays the titular character named Joe Doucett, which we are introduced to as a boozy advertising executive who blows a make-or-break deal by propositioning his client's wife at the very meeting. His sentence for the next two decades while in captivity includes watching a ripped off version of 'America's Most Wanted' where he is held as the prime suspect for his ex-wife's murder, in between being fed the daily news as well as Chinese dumplings. The question upon his release is not who, but why – as 'District 9's' Sharlto Copley plainly puts to him after revealing himself very early into the movie as Joe's captor – which forms the core of the mystery behind his unusual circumstance.

Joe is aided in his subsequent quest for punishment and redemption by a bartender friend (The Sopranos' Michael Imperioli) as well as a kind- hearted social worker (Elizabeth Olsen). He has a timeline too – Copley threatens to kill his daughter in the next 48 hours if he fails to figure out his identity as well as the reason for his imprisonment. Neither should be unfamiliar to those who have seen Park's version; indeed, despite what Lee and Protosevich claim, they have only sought to vary the details from their predecessor.

So instead of an exercise in dentistry when Joe confronts the caretaker of his prison (Samuel L. Jackson), we are treated to an equally grotesque sequence where he slices bits of skin from off the man's throat. Instead of gobbling an octopus live and whole, Joe merely stares hard at the animal in a restaurant aquarium. And perhaps most significantly, Joe gets to restage the original film's iconic extended sequence where his character takes on an entire army of thugs with no more than a claw hammer and pure rage - a three and a half minute scene rehearsed for six weeks which to Lee's credit, loses none of its predecessor's visceral thrills.

Notwithstanding the distinct sense of familiarity with the proceedings, there is just something lost in translation. Park's original was the second and perhaps most famous instalment of his "Vengeance Trilogy" whose exploration of redemption and salvation was firmly set against a unique cultural context; unfortunately, the motivations for Joe's imprisonment lack that dramatic heft when yanked out of that context, especially since the inherent familial concepts make much more sense within an Asian setting. Lee also does himself little favour by undermining an otherwise grim and thoughtful story with cartoonish elements, most notably Jackson's garish performance (complete with blonde ponytail we may add) as Joe's chief jailer turned tormentor.

Thankfully, Brolin anchors the titular role with his compelling presence, built on a single-minded embrace of his character's vengeance. His transformation from self-pity to determination is a testament to his prowess as an actor, not to mention his dedication by having gained and then lost a lot of weight. Olsen provides a surprisingly warm emotional centre to the movie, especially in portraying the love angle between her character and Joe - which happens to be one of the ancillary additions Protosevich has brought to this adaptation. Copley is similarly excellent as the demented mastermind behind Joe's depravity, in particular when the two finally confront each other's demons in the operatic climax.

Yet call it what you may, but Lee's "reinterpretation" can never quite dissociate itself from Park's festival cult classic. Not only do the key elements remain similar, Lee also retains the iconic touches of the South Korean original. But beyond the graphic brutality, there is just something too culturally specific about the story's twists on revenge and redemption that defy a cross-cultural interpretation. It won't satisfy fans weaned on Park's version, nor for that matter is it likely to win over new converts with its uneven mix of fantasy and stylised naturalism. They'll be baffled, they'll be astonished, but it is unlikely if you are encountering this tale for the first time that you'll be impressed.

It was an OK movie

[jojifrey · 6/10 · 16 March 2014]

I think Brolin's act was good. And Olsen's was not bad. Samuel Jackson was entertaining enough, as well as old Moltisanti.

Then because it was a remake, I think the director wanted to make it a bit different from the original. So some main factors were changed. Like the reason the antagonist prisoned Ducett for 20 years.

And some little factors were erased. To make the length of the movie more compact. Like how obnoxious Ducett's younger version was. And how bad the treatment that the antagonist's sister had when she still lives.

Then again, there was a big cultural difference between Korea and US, and that perhaps what made the changes in the movie necessary? I dunno.

What I do know is that this movie, is not bad. So to the haters who can not be objective, they shouldn't be heard.

Better than reviewed.

[spioncap · 7/10 · 13 February 2014]

I admit, I watched this film with half a mind on the original and hence it should have been doomed before the opening credits had rolled by. Reading various other reviews, the film was never going to be a hit with the so called "connoisieur" However, once I got over my own pomposity, I was pleasantly surprised and, admittedly with a nod to the original, don't think a much better job of a remake could have been managed.

The remake is not as good a film as the original. That out of the way - as a stand alone and to the viewer who does not know about the 2003 film, this is very good viewing.

The fight scenes were entertaining. Acting good. Good pace. Story good. Basically,nothing bad. I actually thought the photography better than the original. (I also liked the nod to the original's octopus).

In summary, if you have seen the original you are always going to be judging one against the other and Korea will win. Also dismiss me as a Philistine but I don't enjoy subtitled movies as much as English speaking ones. I don't have the intellect to understand every (or indeed any) foreign film without having to miss half the cinematography reading.

If you haven't seen the original, watch this. It is good. It's just that some critics have got there heads so far up their .............!

A Remake That Will Divide The Audience

[jigsaw-91 · 6/10 · 27 November 2013]

If the original version of "Oldboy" has a perfect 10 out 10, this one has a mixed 6 out 10.

At first, I just came back from the theater and I found this movie a very poor remake if I compare it with the excellence, the complexity and power of the Asian film. That film was purely brilliance. So this new version was really promising but had the bar raising too high.

From Spike Lee we could expect a truly mesmerizing movie or a very weak one. And in this case I say that this one is not so bad as it looks like here. It's obvious that some people is apparently going too far. It's a disappointing movie, but not a bad movie. It focuses too much in blood and gory instead of the script and the complexity of the characters and situations. The ending can be a bit upsetting for some viewers.

Josh Brolin is one of the better things of this version. His performance is as good as he always do his roles. The rest of the cast is between average or good. Nothing remarkable under my watch.

So, this "Oldboy" is not a brilliant movie or a powerful remake but it's an entertaining one. It's weird and bloody. Be prepared for that.

Why?

[davidlee2014 · 3/10 · 17 June 2014]

Why would they remake a film by the master? The whole idea behind remaking films is to remake something that was maybe a good idea but had bad execution. The original Oldboy is a 10 top to bottom, story, script, action, actors, direction, why did they try to remake perfection.

Josh Brolin is good but when you start comparing him to the pain and anguish Min-Sik Choi convaed in the Korean version there is no way to compare the two. Also I like Spike Lee and some of his work but he was the wrong choice for this.

Still not sure who thought this was a good idea, it's like eating a McRib when you can have Korean BBQ, which one sounds better to you. Watch the Korean version.

the 4th question

[dromasca · 7/10 · 22 December 2022]

In one of the key scenes of this 2013 version of 'Oldboy', the Bad Guy asks the film's hero two questions. Correct answers in a limited time are conditions of his survival. Furthermore, the villain points out to him that there is one more question, one that has not been asked, that is just as critical. Well, I think one more question should be added to these three: why did Spike Lee decide to direct this remake, a decade after the Korean original directed by Park Chan-wook became the centerpiece of a successful trilogy based on theme of revenge? That was an original and mysterious film, a game of mirrors in which violence met art to make us think - at the first opportunity after catching our breath - about the absurdity of existence and futility of any attempt to put order and find meaning in the string of coincidences and mazes that is life. Yet, I find that Spike Lee's 'Oldboy' is not a bad movie. If it was not a remake of a great movie, and if the director hadn't been named Spike Lee, it probably would have been more appreciated. But the bar was already raised very high.

I have no problem with remakes, especially good ones. But here something is not working. It may be related to casting. Josh Brolin is an actor who has proven in a few other movies that he can act well, but in this 'Oldboy' he acts in the lead role (the name of the caracter is Joe Docett) as if he was acting as Steven Seagal acting as Joe Docett. The female partner is Elizabeth Olsen, beautiful and talented, perhaps the best of the cast, but she is also very at unease, the relationship between the two fails to convince (perhaps on purpose?). The most terrible performance, however, is that of South African actor Sharlto Copley, whose 'bad guy' looks straight out of an old comics book. Samuel L. Jackson also appears, perhaps because he is friends with Spike Lee, perhaps to remind us that most of the director's films deal with issues of racial inequality in America, a subject completely ignored by the script of this film.

The film's other main problem is its lack of nuance and the simplistic treatment of the theme. The mystery is missing, the constant intellectual game between the story and the viewer that was the center of interest in the original version of the film is missing. This 'Oldboy' is simply a good action movie. That's not a small thing, and fans of films of this genre, and especially those who do not pay attention to the nuances of interpretation or who prefer a plain story, where everything is explained immediately or soon after it appears on the screen, have a good chance to like this film. The rest of us will be looking for other Spike Lee movies.

Simply put, some movies should never be remade.

[nesfilmreviews · 4/10 · 28 November 2013]

Simply put, some movies should never be remade. "Oldboy" serves as a stark reminder with only a few exceptions: Americanized remakes of beloved and admired foreign films inevitably result in disappointment. For viewers unfamiliar with the history behind Spike Lee's "Oldboy," the 2013 film is a remake of the cult-classic 2003 South Korean film of the same name, directed by Chan-wook Park. The Korean masterpiece possess a highly stylized, gritty sensibility while providing an emotional depth to its characters. Iconic director Spike Lee's "Oldboy" is as a handsomely shot piece of genre entertainment, but it fails in its attempt to define itself, resulting into a completely pointless, watered-down underwhelming thriller.

An alcoholic whose life is falling apart, Joe (Josh Brolin) is far from the ideal father who is willfully neglecting his three-year-old daughter, Mia. Drugged and kidnapped one night, Joe awakens in a small room with a television, only to learn that he's been framed for the murder of his ex-wife, and will spend the next 20 years trapped in this cell where he is held as a prisoner. During the duration of his imprisonment, he trains his mind and body for escape attempts while pouring his heart out to Mia in letters. After two decades of torment, Joe is suddenly set free, seeking out an old friend Chucky (Michael Imperioli), and meeting Marie (Elizabeth Olsen), an advocate for the homeless who helps him in his cause. Hunting for the individual who locked him away, Joe spares no one as he works his way to Adrian (Sharlto Copley), a deranged man masterminding the mystery Joe and Marie are now determined to solve.

Director Spike Lee, working from a screenplay by Mark Protosevich "I Am Legend" (2007), chooses to simply rehash the plot for his American remake, and quickly rushes through the unusual and unique storyline unable to establish an emotional connection with the audience which the original film develops so well. Lee's picture clocks in at a lean 104 minutes, 16 minutes shorter than Park's "Oldboy." As a result, the storytelling is rather straightforward, and it forces Lee to rush through crucial sequences which are not given the adequate time to develop. Subtly goes by the waste side, and almost abandoned completely early into the third act in favor of expeditious explanations.

The remake remains largely faithful to the story of the 2003 effort, but seriously lacks in intensity and a sense of meaning. The original film achieves a sublime blending of ultra-violence with extreme art, while the remake feels bogged down in its copycat status, and its overall lighter tone hampers its enigmatic, disconcerting story of revenge. My advice is to avoid this altogether, pull up the original on Netflix, and deal with the subtitles America.

Surprisingly engaging Brolin pulls out all the stops

[amesmonde · 13 February 2014]

A washed up alcoholic is kidnapped and imprisoned in a single room by his unseen captors for 20 years. After finding that he has been framed for murder he sets out for revenge and vindication. And while bettering himself in the process he aims to find out why he endured his confinement.

A solid remake of the great South Korean film based on the Japanese Manga 'Oldboy' by Nobuaki Minegishi and Garon Tsuchiya. With plenty of homage's to Chan-wook Park's 2003 original Spike Lee adaptation makes some minor changes to the story some are for the better including a more fitting closing. Pacing however does feel choppy/rushed in places possibly due to studios heavy editing intervention.

Lee's offering is wonderfully filmed and acted, Samuel L. Jackson leaves an impression but Josh Brolin excels and clearly was 100 percent dedicated to the role, surprisingly executing the action scenes with surreptitiousness. The casual viewer may not find the dark humour, peculiar characters or reveal palatable. Nevertheless it equals or debatably surpasses the likes of Sixth Sense, Angel Heart, The Usual Suspects to name a few with its surprise ending. Ultimately, those who want a gritty psychological thriller with a spot of action and a fantastic twist look no further.

Possibly curious viewing for fans of Park's original but a compelling must see for viewers not familiar with the story.

History won't repeat, I mean sometime in a remake.

[Reno-Rangan · 6/10 · 12 August 2014]

One of my all time favorite world cinema is the Korean version of this movie. Remakes are okay, but some movies won't suit for recreation because of its masterpiece value, believing that won't come close for the second time. Just like Mona Lisa, Starry Night, Birth of Venus, The Last Supper and other arts, it should have left alone untouched. Like Japanese did, because it was their story after all. This American version was good, but very much commercialized with the fast pace approach kind of ruined. If I had not seen the original, probably I would have liked it. I knew the twist so I did not get the excitements in those parts. So those who are not familiar with the 2003 movie can definitely have a good time.

It was not a copycat from frame to frame, many things were altered in this movie. The most laughable was to see gangsters fighting with knives, hammers and bare-hand like the Korean style. What I know in American gangster theme is that they take a gun and bang bang. The first poster where Josh Brolin comes out of the large wooden box was kind of funny, gives the impression of a comedy movie. I liked Josh Brolin in 'Labor Day' and yet again he was not bad in this film except if you compare him with his counterpart from the Korean movie, Choi Min Shik. It is one of the best role he has ever played, sadly the movie was not received well due to many other reasons than him.

Not a movie but an insult to the original

[king-kahuna · 1/10 · 28 November 2013]

THIS WILL BE A SPOILER FREE REVIEW! (Except for the ending, but don't mind, i will warn you)

First of all, excuse me for my writing, i'm not a native English speaker.

So, i got the "chance" to see the oldboy remake yesterday in a sneak preview. I left the cinema shaking of anger, and i wasn't the only one. Maybe my rating of 1 is a bit to harsh, maybe i would have given it a 3 if i didn't know the original, but i did, and i had to compare the 2. And in that comparison the movie is just an insult.

The original was incredible poetic (especially in its visuals and its dialogue)and had an incredible good script. The characters were super plausible and likable. In the remake everything that was special about the original got lost.

The poetic overall tone from the original is absolutely lost and got replaced by pure clichés. So there's nothing to win on the aesthetic side The plot twists where also changed from the original, but here is the big problem: They don't work!! The characters are totally unlikeable and their relationship feels so incredible forced and constructed. The final twist is so incredibly dumb because the motivation of the bad guy to do the things he does just doesn't seem to be anywhere near realistic (and is a shame if you know why the original "villain" did the things he does). I will explain this later, but i have to spoil the hell out of it to do so.

Another thing that made this movie bad where the action scenes. Some of them were pretty brutal and seemed a bit out of place. But the worst are the scenes that they took from the original (if you know the original i think you can guess which one i mean). I couldn't get rid of the feeling that they wanted to satisfy the fans from the original by "adding" classic scenes, but they just do it way worse. Especially the one legendary scene from the original feels so brutally out of place. They forced it to be there cause they thought it HAD to be there.

So, if you don't know the original movie, just go watch this one instead, even as a standalone film oldboy isn't good cause it builds on relationship and charactermotivations that totally felt forced and driven by clichés.

If you're a fan of the original avoid this movie at any costs cause it will only make you angry... i even shouted a loud "F*** YOU!!!" to the screen and got applause for it. Trust me, its healthier for your blood pressure to not watch this movie.

And now some little extra explanations with BIG SPOILERS!!!

He knows about his daughter the whole time!! He sees a TV-show about his case where they interview his daughter, so he knows how she looks. But once he is released they tell him that they captured his daughter so his biggest motivation is to find his daughter (they only tell him if he can explain why they imprisoned him)!! So his major motivation is to find his daughter and not just to solve the puzzle!! Well, not my kind of change (i don't know... it kinda felt pretty cliché the villain really felt like a bad villain, while in the original he was just one mysterious, but kinda human, guy), but okay why not. At least i wanted to know the ending, so there was a reason not to leave the cinema.

Now the twist: The TV Show was staged and the woman he fell in love with during his revenge was actually his daughter. Not a bad change, but the real problem is that NO ONE is actually interested in their love! The whole story point that they fell in love with each other was so incredibly bad executed!! It just felt like the biggest cliché of the movie, they absolutely wanted a love story in the movie (cause hey... there must be a love story in every movie, must it?!). But it absolutely doesn't feel real!! So just nobody seemed interested in that plot twist!!! And why did they do this? Cause the whole family of the villain got raped by their father! And Josh Brolin saw how his sister had sex... he didn't even knew that this was her father. He just told a few people that she had sex!! And then the father decided to kill the whole family... WHY?!!! No one knew that it was her father... no one could knew!!! So the villain is not the loving brother from the original, its a sick guy that got raped and now want josh brolin to feel the love he felt!!! REALLY?!!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!!!! In the original the whole thing was an incredibly sad story build around a small fault with a big impact the main character did once... And the whole story felt human and realistic! And now we have a dehumanized psychopath with weird motivation that forces us into a final plot twist we are absolutely not interested in!!

This is not a remake, this is a disrespecting insult to the original. I hope that people will not associate oldboy with this movie and will instead go watch the original

Way Better Than Expected

[octopusquid · 8/10 · 11 March 2014]

As a big fan of the original "Oldboy" (not in the sense that I boycotted this movie and own six copies of the original), I watched Spike Lee's version with a bit of a closed mind. I've never been a fan of American remakes of classic foreign films, and was a bit confused that this version came out only ten years after the original. But I wanted to give it a try, since Lee's film portfolio had some good entries in it (I also enjoyed 'Inside Man').

Needless to say, I thought this was a great retelling. Brolin's portrayal as the protagonist was convincing, and I couldn't help but feel terrible for him and the torture he was put through. The action is well done, and there is a realistic progression of events, although the 'identifying the villain in the yearbook' part was kind of unconvincing to me. Elizabeth Olson was pretty good in her role as Marie Sebastian, and Sharlto Copley did fantastic as the villain. Another complaint I had was that the villain in the original was tough and unrelenting while the antagonist in this version was a little weaker, both physically and emotionally in comparison. But maybe that's what makes this version a little more original.

It was intense when it needed to be, it was heartbreaking when it was supposed to be, and overall, I was left with a satisfying experience that I would be more than glad to expose my friends to in the future.

I recommend it.

An enjoyable movie!

[JunkyardHounds · 7/10 · 11 February 2014]

I had very low expectations about this remake, i usually hate remakes specially when they are unnecessary due to the great quality of the source material but with that said, i must say that i was surprised to find that Spike Lee did a very good job and the result is a gory enjoyable movie that respects and pays several homages to the original. Although it isn't a masterpiece it's one of the best remakes i have seen and one that may be easier for non-Asian audiences to watch therefore letting people who aren't fans of Asian movies enjoy an amazing plot with only a few changes.

I enjoyed it and recommend it.

Unnecessary Remake

[xdisturbedx-1 · 2/10 · 27 November 2013]

Even though i went in to the movie pretending i was watching an entirely original movie, this remake was awful. The plot was ALMOST the same but he changed things that shouldn't have changed but kept small things exactly the same. The ending was a "fairy tale" type ending to please the audience. SHarlto i usually love his acting but in this movie he was almost like a cartoon character villain. Lee also overemphasizes the blood and gore. The fight scenes almost look all way too choreographed. Overall the plot changed made the movie less believable for me and ending definitely was a way of "satisfying" the audience.

Unnecessary?...... Maybe Not

[lucas-scott-rodriguez · 7/10 · 13 February 2014]

The sad truth of the matter is that the majority of mainstream America does not watch foreign film - bummer I know. Because in my experience, it is foreign films that generally have the most captivating stories and scenarios.

OldBoy is a film I watched many years ago, and it left me with so many feelings. Of those feelings was of course shock at the ending, and sadness with the state of which the main character was left in. It was a film that I wanted others to watch, but due to having to read subtitles or sit through a less than stellar English voice over - few did.

Fast forward and here we are with a remake that gives an entire new audience the opportunity to witness this narrative. The acting is solid, it's filmed well, and its extremely close to the original. How is this a bad thing when viewed holistically?

I would be so bold to say that I preferred Joe's ending in this film over the original. Remakes will rarely be as "magical" as the originals, but they sometimes offer an alternate take on a well liked story for us that are familiar - and a brand new experience for those that do not care to see the original or are unaware of its existence.

If you have never seen the original - watch this film. If you have - give it a watch.... or not :)

An Underrated, Amercanized Remake

[jesse-reinhard · 7/10 · 18 February 2014]

I was so disappointed with the original Oldboy's plot twist that I could hardly appreciate the movie. So I couldn't wait to see the remake to see how it would be handled, and was satisfied with the results. I give the new Oldboy a 7.5/10.

There are several things that I missed from the original Oldboy. "You laugh, the world laughs with you. You cry, and you cry alone", this quote was a reoccurring theme in the original, and while I didn't understand its full meaning, its absence in the remake was noticeable. Joe's transition back into society wasn't as dramatic as the original. The original Oldboy's behavior was much more animal like, his first interactions with people was more dynamic, and his narration let us know more what he was thinking. And finally the remake was at times poorly paced; for instance, Joe is trying to find the person who locked him up and jumps to trying to find the restaurant where the takeout came from.

The fight scene in the original Oldboy, in my opinion was over-hyped. I'll admit it was unique in that you see wide shot of the hallway while Oldboy fights his way through, but it wasn't engaging at all. You get more immersed in the fight scene of the remake. It is definitely an Amercanized version of the original which one could take as good or bad.

The villain was so much better in the remake. The original villain blamed Oldboy for his sister's death, which was the villain's fault and could have been prevented. The original was so absurd (such as a device that could stop his heart), the new villain was upfront and wasn't nearly as nonsensical. And where the original villain was motivated to show Oldboy's sins were bigger than his own, the new villain was motivated by defending his family's honor, which Joe had indirectly ruined.

I was a little surprised (and confused) by the remakes ending. I find it a little hard to believe that Chaney would even agree to see Joe again without killing him. And the audience is supposed to be sympathetic to the hero, so we don't want to see him being locked back up like he was at the beginning. But it is better than the original's ending which required Oldboy to be hypnotized so he could live his life guilt free.

Weak, Safe, and Uninteresting

[utgard14 · 4/10 · 1 March 2014]

Remakes are generally a bad idea. The percentage of remakes that are equal to or better than the original is probably less than 1%. However, English-language remakes of foreign films (or vice-versa I suppose) are a slightly different story. The percentage is still low, but maybe not quite as low. Anyway, all of this is to say that while I was skeptical of an Oldboy remake, I was not 100% against it. The benefit that a remake of a foreign film has over a regular remake is that you are pretty much forced to make things different, at least a little, simply by virtue of different tastes and filmmaking styles between cultures. That's a good thing, in theory, because all of the good remakes I can think of changed things from the original. The cookie cutter shot-for-shot remakes are the worst. Oldboy (2013) is, unfortunately, not a good remake.

In some ways the movie smartly avoids trying to copy some things from the original that would not fit with an American version. There's no hypnosis, no guy cutting his own tongue off, and no octopus scene. It's when the movie tries to copy its Korean roots that it fails most. I'm speaking particularly of the comedy and action portions, which feature Josh Brolin trying to mimic Choi Min-sik with embarrassing results. Obviously the biggest problem is that the twist that the first movie relied so heavily on is going to be spoiled for a large portion of the audience that will even want to see this one. Worse, this remake seems to telegraph the twist in ways the original didn't. I watched the movie with friends who hadn't seen the original and they all figured out the twist and none were particularly shocked by it. Finally, it ends with the type of bizarre "happy" ending that plays to the worst stereotypes of Hollywood filmmaking.

Josh Brolin was probably a weak choice to play the lead. He's not awful but just very unimpressive. Sharlto Copley, however, is terrible. Absolutely horrid. Yoo Ji-Tae was so good in the original film. He gave a sympathetic performance that actually made you feel for his character, even when you're being repulsed by his actions. In contrast, Copley is a completely unsympathetic foppish cartoon villain. To make matters worse, Samuel L. Jackson also appears in the movie in a villainous role and, of course, his huge personality makes Copley appear all the more underwhelming. The only real bright spot in the cast is Elizabeth Olsen, who continues to impress and is definitely headed for bigger things than this. Spike Lee's direction is workmanlike and uninspired. The less said about it the better. Yes it's a poor remake but, more importantly, it's a poor film altogether.

Great performance by Josh and Samuel

[kingkaleemkhan · 7/10 · 1 March 2014]

Rating this movie below 7 will be injustice. Although the idea is not original but it doesn't pretend to be original and Josh Brolin did a great job. Even if you have watched the Korean version before, you will still enjoy this movie and that is what movies are all about.... entertainment.

You will love every scene of Samuel Jackson. Samuel has a unique way of swearing in the entire Hollywood and you will love that in every movie.

Technology is changing and telling an old story in a new way is not a bad thing. People always want to see the remake of an old hit.

I will give 7.5 to this movie.

Should of been called "How to solve all your problems with Apple products"

[robertparry14 · 4/10 · 7 December 2013]

Went to see the Oldboy remake last night, although a more apt name would have been "How to solve all your problems with Apple products".

Product placement was horrific. He just gets out, doesn't know technology so the female lead was like "ohh we find stuff out on this device called a mac book, let me show you the inner workings of it. Are you getting all this camera and folks at home??"

He remembers the restaurant he ate at had a Dragon in the title "Oh we can just use this app here on my iPhone to find all the restaurants in the area with Dragon in it. Are you getting this camera while I go on apple maps and scroll down the list" *camera is over their shoulder showing everything*

He knows that song that keeps playing but can't remember where it's from "oh there's an app that lets you play a song and it tells you what it is. Here let me show you and the people at home how to find it on your iphone" *literally holding the phone up to the camera*

EVERYTHING they needed to find out, they either ran to a Mac or used their iPhones. Not to mention the 8000 phone calls made each with a lingering shot so you first get the apple on the back and then see the caller picture ID picture then a shot of them swiping to answer it. I honestly half expected him to be swinging a Mac around instead of a hammer in the hallway scene.

And Sharlto Copley was just dreadful as the guy who set it all up. Totally hammed it up. His British accent didn't sound cockney like Dick van Dyke but it was as over the top and bad. It was just a sh!t, hugely inferior, dumbed down remake. Meh.

I liked it

[carts_andy · 7/10 · 18 February 2014]

I have not seen the 2003 Korean (original) film - part of the Vengeance Trilogy. So from a non biased point of view i loved it. A few dodgy Chinese fight scenes but apart from that it kept me engrossed.

Now i have seen this version I have no desire to sit through a whole subtitled version. I just hope we keep ripping off the odd Asian and foreign film's and make them watchable for the masses.

When will there be an English speaking REC 1 2 and 3?

1000 word minimum? that's where this site has also got it wrong there is really no need to have such a large review, i could have written WATCH IT in the first line

Even as a stand alone....it doesn't work.

[alphonsosmart-773-362799 · 4/10 · 27 November 2013]

Woody acting and product placement ruined this movie for me. i'm not sure how he did it, but spike lee even manged to make 20 years in captivity feel rushed and uneventful. to elaborate further, there was ZERO character development, everything felt pushed along, including the 20 years in the room. he was just a pitiful alcoholic for YEARS, then "EPIPHANY", a five minute montage of getting clean and getting in shape annnnd he's out. there was no passion to it, there was no empathy that you get from the original, you don't feel sorry for him. he's just a sociopath on a revenge spree. although, i think the big ending twist was done well, the overall movie was a snooze fest. they even managed to make a pivotal scene, the hallway fight, BORING and pushed along.

everything the main character is, is because of that room, his life, his persona, his transformation, and his realizations. it had no heart. the subtlety and nuances of the original are just lacking. like i said, you you don't care about the characters, you're just waiting to see what happens next...and what made it even worse, is that i KNOW what's going to happen next, but dammit, i wanted my money's worth.

People hate when a classic is remade, but this one is great!

[suws1 · 8/10 · 14 February 2014]

Oldboy is a remake or reimagination of the 2003 korean movie Oldeuboi. This new version has been badgered by both critics and viewers as a poor, shallow remake, that soils the memory of the original. I disagree. This one was great. The premise is the same as Oldeuboi, a man gets impriosoned for 20 years without knowing why, and when he gets out he seeks out vengeance. But its not that linear. The story is filled with mysteries, and keeps making the viewer asking questions, the same questions as the protagonist, despite him not being the most likable man. Why was he impriosioned, who did it, why was he released? Also the story is dark, twisted and leaves a bad taste in your mouth. A great story, a great mystery. The acting was very good, Josh Brolin does a very nice job, as does Sharlto Copley as the main antagonist. But the movie isn't without flaws. In my opinion the 20 years feel a little bit fast-paced, and don't feel like 20 years but maybe as 20 months. And some product placement was unnecessary. But overall great movie, unworthy of all the hate it has received. On a personal note, I have watched the original, and I liked this one very much. Everyone is comparing this one with the original, and I think that's a mistake. This is a new movie, a new take on the same premise, it has some homages to the original, and that's it. The original was brilliant, but it wasn't without flaw, and neither is this one.If you hate when someone makes a remake of a cult classic you love and you're not open to a new vision on that movie, stay away from this one. If you just love movies, and if you want to watch a great remake, a great reimagination, I think you will enjoy this very much.

Was it horrible, no. Was it great or even necessary if you've seen the original? No

[Ashman711711 · 6/10 · 12 March 2014]

while not really a fan of Spike Lee, I will admit to enjoying this film. that being said, does it measure up to the Korean remake from the Chan- wook Park revenge trilogy? probably not.

technically by itself it's an interesting film, Josh Brolin does a good job of making you not like him early on as is intended by his character, Olsen I think does have quite a future on the Indie circuit in future film. The problem stems from those who have seen the original and know what's up. So the Big Reveal at the end of the film is not all that surprising nor shocking to us. other issues i think are 1. the big fight scene in the warehouse. though decently executed, a bit unrealistic given Brolin's stiffness throughout the choreagraphy of the fight. Second would be the Man who locked him in the room for 2 decades. It was unnecessarily twisted, as the original wasn't a bit twisted. yet this version takes it waaaay over the top on the why part. even though a twisted character, I'd say Copley plays it rather well, he oozes with creepiness in this role and you do wonder what his next move would be condsidering he shows lack of morality and boundaries in his quest for revenge- all in all- not a great remake but not a horrible movie by itself. (am more worried over Lady Vengeance remake)

Steaming pile of human excrement

[julius-redding · 1/10 · 29 June 2014]

Spike Lee should be ashamed of himself. This movie took an amazing concept, script and an already amazing film, and took a big dump right on top.

Not that I'm all that surprised, Spike Lee has been churning out sh*t movies for the last 20 years. As pretentious as this cat speaks, I would hope that he would at least make an interesting movie once a decade. It's been awhile Spike. Just sayin. We all loved the 90s from you homey, but you have been turning dookie out for too long!

Go to the original source (goes without saying), and while you're at it, watch all of Park Chan Wook's films, he's an amazing filmmaker, unlike this once original voice turned hack.

I don't get why people are so critical of this movie

[pcrawake · 7/10 · 11 February 2014]

The original 'oldboy' was the greatest movie ever made! It had no imperfections, it was heaven delivered...was it really?

If I was going to be honest, Min-sik Choi made that movie. Min-sik's performance was dominant, he embodied the role and put out the emotion and attitude to express perfectly what the protagonist was going through.

The remake stars Josh Brolin, directed by the legendary Spike Lee, featuring the beautiful Elizabeth Olsen. Could you really ask for more. The movie didn't deviate all that much from the original.

Sure, the fight scenes weren't as good as the original's and the plot was altered a bit, but I thought it was a relatively tight movie, with a script that was basically delivered from the original.

Being rated a 4.9, to me it is obvious people are just bagging on it because it has been judged 'bad' not because it really is. I've seen movies that were plain average rated at 6, so what is really pulling this one down to a 4.9?

Well, I do know why, it is because there was really no reason to remake this movie. The first one was, though not perfect, a masterpiece. It was good enough to make 'Americans' who are against subtitles and most 'foreign' movies take the time to watch. It left us impressed.

We do that, us Americans, take something, re-brand it, call it ours.

As much as I am against remakes in general, if you watched this movie, having never watched the original, it is still an enjoyable experience. If you watched the first one and spend the whole time comparing both, asking why, well, you aren't going to like it that much.

Elizabeth Olsen and Josh Brolin performed well. Spike Lee directed it with a few of his 'style' touches, but kept the focus on the story rather than the cinema for the most part.

It was not great, but it certainly wasn't bad. Put it like this, if you saw the original and you have no desire to rewatch it, there is no reason to watch this one. If you want to see a new take on the movie, if you never saw the first one, give it a shot.