edchin2006

Crap. I prefer the 'Invisible Sculpture' - the lighting is better.

As cathartic as many sad stories can be, this isn't one of them. The ending is as sad as the story. What comes to mind is 'The Bicycle Thief'. Life doesn't always have a happy ending.

The beauty of the film is in how humanity is reflected in all cultures - and in this case Japanese. We can relate to the feelings and foilbles of each of the characters. Yes, the Japanese are just as human as we are.

It's entertaining - not just for the "whodunit" aspect but for the view into the Korean psyche.

We get a peek into Korean humor and gender roles. Also how hierarchy still has a strong role in daily interactions.

There is a nice balance of action and humor with enough violence to keep ones interest - although the violence is moderate and fairly toned down by Korean standards.

Story development is nicely balanced too. We are drawn into the buddy-buddy, husband-wife, and co-worker relationships. Are there clues there to help solve the crimes?

This is one of the more satisfying flicks to watch while being stuck indoors due to covid.

I like the logic of the series. Since nobody can prove that Hitler died - ergo he lives. I think he is living in plain sight. I'm sure I just saw him in New York City - it was fleeting, but the damned subway was so crowded. Just because there aren't many 126yr old Nazi's doesn't mean he isn't out there alive and kicking! His birthday is coming up soon - we might find him at a beer hall party! I would not be surprised if he were hiding in München where the famous attempted Putsch occurred. Who would ever think of looking for him there? With his characteristic looks, he could easily pass for those street impersonators who try to get tourists to pose with them for a few Euro's.

If the object of this film was to introduce a bunch of themes and not develop any of them, then it was a success. There are so many loose threads that one could give almost any interpretation as to the feelings, motives, actions, etc. of the characters.

I like the title which contributes to the mystery of the film. I cannot fathom how the title relates to the film at all - except there is a character by the name of Bi. After sitting through to the end, I am left with why, why, and more whys. The biggest why is why I held out to the very end - actually, I thought there might be some resolution or the tying up of a few threads. The ending brought another why to me. It seemed to me with the way the story progressed, the logic of the ending as it was - did not complete a story. It could have easily continued or ended at any number of earlier junctures.

Knowing the language and culture could possibly contribute to a better enjoyment of this film, but you would have a hard time convincing me of that.

The recreation of Yugoslavia of the seventies is quite convincing. I loved seeing the studio with the vintage TV cameras and monitors. (Where would anybody find props like that?) The attire was completely believable. It really felt as if the period sequences had been shot then and held in cold storage. The look and feel made me believe that was the way it was back then.

Perhaps, Slovenian/Balkan humour isn't quite the same as on this side of the Iron Curtain, and I don't know what life was like there during the Cold War, so I cannot fault the film for the lack of the touted humour. Funny, like Beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder.

All in all, if I did not not get a big dose Funny, I did get a dose of Life in the good old communist days.

The best thing I can say about this film is that there are many, many worse movies out there. Ones to which I wished I could assign a negative value. To those I would vote '1' so that I could still contribute a warning to my fellow film goer's.

My major surprise is that they have not been able to get more people to view this film and vote on it. After all, it was made two years ago. There are many venues for niche films. I recall having attended films that were touted as being the worst film of the year/decade/all-time. Some films are so bad - they're good. Many of the funniest films I've ever seen are in this category. (This is not one of them.)

I'm not sure which genre would fit 'By Miracle', but promoted properly, there should be enough people willing to view and vote - perhaps, write a brief review. So, I wouldn't be here wondering why I sat through the whole movie.

Early on Jackie figured out what he did best and gave it to a public which ate it up.

What to do now that an ageing body isn't up to the trademark stunts of his earlier movies? It seems his answer is to develop a new 'persona'. Unfortunately, it's a little beyond his range right now. But, given time and a few more roles, he may learn to act.

John Travolta and Frank Sinatra both developed into fine actors late in their careers. There was no sign of that in their earlier films.

Jackie needs to develop a new formula - not step into a formula role which is not suited to him. Otherwise, there will be more disappointments.

The premise is so unbelievable. Why would anyone who witnesses a murder not report it immediately? - Especially, when one is related to a murder investigator!?!

Even the youngest of children know to seek help when they see a threat. With a perpetrator approaching you, would you not run or hide? If seized by fear, would you not do anything when the danger is past and your nerves are calmed? Would your rational thoughts not lead you to believe that you might become a victim, too? Would you keep silent hoping everything would blow away?

What about the lost cochlea microprocessor - there must be a lot of those floating around!? We are to believe that she is so stupid as to think that she might not be identified as the one who lost the microprocessor!

Suspension of reality is necessary in many drama/action pieces, but this story really asks too much. And, all of this is in the first episode! I'm afraid after this one taste, I cannot generate the energy/endurance to watch another episode.

There are many guilty parties in the making of this 'comedy'. However, after much (not really) thought, the writer gets my nod.

A comedy does not need to make sense, but the closer a story gets to being plausible the funnier it gets. There are just too many cutesy devices to complicate the story. If the story line stayed simple, then a bunch of funny sketches would have made a satisfying film, but the attempt to make a complex story to set up funny situations really doesn't work.

Also, reworking scenes to show you didn't see what you thought you saw is a really cheesy device. Especially, if it doesn't contribute to the humour.

The KISS principle would have made this a better film.

For a film which goes from here to there and back and forth, it seems odd that it loses its way for a good 15-20 minutes.

There is a lot of appeal in a childlike view of the world. That we may be jolted back into "reality", does not diminish the charm. As the story unfolds, we are drawn into the life of a child/man or man/child. That matters not; it is fascinating - the way it is told.

Then, the tale seems to lose direction, and as interesting as the telling is, a wandering story line diminishes interest in the tale; and, it begins to drag.

The ending brings things back together again; and, but for a few aimless moments, we are brought back to a fascinating world of one person's imagination and reality.

It's not just for Sumo addicts but knowing about it adds adds to the enjoyment. Similar charming films have been made with sports as the focus which in reality have little to do with sports.

There are a great number of films which use this ploy. I recall a track and field (now known as athletics) film from the seventies that explored race relations. An excellent film 'The Harder They Fall' about boxing dealt with crime and the exploitation of fighters. Clint Eastwood's 'Million Dollar Baby' offering was about relationships. 'Men with Brooms was not just about curling'.

So, this is less about Sumo than about traditional values and the Japanese perspective of traditional values. It's a real peek into the Japanese mind, and it's told with a touch of humour. (You get to learn a bit about the great sport of Sumo, too!)

The only good thing I can say about is that it is not a horrible "Horror" film.

There are actually some interesting aspects to the movie. It has a plot! And, the plot is sort of interesting - even if we have to wait to the end of the picture for it to make any sense. It's interesting but boring because the story/plot is narrated to us. It would have been much more interesting the conventional way - letting us figure it out for ourselves. But, to think of it, lots of Sherlock Holmes films and others of that ilk have someone explain it all to us at the end.

Contrary to another opinion, I find the last half more interesting than the first. However, that is not to suggest that either is not boring. Both halves are boring! Possibly the most boring Pinku film that I have ever seen.

As a Horror flick it is, also, boring. I expected a Horror film which might be so bad that it is good - meaning comedic. Well, disappointment abounds.

This film illustrates the need for a user rating scale which goes below zero.

If one looks at the numbers, there are more than twice the number of "1" votes as there are "10" votes. 58% voted "6" or less - yet the weighted average is almost "6". Unfortunately, numbers can't reveal how really bad this film is.

Even if the budget of this loser were compared to a typical "B" movie and a cost/benefit calculation made, it still loses. Because it is that bad. I thought "Eraserhead" was bad, but this has got that beaten.

As to the numbers, I'm amazed that 22 thousand plus people managed to sit through the movie. It's a credit to the IMDb moviegoer.

A personal view into one's hang-ups doesn't make a film particularly interesting or insightful.

Who hasn't noticed the obsession with blond, blue-eyed, tall, emaciated role models? Is this something new? Also, I don't think this originated in South Africa.

The advantage of films like this is that it reminds us how possible it is for all of us to create a rant about our wet and dry dreams. With the availability of inexpensive HD 1070i video-cams, I expect to see many more "The Iridescence of Sloe-Eyed Asian Beauties" or "The Fire of Ebony".

A better than average H.K. thriller - even with the "Over the top" acting and special effects.

With the usual convoluted plot and moral high ground for the "good guys", it seemed it might be a tight squeeze to tie up all the loose ends by the end of the picture. But, in the end, everything is nicely bundled and the emotional resolution is accompanied by the satisfaction of knowing how all the principals fit together.

There may be a remake by Tarentino, but he'll be hard pressed to find a kid as cute as the one in this flick. (All the kids are cute in this one!)

It seemed a lot longer than the stated 107min run time. When it was a choice of developing the story and enhancing the flow and continuity of the movie, it lost out to the seemingly compulsive need to slip in a well worn cliché.

They didn't slouch on preserving existing stereotypes either! Mom, dad, et al. were presented as accepting and approving the role reversal in the end, but the sense was that – hey, it's a movie! It's a comedy! Mom is mom again at the very end.

It's a light-hearted film with attractive principals, but a tad too long.

Almost anything would be better than this.

Actually, I was beginning to think "How could anything be worse than this film?" However, upon reflection, I must say the sound quality was decent, the lighting was acceptable, and focus was good. In fact, overall, the technical aspects of the film was of a reasonably high professional standard.

The sets and costuming were well done to the extent that they did not detract from film. i.e. There was nothing strange that would distract the viewer from accepting that the hospital was, indeed, a hospital; nor were there any gross violations of cinematic convention.

Naturally, the bomb was disarmed seconds before detonation. If it went off, how could the picture continue without a lead? And, did you ever notice the leads (good and/or bad guys) never die from the first shot - only the bit players.

Back to the main premise - could this film be any worse? Yes, but if it were any worse, I cannot imagine anyone willing to continue watching. It's just bad enough to entice you into thinking, "It's gonna/gotta get better."

The IMDb viewers have been very generous to give this a 4+.

As one director "borrows" from another, we tend to look forward to the "spin" which is added to the final product. Even Tarrantino adds his own flair (although his earlier films were simply remakes of Hong Kong gangster fare).So, what a surprise it was to see a "spaghetti" Western with Asian actors.

Leone took a Japanese genre and transformed it into an Italian one. I expected another transformation, but got a repackaged "spaghetti Western/Eastern". Actually, it seems more like an Indiana Jones homage.

Also, the Korean word for weird must mean funny in English because there isn't any weird but some funny in this flick.

If there is one twist, it's the added group vying for the treasure. In our typical Western, we have the good guys, the bad guys, the Mexicans, and sometimes the Indians. Here, the Mexicans are the ones in uniform - although, in the beginning, a few Chinese and a few Koreans are in uniform, too. The challenge is to identify the Indians. There are two gangs of bandits. One gang speaks Korean, the other - Chinese. So, the Chinese speakers must be the Indians. It's easy, when the Korean subtitles pop-up, the speakers are either Chinese or Japanese.

A Korean Chick Flick which is a tad on the long side.

To really enjoy this film, you need to be a Teen, a female and/or interested in Korean culture. There's not much a guy might be interested in - a bit of human interest, perhaps?

I see this as something the gals would enjoy, but not something to drag the boyfriend to. It's like taking a girlfriend to your favorite football or basketball movie. Don't do it!

Still, I am impressed that so many males had such favorable comments about the movie. Perhaps, the younger generation is more in touch with their feelings.

The fact that there are more comments than votes should tell you something about the film.

No, this is not the worst film I've ever seen. Then again it is far from being mediocre - on the wrong side of mediocre. Better ways of wasting your time might be to see Eraserhead or Pink Flamingos. (These two are actually worse but have the benefit of cult status.)

You gotta think that there's gotta be a reason why the IMDb plot summary is signed Anonymous. They let anyone write comments!

If the people associated with the film aren't ashamed to have their names listed in the credits, why would a commenter hide behind Anonymous?

This will be my first comment about a film that I've not seen which, merely, puts me in the company of the other commentators.

I was curious about what sort of person (if any) might actually sit through such a movie. I'm sure Andy Warhol wouldn't. So, when I read the comment that this film was not to be watched, but looked at, I realized the true genius of Andy Warhol.

"Empire" was not made to be watched nor looked at. It was meant to be talked about... And the proof (partially verified here at IMDb) is that we are all reading, writing, and talking about this opus.

I wonder if Andy would have made a followup work "Eiffel Tower" might it be deemed too exciting compared to the tranquil "Empire"?

Did someone say boring and pretentious? Am I saying anything which has not been said before but better? How can I better state the obvious? Can I predict how foolish you'll feel after sitting through this after being warned? Until, of course, you ascribe a deeper meaning to this opus.

To do justice to the film, I watched it twice. Not that I was searching for the deeper meaning which eluded me the first time... It put me to sleep the first time.

This may be the director's private joke, or a way to thumb his nose at the critics as Picasso was wont to do. But I'd like it a whole lot better if the critics would 'fess up and say "I don't know if it's a joke, but I don't get it. See it for yourself if you don't mind sitting through something boring and pretentious."

This is certainly not the worst movie I've ever seen, but it is the most boring. If it had been shortened to the half hour it deserved, it would merely be pretentious and sophomoric.

The photography was beautiful; the B&W sequences had wonderful texture and there was a definite chiaroscuro effect. The transition to color and back again created a nice mood. The camera movement was effective and the angles as well. Too bad it was all wasted on a story which is a piece of crap.

Even decent acting couldn't save this picture. The psycho/philosophical/pseudo-intellectual babble or attempt at such was worse than reciting a telephone book - at least the latter makes no pretense at deeeep meaning.

There is an intellectual challenge to this film, though. Is it necessary to watch to the bitter end before passing judgment? My resolve to endure was bolstered by the fact that it couldn't get much worse.

If it seems slow at the beginning, gird yourself; it doesn't get any better.

There's not much to dislike in this film. Then, again - there's not much to like. So, there you have it - a solid 5!

With his directorial results, it's hard to imagine how Kevin Costner gets the backing to make the films he does - until one remembers "Dances with Wolves" (1990). So, I guess it's true that one success will pay for five failures. Unfortunately, must we endure two more attempts before investors will give up? I just hope there's no confusion with directorial vs. acting success - otherwise, we have lots of mediocrity to look forward to.

After "Unforgiven" (1992), I thought there would be a rebirth of the western genre, but Costner evidently believes in tradition. After all, how many times has "Beau Geste" been made? Or "The Three Musketeers"? Or "A Christmas Carol"?