Thankfully, I was given a chance to view this film at the closed preview just a day before the opening in Seoul. So with free tickets, along with free drinks and popcorn which was provided by the distributor of the film, I was in a very happy state when the viewing started, which fell much to dismay at the end of the film.
By the way, I said 'thankfully' because I did not had to spend a dime for the ticket. Still, I am regretful that I wasted my good 2 hours for... for this piece.
I do not want to give away spoilers for those who want to watch this awful film, but I can simply narrow it down to one thing; entertainment characteristics of the films.
Whenever we go to a movie theater to see a certain film such as this, we visit not expecting to watch a historical document film, but expecting a nice 'fictional' plot, of course being based on the historical events.
The movies, after all, are always fictional. As much as it tries to depict the history much close to exact facts as possible, it is nevertheless, fictional lines and fictional stories which were re- created for viewer's pleasure.
After the preview finished, there was a Q&A session with the director Mr. Seung-wan Ryoo. One of the audience asked the director whether this film is bound to be criticized for creating much of the 'fictional story' instead of accurately following the exact turn of events.
But... films being fiction, is the biggest premise that all the audience agree on. For watching well made historical films such as 'Braveheart', 'Saving Private Ryan', 'Titanic', 'Das Boot' and so forth... I don't ever recall people criticizing these films for being too fictitious. '300' was absurdly fictitious as well, but was quite well received by the viewers. Quite entertaining too.
So, when the audience asks the director, whether this film to be criticized for being 'too fictitious', I think he meant to say he was not mesmerized with the story-line, at all.
That's it for this film. Not entertaining at all. If you want to destroy the actual history, you should at least try to make it fun & pleasing as possible.
Director pointed out when he recalled the actual history of Battleship Island, his imagination unraveled beyond limitation. I believe that's where the problem lies. Getting carried away by one's imagination too much.
Additionally, one audience pointed out this film being quite similar to Bollywood made history movies if we forget dancing on the Bollywood films, and much of violence on this film. Most of Bollywood history films (Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of them, big love for Khans), while completely ignoring the actual turn of events, there is a one a bright shining (Good looking as well) hero who saves the day for all, or die-trying, very dramatically.
But even I love Bollywood movies, I didn't expected to watch "Special Bollywood edition Korean film" with additional blood-lust.
By the way, I said 'thankfully' because I did not had to spend a dime for the ticket. Still, I am regretful that I wasted my good 2 hours for... for this piece.
I do not want to give away spoilers for those who want to watch this awful film, but I can simply narrow it down to one thing; entertainment characteristics of the films.
Whenever we go to a movie theater to see a certain film such as this, we visit not expecting to watch a historical document film, but expecting a nice 'fictional' plot, of course being based on the historical events.
The movies, after all, are always fictional. As much as it tries to depict the history much close to exact facts as possible, it is nevertheless, fictional lines and fictional stories which were re- created for viewer's pleasure.
After the preview finished, there was a Q&A session with the director Mr. Seung-wan Ryoo. One of the audience asked the director whether this film is bound to be criticized for creating much of the 'fictional story' instead of accurately following the exact turn of events.
But... films being fiction, is the biggest premise that all the audience agree on. For watching well made historical films such as 'Braveheart', 'Saving Private Ryan', 'Titanic', 'Das Boot' and so forth... I don't ever recall people criticizing these films for being too fictitious. '300' was absurdly fictitious as well, but was quite well received by the viewers. Quite entertaining too.
So, when the audience asks the director, whether this film to be criticized for being 'too fictitious', I think he meant to say he was not mesmerized with the story-line, at all.
That's it for this film. Not entertaining at all. If you want to destroy the actual history, you should at least try to make it fun & pleasing as possible.
Director pointed out when he recalled the actual history of Battleship Island, his imagination unraveled beyond limitation. I believe that's where the problem lies. Getting carried away by one's imagination too much.
Additionally, one audience pointed out this film being quite similar to Bollywood made history movies if we forget dancing on the Bollywood films, and much of violence on this film. Most of Bollywood history films (Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of them, big love for Khans), while completely ignoring the actual turn of events, there is a one a bright shining (Good looking as well) hero who saves the day for all, or die-trying, very dramatically.
But even I love Bollywood movies, I didn't expected to watch "Special Bollywood edition Korean film" with additional blood-lust.