thanks

Yeah, you have some html on the end of the link.

Oh yes please, looks very nice indeed.

Tone-wise, it's totally different than what one normally associates with Park Chan-Wook, but the visuals are as impeccable as always.

AWESOME. Despite not knowing Korean, really bad acting can transcend language and Rain doesn't seem as bad as some people made him out to be. Park Chan-Wook knows what he's doing.

Yeah if you live in Korea hah. Looks..completely different to what I was expecting - in a good way. Not at all stylistically eccentric..for which I'm thankful.

Confirming my worst fears, the Jeunet comparison I made earlier in connection with Park Chan-wook's last film appears not to have been without foundation. It appears as though Mr Park is becoming more and more infatuated with his visual gimmickry. Lady Vengeance was no more than Amelie for fanboys, and Cyborg looks like it'll be the Korean Amelie: kooky Tatou-ish woman; liberal doses of CGI; 'see how clever I am' virtuosity; 2-dimensional characters; condescending tonality and all -- a triumph of style over substance.

i'm not so sure i hold with the magpie theories on directors, tarantino is very open about the films he takes from - sometimes very open, sometimes perfectly quiet - and i wonder how peoples criticism of influence, sampling, copying, sourcing works across other mediums, music for example. my biggest concern with parks 'cyborg' would be the visual trickery which got in the way of 'lady vengeance' to some extent, particularly early in the film… otherwise, considering his record, why avoid this film and rick buying into a real clunker? it's park, its going to have some value either way.

To feral cat & jon pais

So Park and Tarantino are magpies??? Why cause they openly talk about the films that influence them, and because u might have seen one or two of those films suddenly u've become master critics of their work??? [everything past this point removed for being nothing more than blatant flaming. play nice.]

The flames have been doused.
Fan316, feel free to disagree with people's points as strongly as you wish but the second you veer into personal attacks you cross a line. I'm not one of those people who believes that since you don't have to actually look anybody in the eye on the internet it gives you the right to behave like an ass and I have no interest in spending my money running this site so that people can amuse themselves with pointless flame wars.

And you really might want to spend some time someplace before drawing conclusions about people ... Jon states his opinions forcefully and is not at all shy about taking up and defending positions that put himself in the minority but suggesting that he doesn't know film, particularly Korean film, is laughable in the extreme which you would know if you spent some time around the community rather than shooting your mouth off the first time you ever came here.
If you want to have a discussion you're more than welcome here. If you want to start a fight, move along. We won't miss you.

Rahat - I think your question deserves a response, since the connection between "Amelie" and "Sympathy for Lady Vengeance" might appear a little bizarre. As I think it over however, there is such an overwhelming number of similarities that a comparison between the two films doesn't seem so far-fetched after all. You mention in your post that you'll put up with the gimmickry as long as there is a reason to care about the people in Park's films, but I lost interest in Lady Vengeance long before she was even released from prison. I thought there was something condescending about the way Park would implicate the audience in her condemnable actions in much the same way that Jeunet would cast a knowing wink at the audience as Amelie got even with the grocer in his film. And it seems to me that this reprehensible cynicism informs every frame of Park's final installment of his 'vengeance' trilogy. Several of the points I already touched upon -- the style-over-substance, the virtuoso camerawork that calls attention to itself, the two-dimensional characters (reducing them to a quantifiable number of tics), and what strikes me as a mean-spiritedness concerning a good many of the characters -- I don't have the time or the energy for a full analysis -- find Park and Jeunet to be filmmakers strikingly similar in outlook. I will grant that it is too early to hand in a verdict of Cyborg based on only a clip of a few seconds. But the direction in which Mr Park has been headed since "Sympathy for Mr Vengeance" (in which, in spite of the graphic violence, he exercises a welcome amount of restraint) has been more violence and concentration on technique, all at the expense of character development. Similarly, I found Park's "Cut" to be the weakest offering in the horror omnibus "Three...Extremes", for many of the same reasons cited above, as well as a manipulativeness that becomes more apparent with each film. I realize I am in the minority concerning Park's work and, as I said in my negative review of Fukasaku's "Battles Without Honor & Humanity", if my dislike is the badge of a philistine, oh well…

You know who was a hack? Hitchcock, because all he did was manipulate the audience. If you don't want to be manipulated...don't watch movies. Basically, you're full of shit regardless of how much film knowledge you have.

Jo, der Film könnte was werden. Ich schau ihn mir auch an^^

"FUCK"
Look I said a bad word, better remove it before the children see it.