Yes I admit it, up until this very film I was a Park Chan-wook virgin... Sacrilege, some might say, but with the Tarantino fans bowing at his altar I was wary of OLDBOY and company. Good then that my first Park experience was in the theater with an audience who had no idea what they were in for, 'cause it made the film all that much more enjoyable, something it dearly needed. What, why, how? After the break.
A lot has been said of THIRST around these parts, opinions running all the colors of the rainbow. So with his latest flick rather quickly making it to American shores - due in part to Focus Features being a production partner - all stateside Park aficionados and newbies can get their Vamperic kicks still pretty fresh from its Cannes premiere.
An unusually low key Song Kang-ho plays Sang-hyeon, a priest determined to find a cure for a deadly virus which is harming mostly missionaries. He goes under the experimental knife, gets the virus, a blood transfusion and well, slowly but surely blood lust comes a calling. Park's choice to have Sang-hyeon gradually morph into a vampire was a wise one. To tie in the ways of the vampire with the sins of lust is certainly not something new, in fact it is a staple of the vampire myth, but it hasn't been explored in such a direct way for quite some time.
Meeting an old childhood friend and his family, namely the adopted daughter turned wife Tae-ju (Kim Ok-vin) brings about the necessary "hubba hubba" for Sang-hyeon, causing grief, shame and many acts of violence for willing and unwilling parties.
While a neat spin on what feels like a worn out tale, the film is woefully without a focus and drags on far too long. Most of it is entertaining - at least in its inventiveness - but Park struggles with the emotional core of his characters. It never felt like he wanted to make this movie for them, just for the ideas they represented.
He does lay the ground work for different themes and commentaries, yet gets distracted quickly. Soon realizing his folly he scrambles to put things back together, then ummm gets distracted. This is evident in the frequent tonal shifts of the picture, which are by all accounts not always a bad thing but sometimes awkwardly... *ahem* distracting; One minute a slapstick comedy, the next a typical Korean soap opera, Park's off beat, grotesque styling he is known for, does keep the film moving, but to where is the big question... By the time he decided I didn't much care and just watched the pretty pictures, and reveled in the succulent sound design.
From what I know of Park's other films, it seems as if he was born to tackle this kind of morbid story. And for the most part he does a decent job, though primarily as an assured and fearless technician.
What the film lacks in character and depth is made up for in the grand, absurdest spectacle of sex and violence it does so amply provide. And perhaps in these dog days of summer that is just enough.
Related Links
More from Thirst
- News: Park Chan-Wook's THIRST Hits DVD March 17th!
- News: 박쥐 (Thirst) is Coming to Bluray!
- Reviews: [K-FILM REVIEWS] 박쥐 (Thirst)
- Reviews: Sitges 09: THIRST Review
- Reviews: Fantasia 09 Review: THIRST
- Reviews: Fantasia 09 Review: THIRST
- Reviews: Cannes 2009: THIRST Review
- News: Park Chan-Wook Wraps Up 박쥐 (Thirst) Shoot. And He Says it Kicks Ass
- News: Hollywood Major Co-produces Park Chan-Wook's 박쥐 (Thirst)
yeah - this seems to be the general opinion of this one...
I see the connection insofar as AINT IT COOL has been connected to Tarantino and gave OLDBOY a big mainstream push back in the day, thereby creating an aestetic or cross-over that was more implied by the trumpeting source than any sense of reality (further connection to Tarantino heading up the Cannes Jury that gave Oldboy the Grand Prix that year...)
Park Chan-wook's cinema is much different, (epic? human? Darker comedy?) than Tarantinos and he favours a much more baroque choice of music. I can see some of the audience overlap, but I'd not compare the directors at all.
The reviews are disappointing and I hated I'm A Cyborg, but I"m there. In fact, the only one of Park's films I really like is Oldboy. He's talented, though.
Oh I'm not comparing Tarantino and Park as filmmakers, not in the least! They are very tonally different from what I gather; like comparing peas and carrots.
In addition to a lot of online hype from AICN etc. and the Cannes jury, my experience "out on the street" has been that I've met plenty a Tarantino fanboy who has raved about OLDBOY and sometimes LADY VENGEANCE.
Reactions from friends have been lukewarm to tepid, so I just didn't bother up until this point.
I guess the lesson learned is don't bring up Tarantino in reviews.
Tarantino fanboys are mindless sheep that watch everything with his name stamped on it. They have no idea what they're talking about.
the pro/anti tarantino war is beyond tired. all i'm saying is i would respect your reviews a lot more if they were above such nonsense. it's kind of like when you slipped "hipster wetdream" into the 500 days of summer review.
i'm all for a casual writing voice, but in my opinion, you are undermining yourself with insipid and inane jabs. or maybe i'm just an idiot for expecting more from twitch than i do chud or aicn? either way i can't wait to see thirst.
No you have a valid point. It is kind of an easy way out, and certainly insipid on my part. My reactions on both films were half hearted to say the least, and that was reflected in the way I wrote my reviews. I generally feel above such nonsense but don't pretend that I'm capable of stooping pretty low. Knee jerk reaction? Maybe.
Always expect more from Twitch, please. And if you feel I am bringing down the value of this site, I really wouldn't want that, its the last thing I'd want actually, as it is my favorite site and it is such an honor to be able to contribute.
I can say with sincerity, I appreciate the constructive criticism. It is quite helpful.
THIRST is something to see on the big screen for sure, so if you have the opportunity, by all means go!
@"or maybe i’m just an idiot for expecting more from twitch than i do chud or aicn? either way"
please continue to expect more. I believe there is a different tone at Twitch than the continuum of 'geek-websites.'
nfrsbmschmck, I agree -- not only is Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance Park's most satisfying film to date, it's also one of the best Korean films, period. And the R1 Tartan DVD is excellent.
If you're a Park Chan-wook fan do yourself a favor and forget that it's a Park film and go in, enjoy it, and reflect afterwards that it actually was a Park Chan-wook film.
Expectations destroyed Lady Vengeance for me and please don't let that happen with this film, try to delete all of them :)
enjoy.
Yeah, lady vengeance was a big let down. It was definitely, at least partially, because I was expecting another masterpiece to complete the vengeance cycle. At this point it is almost impossible to look at it and evaluate it on its own merit, but I should probably give it another watch and try. In fact, that is exactly what I'll (try) to do. Tonight!
Hrm, I liked all three of the vengeance trilogy but for different reasons. Lady Vengeance became more satisfying after repeated viewings. Oldboy left me slack jawed for a long time but it eventually losses its impact. Mr. Vengeance was simply devastating. The gravity and naturalistic style of violence makes it exhausting to watch.
Thirst I thought was fantastic. The tone lies between SFMV and SFLV. I can't say it's better at this point. Time will tell for me but after the first viewing, I felt as though I woke from an insane nightmare. I mean that in a good way. Very absorbing, cut like a stream of consciousness and some of the sequences completely thrilled me and blew my mind. Messages on morals is easy to miss so I plan on watching it again.
Speaking of a satisfying Korean film, I just watched "A Good Lawyer's Wife". No flashiness but damn it was good. I need to see more of Moon So-ri.
I saw Thirst on Friday and pretty much agree with everything the reviewer says here. There's little three-dimensionality to the characters--they exist more as concepts than anything else. So because of this, it doesn't feel like there's much at stake, and the arc of the main characters' relationship is not well defined--I just didn't care one way or another about them. The plot (if you can call it that) is vague and meandering. This was my first Park Chan-wook film, and I have to say it hasn't exactly made me excited to seek out his older work.