MovieChat Forums > Taegukgi hwinallimyeo (2004) Discussion > The most CLICHE pafrt of the movie

The most CLICHE pafrt of the movie

posted 18 years ago by pinobeppe
26 replies | jump to latest

**warning: spoilers**

Here is the most CLICHE part of the movie.

So obviously it is time for the older brother to die. OK.
Since he is our hero (a worthy man) and he is about to get killed, then he HAS to kill 200 subhuman enemies, in an heroic climax.

We the public would NEVER accept that such a man dies without proving his worth, and naturally a worthy person is defined as someone capable of and willing to kill at least 200 subhuman enemies before being taken out. We all know this.

You see this is slow motion, and say. "Oh no, his kill rate is going crazy!", and we conclude "so he is really going to die this time!"

Victim after victim the subhumans get killed (no, they don't suffer, they have no family, no sweetheart is waiting for them back home; seemingly they dutifully approve their death). As soon as the total 200 kills (required by Hollywood rules) are piled us, our HERO can get his well deserved rest.

I wonder if I will ever see a war movie that is able to bypass this cliche.

If any war-movie director is reading: PLEASE, not everyone here would judge a person a pussy unworthy wimp just because, when his turn comes, he kills only 199 fellas before going! PLEASE! PLEASE!

[–] l-orton 18 years ago

You bore me to tears you gobshiiiite

[–] Dantès 18 years ago

What's a pafrt?

[–] Duke_In_Boots 18 years ago

Uhh... did you actually watch the movie, or did you just skip to that part? And if the latter is the case, did you actually *watch* that part, or did you just try to count up how many guys got wasted? Did you bother to pay attention to how well done the scene was compared to your average stupid last stand bit that gets thrown into the end of an action movie for no good reason? Did you stop to realize how actually *possible* that was, or that that may actually happen in *real life* (and if you want, yes, I can give actual examples of such things happening FROM THAT VERY WAR)? Not to mention that fact that he had already killed his way through a sea of so-called 'subhuman faceless enemies' in the preceeding two hours of the movie, so he hardly had to prove himself heroically at the end, he was doing it to save his brother's life, not so he could die like a hero. That's not what the movie was about. That's not what any of it was about, you fool.

And what do you mean you wonder if you'll ever see a war movie where that doesn't happen? How about Platoon? Or Saving Private Ryan? Or Band of Brothers? Or Apocalypse Now? Or Gallipoli? Or Patton? Or nearly every other good war movie ever made in the history of film, you pathetic waste of flesh?

Sorry if I was too harsh with that. You can only read so many unbelievably dumb comments on this website before you snap.

[–] daedalus1337 18 years ago

"As soon as the total 200 kills (required by Hollywood rules)"

So why are those kills present in this film? Being Korean, somehow I doubt it was governed by 'Hollywood rules'.

[–] pinobeppe 18 years ago

daedalus1337 said:
> Being Korean, somehow I doubt it was governed by 'Hollywood rules'.

It was, and this saddens me. The authors of this movie wanted it to be Hollywood style. Well, they tried to be somewhat "out of the schema", but not up to the point to break the golden "200 kills before main character goes" Hollywood rule. Too bad.

heir_oberst said : "blah blah you are dumb etc"

I probably should know better than accepting the troll bait, but I have to insist: the final massacre is just unjustified. As you say, there was no need to show the military proficiency of the soon-to-be-dead hero. As you say, that is not at all what the movie is about. So it is exactly that: a hardly believable, totally unjustified, out of place massacre, that ruins the movie, and its message. "Unjustified", that is, except for the need to obey the "200 kills" rule. An "average stupid last stand bit that gets thrown into the end of an action movie for no good reason", using your very fitting words. It could have been avoided, but apparently cliches are just too hard to dismiss. Which is a pity.

I freely admit that the scene presents outstanding quality, but that's is not the point of course. I wish such talent was used for better purposes.

[–] pinobeppe 18 years ago

Oh, I forgot to mention:

heir_oberst also said:

> And what do you mean you wonder if you'll ever see a war movie where that
> doesn't happen? How about Platoon? Or Saving Private Ryan? ... etc

That is the point, see? That cliche is present in all the movies I can remember, including the quoted ones. Its seems that it does not matter how open-minded, anti-war-oriented the director is: whenever a sufficiently important and good-sided character is gonna go, it must be in a sea of enemy blood. In Saving Private Ryan, for example (it has been a while but I thing I remember this scene), when is the turn of the talented sniper to go, he snipes away faceless Germans in an unbelievable number and rate as his final good-by to the public (again, as a spectator you record that his kill factor is going crazy, and so you know he is next).

While it is possible to argue that each of these scenes is "believable" to a point, it is very far fetched, misplaced and misleading. The concept seems to be that, since your death is so bitter and unfair, then you are at least taking dozen of enemies with you.

There is simply not enough people for dozens to be killed just to emphasize the end on a single one, however bitter it is (and every death is climax for the person dieing, of course). As an example, see anyone of these faceless kills that are sacrificed for the aforementioned scenic purpose? Now *that* is the typical death in war (it does not happen only or the evil or the "unimportant" or the dumb ones to die in such a senseless way: rather to *anyone* in the wrong place at the wrong moment, in a context where are many wrong places and wrong moments).

Why not depict war-time death as it is?

[–] daedalus1337 18 years ago

Yeah, I do agree with you to a point. I loved this movie as it was a brutal, seemingly realistic depiction of the hell that was the Korean war (we've seen so much of WWII, sadly this is 'the forgotten war'). And it was as epic as I'd hoped, but yes, unfortunately the whole two brothers plot was a bit contrived. I didn't really like the story, I just liked the background to it.

[–] rounder53 18 years ago

it was more like 20

[–] Duke_In_Boots 18 years ago

I understand your point, probably because you phrased it far more eloquently than the OP. I agree to an extent, but personally, at least in this case, I found the scene to be more... emotional than contrived. The other thing I found was that this movie, for the most part, did a very good job of showing how people 'really die' in war, that is, suddenly, messily, and tragically. For the most part. The thing is that often times, individuals do make last stands of that kind, in which they are able to kill or wound a truly unbelievable number of enemy soldiers single handedly, and quite often they die in the act. For instance, in the Korean War there was an American soldier (Cpl. Tibor Rubin) who did this exact thing several times, on one occasion singlehandedly holding a hill with a machine gun against an entire comany (150-200) of enemy soldiers for 24 hours without reinforcement, eventually forcing them to retreat. He survived, but there are countless examples of the opposite, such as a soldier in world war two in the battle of Hong Kong (Sgt.Maj. John Robert Osborn) who, also using a machine gun, allowed his unit to retreat while holding off several hundred japanese soldiers. After miraculously escaping and rejoining his unit, they came under attack again, and he again fought with superhuman strength, killing dozens of enemy soldiers and throwing back grenades they had tossed into their midst, until finally one landed that he could not reach in time, and he threw himself on it to save his comrades. Obviously, this is not the case for the majority of soldiers, but for some it is. As I was trying to point out, perhaps ineefectively, Jin-Tae had already been established as an exceptionally brave and skilled soldier, so in my mind, it wasn't far fetched at all that he should find it in within himself to sacrifice his life that way, or that he should be able to take down a few dozen enemy soldiers in the process. After all, he did die, rather, than miraculously wiping out the entire enemy force and limping back home to live happily ever after with his brother. Not only does he die, but he dies rather ingloriously. That may seem antithetical, given the mood of the scene in the film, but think about it; his brother doesn't know what he did. No-one knows what he did. He doesn't get any medals, he doesn't get a memorial ceremony, he doesn't even get a funeral: his body just sits in the mud and decays until someone digs it up 50 years later. Some end for a hero.

Given that, I really don't have a problem with that sort of scene, that sort of death for a main character, as long as it actually serves a purpose, makes sense, and is well/tastefully done. When it's tacked on just to be cool, or to fit some 'hollywood rule', then it's stupid. I suppose you could see this that way, but I don't really see how, personally. At any rate, I appreciate your even and well-worded response.

[–] Rothwell19 18 years ago

I think this was a great movie overall. The only cliche i could see (and this is really more corny than actually being a cliche) was when the two brothers are eating the ice cream in slow motion in the beginning of the movie. It was a little funny, unintentionally.

[–] steegmans 18 years ago

It's rightfully considered a cliche but I think this film is succesfully avoiding it: Our wargod could have survived easily because well he was shooting the communists, of which he was part now. He did it for his brother to have a better chance of runnning away to safety. He sacrificed himself. Which was in the theme of the movie: Protection.

I might be biased considering giving this movie a 10

[–] duyharry 18 years ago

Now, being a viewer who has watched this movie, I have to say that the guy who has created this topic whether a stupid guy who doesn't know how to appreciate good movie or a guy who just wants to start a topic to make everyone comes in and argues about his statement...

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ChristophBrookes 18 years ago

Your saving private Ryan point, is well pointless, he clearly misses one guy twice, he's not perfect just good, andhey he was praying, and anything is possible with the power of God

[–] joekinplaya 13 years ago

More like if you're staying behind and going to fight till you die, you generally don't care as much about getting hit here and there. You will just try to take down as many of them as you can before you go down. Sometimes, this brings out the best in soldiers.

[–] jonahmix 18 years ago

I got an idea, why don't you watch the movie instead of writing a piss-poor, overly exaggerated piece about how this movie was cliched. I read the first paragraph you wrote, if you can even call that poorly phrased jumble of words a paragraph, and I was already bored to tears. You don't get it, nobody cares if it was "a tad cliched". Could he really kill the 10 or 15 people he does in the movie without getting shot? Probably not, but instead of pointing that out, why don't you watch the movie and take it for what it is, one of the best war movies ever made.

By the way, there is no "we the public." It's just you. See, I did accept that he killed "200 subhuman enemies" (in actuality, maybe 15 soldiers), because guess what, its a movie. It happens.

Also, if he didn't kill "200" people, according to you, we wouldn't judge him as a "pussy unworthy wimp." This is completely true, but for a different reason. Reason: No reasonable human being would ever say the words "pussy", "unworthy", and "wimp" in the same sentence, much less right next to each other.

PS: I think your caps lock key is broken, because it seems that random words were capitalized in your post. Just a heads up.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dj_edd 18 years ago

i think this movie is a little cheesy i guess, but it has to be kinda melodramatic otherwise I don't think this film would have workes quite so well.

[–] miser_cz 14 years ago

Yeah, average movies need this sort of scenes to be appreciated as good. But the exquisite ones are able to do so even without it. As for me, this movie was just that - average and too plain and cheesy for my taste.

[–] tburrowes 18 years ago

... He was buying time for his bro dude

[–] Danielj-5 18 years ago

He was using a damn 7.62mm Model 1910 Maxim, of course he's gonna kill a few people!

Edit: He'd probably kill more if he was in a flanking position, IE: On the enemies left or right side. Machine guns slice up thing if they are in a straight line.

[–] kinkyfriend85-1 18 years ago

I wonder how many understands that this movie is obviously an anti war such... and that they didn't show the elder brother as some hero, rather the tragedy of all that was happening, that from the very beginning everything was fine, then war started and it ruined people's life. That there's no meaning to kill each other as we're all the same.. in the end it doesn't matter who we kill..

The elder brother went crazy, the war changed everything that was so positive about him, it teared him up and in that sense it was a tragedy. And even if he was a murderer, his brother still loved him as a brother. They still had their share of memories. And the memories of the long gone war, still probably haunted the survivor, maybe he wonders what if the war hadn't affected them?

Point is, nobody is evil or good, it's just selection and opportunities.
What if the war never happened? had their love been the same? of course it had.

Everything can be a cliché, it just depends on whether you are touched by it or not.

[–] bigazztyreman5-1 18 years ago

"In Saving Private Ryan, for example (it has been a while but I thing I remember this scene), when is the turn of the talented sniper to go, he snipes away faceless Germans in an unbelievable number and rate as his final good-by to the public (again, as a spectator you record that his kill factor is going crazy, and so you know he is next)."

Seriously I think you need to go watch that scene again, for a start he's a sniper and if he couldnt kill people quickly he would be killed almost straight away, secondly through several of his kills we see him reload at a normal rate, not a 5 shots per second rate. and as someone pointed out he missed a couple. took him two shots to kill one guy aswell. also there is the fact that if you paid attention for once you would notice that his kill rate is not going 1....5.....10....17....30 he probably killed around 10-12 in that scene which is not at all rediculous.

[–] CoSMiGoNoN 13 years ago

The whole movie was a big cliche.

I was really excited to see a Korean war movie, finally a movie about a war that's
usually not depicted in this part of the world, and Korean on top of that, so this had to be good.

But it turned out to be a big disappointment. I thought I was watching Rambo-meets-Pearl Harbor.

I couldn't help but cringe almost every time the younger brother was on the screen.

[–] barbarossa4188 13 years ago

Shut up pinhead. This movie was great, unlike Spielberg's bs crap. The jews are not the only ppl on this Planet.

"Stalingrad. . . The fall of Stalingrad was the end of Europe. There's been a cataclysm."