08-21-2009, 08:30 AM
<!--quoteo(post=59198:date=Aug 21 2009, 12:01 AM:name=liner)-->QUOTE (liner @ Aug 21 2009, 12:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->i'm not smart enough for this to have been a mess for me. i'm not as well versed as some of you but this is my favorite take on the vampire genre ever . right up there with that one i think defoe was in. like let the right one in, it took all the formulaic vampire shit and threw it out the window. completely original and filled with more complexities than your typical vamp fare. the fated relationship that's actually made more complex by things beyond vampirism was very well done and imaginative. the way the film was shot reminded me who the director was and i really love his style. the girl was a great character and she was very pretty too. a few of the lesser characters were stand outs as well. thanks for the head's up, rok. i actually am glad i dealt with 3 and a half hours of traffic/parking to see this one. very thoughtful, unique movie.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It has actually grown on me more since I first watched it. I still think it could have been edited down by at least 15-20 minutes (the sex scenes seemed to go on forever and made me impatient for example), but otherwise it is definitely worth watching despite some of the unnecessary bits. Anyway, it is good to know that there are some directors out there who don't do director's cuts. Park's films are never butchered by the studios, and it shows.
It has actually grown on me more since I first watched it. I still think it could have been edited down by at least 15-20 minutes (the sex scenes seemed to go on forever and made me impatient for example), but otherwise it is definitely worth watching despite some of the unnecessary bits. Anyway, it is good to know that there are some directors out there who don't do director's cuts. Park's films are never butchered by the studios, and it shows.