Review: Only God Forgives
Participants: Jon, Drew, Sara, Sean, Bobby, Joe, Shane, Bryan
Initiator: Jon
Jon
So, that was…something?
Cool is in the ballpark with funny. If I think something’s cool, it’s difficult
to communicate why I think so. I thought
Drive, Nicholas Winding-Refn’s movie before Only God Forgives, was incredibly
cool. Ryan Gosling’s gloves and jacket,
Albert Brooks’s razor collection, the soundtrack; if 16-year-old me saw it, it
would’ve easily displaced Face-Off as my all-time favorite movie at the time. Drive turned me on to Refn’s other work and
after getting through Bronson (impossibly weird) and the Pusher trilogy (varies
from good to great), I was sufficiently excited for Only God Forgives.
Excitement pretty quickly melted into disappointment. This is pretty oppressive throughout. Gosling’s character has nothing going on
upstairs. His Drive character was all
resolute, ultra-competent action. He’s a
passive, wet fart here, and therefore, completely uninteresting. His mother, who was clearly a molester, has more
going on, but it’s one note compared to no notes; be consistently awful. She’s a cartoon villain and the movie’s not
interested in developing her past a c-bomb dropping psychopath who compares her
sons’ dick sizes. The Thai detective was
a welcome contrast, such that he deserved the win and he had the Driver’s cool,
but he was still subject to Refn’s insane directing choices.
If Only God Forgives was filmed at normal speed, it would be
shorter than an episode of Game of Thrones.
So many long hallways to walk down.
The color palette was so extreme that it had to mean something, though I
couldn’t figure it out. I tried keeping
track of who was shot with a red filter versus a blue filter but I lost
track. I also lost the thread for any
thematic connection. Something this
superficially arty has to have more on its mind than just revenge. Maybe it was about women that shouldn’t be
mothers? Maybe the key was the statue
the camera kept cutting to during the fight between Gosling and the
detective? Am I over-thinking it and
giving Refn too much credit? I also
really disliked the ending scene in the detective’s home. The detective’s daughter was put in danger
only to manipulate the viewer. Was there
any doubt Gosling was going to kill his accomplice before the daughter was
killed? The nanny and the police guard
can go fuck themselves, but a dramatic split-second decision to save a
child? Clearly, Gosling’s turned the
corner!
There were enough things I liked to get it into the
three-star, C range. While not as
uniformly strong a soundtrack as Drive, there were some strong tracks,
particularly in the scene where the detective practices his swordplay. The aforementioned fight had strong
choreography, and the right people got their comeuppance/had their insides
groped by their son for some reason.
I’ll be going into the next Refn film with more caution. This had its handful of moments, but was a
complete misstep.
What did everyone else thing? Clearly, you loved it…
What did everyone else thing? Clearly, you loved it…
Thank you, Jon, for that review. It was the best someone who appreciates Refn's film work could do for that hour and twenty - nine minute waste of time.
ReplyDeleteOnto the movie. I thought the film was going to be about a kickboxing fix gone incredibly wrong but I was wrong. Way, way wrong. I mean, that storyline would have been interesting. The brother didn't pay up so the big boss had him killed and then Gosling killed the messenger and then there is a hit on Gosling and somehow his mother pulls a Frank Underwood/Vito Corleone by "keeping her enemies closer" with the big boss only to kill him. But no, that idea would have made a halfway decent film with Gosling. What did I see? A sorry ass attempt to make a movie.
Gosling said maybe twenty lines and his character had nothing. The characters from The Blair Witch Project had purpose but Gosling's? Yeah, nothing. It was as if the selling point was "Hey come see a Ryan Gosling movie." Completely agree with Jon's perception of Gosling's character.
The cop was interesting but stupid; like Jar - Jar Binks from Star Wars prequels. Where Jar - Jar's purpose was to be comedic, the cop was to randomly chop off arms and sing karaoke. Sure, there is a deeper idea with the cop. Trying to stop crime by Hammurabi Code and wielding a samurai katana sword like the Bride - well not really - but that is as valuable as Jar - Jar's clumsiness and ability to vote in the Galactic Republic.
The fight scene was well choreographed but turned out to be pointless. Gosling's character didn't land a punch. It was like watching a high school senior beat up a seventh grader. Why in the world did the mother just stroll by? What was the point of that? To reveal herself? Was she bored? Did she need to compare cock sizes? Along with the randomness, why did it keep cutting to the statue? Was it the statue of ass kickery? Was it smiling? Like Jon, I found it oddly placed but comical because it was the only thing worth seeing during the fight.
In all honesty, I kept waiting for it to improve. I kept waiting for Gosling to do something worthwhile. Why did he poke his mother's corpse? Seriously, what was the point of that? Like "hey, haha, you're dead and I'm not?"
I could go on and on about the plot and continue to ask questions but those questions are answered in four words. The movie was terrible. Bad movies have bad plots and pointless scenes and Only God Forgives had a continual stream of those from the beginning to the end. The best part about the movie was when the credits rolled to notify me it finished. The general story could have been good but it simply wasn't. Only God Forgives rivals Troll 2 and Cabin Boy as the worst movies I ever saw.
Jon, a C grade is way too high. This is, at best, a D-. Only God Forgives failed and failed miserably. Bad movie and nothing worthwhile except the credits. Grade: F
On to you, Sara.
Only God Forgives.
ReplyDeleteThanks guys for letting me participate. I haven’t gotten my film geek side on in a while. I may like this. So, for starters you guys picked Only God Forgives. Whoa. A straight up avant-garde film if I do say so myself.
First let me tell you what I think an avant-garde film is supposed to be. If the audience is outraged, perplexed, pissed off, left with more questions than answers, then possibly they have been subjected to an avant-garde film. Avant-garde can also be an experimental film. An avant-garde film pushes boundaries that audiences are comfortable with.
It was avant-garde in every way. The lighting was over the top. The script was minimal. The value system of characters twisted. The cut-aways, like the statue, were oddly placed. It was just flat out weird. I know that we’re supposed to talk about Only God Forgives but I’ve got to mention this one film. Has anyone seen Un Chien Andalou? It’s a short film that was directed by Luis Bunuel and written by Salvador Dali and Luis. You might be able to find it on the internet. I bet most of you guys saw it in college; it wouldn’t be on Netflix. Anyway, I think you’ll understand the former because of the later. It is filled with terrifying imagery and follows “dream logic” (that’s from wiki, I like it), meaning there’s no logic. It’s surreal, just like Dali’s paintings. Anyway, I thought of that film last night and also the director David Lynch, another lover of avant-garde film, “dream logic,” and karaoke.
It’s hard for me to judge a film that’s really trying to be something so distinct because it really was playing by its own rules. I guess I feel kinda bad putting it down. It doesn’t entertain me in the normal sense but it left me with very strong feelings. I was repulsed, and disgusted. I believe that’s what he was going for. Maybe? However, I think it’s hard to go for something so arty when the market is so saturated with other films. I think when Un Chien Andalou came out, in the 20’s, it was experimental and avant-garde, yes, but it was also original. Even David Lynch works the quirky arty angle without totally alienating his audience. If you picked this film apart it’s not even original. It’s all been done.
I’m going to give it a solid C. I’m giving it a solid C because it’s obviously Nicholas Winding-Refn’s brainchild. It was totally a work of love for him and something he knew would not be widely accepted. A solid C because one thing about that film that will hold up for decades is that awesome score by Cliff Martinez (I agree with Jon here about the music). Whoa. That was eerie and impressive. A solid C because at the end of the day, I would never have picked it, but I’m glad I watched it. Thanks again.
Did you love Drive but thought even it had far too much dialogue? Then you're in luck because you could blast a loud fart or two and miss it all in Only God Forgives.
ReplyDeleteI knew I should've used my veto, I teased it, I knew I hated Drive and I saw the ratings this movie was getting but I didn't want to be the first to drop the veto bomb... lesson learned for us all.
The first karaoke scene with the cop and I was ready to call it quits, I knew I was going to continue hating this movie and I was 100% right. My biggest surprise the whole time was when the credits rolled we discovered that all these characters had names. Holy crap I knew Julian and Billy and even I suppose the hooker was given the name Mai when introduced to Baby Goose's mom but everyone else- nope no names, you'd have to insert dialogue to have a name drop somewhere, although since half the characters were background cops maybe they had names on their badges, I didn't want to rewatch to check that out.
Why is it so many movies give evil/creepy/pervert parts a cleft lip (Billy, Joaquin in Gladiator, most of Eric Roberts' career) Is it laziness on the part of the director to not bother developing any emotional arc to demonstrate the character as a monster so they just say hey look at that guy he's a fucking monster!
The most likable scene in the movie was the scene mom was comparing cock sizes of Julian and Billy and he stared with the same vapid expression he had throughout and rushed to light her cigarette. It was a decent scene because it was the only moment in the film that attempted to develop any kind of character arc or explanation as to why anyone is the way the are. Julian is clearly impotent both in the head as Jon mentioned and in the pants as shown in his interactions with his hooker.
I disagree with Kissel in that the scene where Baby Goose saves the cops daughter wasn't to showcase that he turned the corner, they already established him as not evil by his sparing his brother's murderer when he realized Billy got what he deserved. The director just hadn't gotten to use that bad ass mask Julian's partner in crime wore yet and needed a reason to break it out.
Music does not make a good movie, it enhances the experience of the movie goer. A shitty movie with a kickass soundtrack is still a shitty movie. A great soundtrack can turn a good movie into a great movie because you can hear a song and relive that scene you just loved but there is nothing worth remembering in this movie.
Final grade: F+, mom comparing cock sizes earned the + for me.
I haven't seen Drive (and now have no interest in doing so) or any of Refn's other work... so this was his chance at a first impression. I am rather certain it could not have gone much worse.
ReplyDeleteGosling seemed to be the wrong choice for this part from the very beginning. He did absolutely nothing to convince me otherwise throughout the movie. Then again, I don't think it would have mattered who played the part... it was a lost character in a muddled world. If you're going to give your main character so few lines, they better be some damn impressive words. Not a single line of dialogue was overly interesting or stimulating in the least. Did his character do anything for any of you?
The most interesting character for me was Chang... and that's sad, because he wasn't too interesting. He kills, tortures, chops off hands, and sings. He clearly sees himself (and is treated by others) as some Xerxes like demi-god... even immortalized in statue form... showing us he was a hell of a fighter in his youth (as if we couldn't figure that out in the first 2 seconds of that 'fight' with Gosling). The problem with Chang is, we never go to see him bleed. Even worse, we got to see him grow a soft spot for a moment when he spared the disabled child's father... but why? He failed at being a complete monster and at any kind of development. I know Bryan will compare him to Anton Chigurh, and the movie in general to No Country For Old Men... so I look forward to reading, and replying to, a bit on that.
As for the style, the scene construction... I don't see how it deserves points for trying to be something. None of us seem to have gotten anything from the color schemes.. and throwing a filter on something isn't inherently good. I feel as if Jon and Sara are giving credit for this effort and avant-garde. It was arty and experimental... sure, but to what end?
The soundtrack felt all over the place to me... a few moments I felt like I was in a poor reboot of a Kubrick film while others the music was good enough to make me think that if I close my eyes the movie would be at least worth listening to.
I wouldn't have even finished this movie if it wasn't for the sake of our group here... this is any easy F for me. I considered a D-, because I feel like I've seen worse movies... but couldn't think of any redeeming qualities. The 'good' parts (choreography, parts of the score, parts of the imagery) are too disconnected from each other to matter. I'm just going to assume Jon is giving the movie a C to save face on his own choice...and, more so, that he started this group so he wasn't the only one watching such bad movies.
I want to watch this movie again. Obviously I'm in the minority on this.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I think the acting was by and large excellent from the main players.
Gosling has gotten crushed as being a lifeless and uninteresting. Lifeless? Sure. Uninteresting? I can disagree. The whole crux of his character is that his mother is obviously abusive (obviously verbally, but also likely sexually and physically) and controlling. He has no personality. He's been repressed his entire life. This character stays consistent throughout the film. He's just an empty vessel, being steered by the commands of others. He can't have any relationships he doesn't pay for and empathy in general isn't high on his list. You think he makes a turn by not killing a child, but this too is consistent with someone who has been sexually abused as a child as they view children like they view their childhood: pure and untouched. Children aren't people, they're the idealized childhood he can't have. But adults? Fuck 'em. Let's kill them. He's a fucked up enough dude that he either a) attempts to crawl back into his mother's womb as he doesn't see her as a real human being and is more so God-like figure or b) he just wanted to see if his mother was a real human being made of the same stuff as the rest of us. Either way, it's no surprise he has to pay for a girlfriend that he in turn attempts to control.
Chang was fantastic. The star of the movie. He's a larger than life bad guy. I actually like that he doesn't bleed. That wouldn't be Chang's MO to bleed. I feel like if he was cut, he would just tell his blood that it better not leave his body and his blood would be like, "Yeah, fuck it. Better just listen to him." He is unbending and consistent. He has rules and he has standards. And, my God, he has karaoke skills and a sweet statue. The karaoke is him telling everyone who he is. I almost say it's bragging, but he can back it up, so it's just him singing the truth. It's the Gospel of Chang. The statue represents who he is. Not just from the unbending part, but also his status as a living legend, or a living God. Which, for all purposes, he is. Evil? I don't know. Strict and unyielding? Absolutely. But it's not like the people coming across his path don't know the deal. He has a statue. Chang is untouchable and he lets you know it. His story doesn't work if people find him flawed. He's like the Dread Pirate Roberts whose legend precedes him.
ReplyDeleteThe mother. You obviously hate her right away. She's obviously creepy when she's touching her own son. I feel like I'd be remiss to not mention the dick comparison for her sons. To Gosling, she is as absolute and unyielding as Chang. But unlike Chang's physical punishments and controlling, she owns the scene through self-absorbed manipulation. She can't maintain her control without being her cunning. Gosling believes he has no choice but to do her wishes, though he does attempt to stand up to her a couple times, failing miserably in every attempt of course.
I liked the gay assassin. Great clothes!
I tried to track the colors, but lost track. I have no idea what they mean other than an attempt at telling you that a lot of this movie is going to be chopped up and in-congruent. It certainly set some of the mood. I could have done without it.
ReplyDeleteSoundtrack/score had some good tracks at the end, but not overly impressive.
I feel like overall, this movie isn't just a simple "fuck you" to the audience (which I usually love when a director does that to his audience). More so, this is a "fuck off, I'm making this movie the way I want to." The movie is way too long. If it was 45 minutes, we like this movie a lot more because it's more exciting and more intense. But if that was the case, it's just another new-age kung-fu movie that involves child-molesting mothers whose sons enjoy sticking their hands in her. There just isn't enough story here to make a compelling , normal full-length feature.
I think this movie is slightly above average. I'd MUCH rather watch this movie than a lot of the generic comedies that are box-office successes. (Ice Cube plays a cranky black cop and Andy Samburg is a goofy cop just out of training school. You'll never believe what happens when they're partnered up to stop the caper of the century!) I kind of hold such generic movies as my baseline of a C, so this, while it fails in story line, is better than a generic movie.
C+
My view on movies is much less deep than how you all tend to view them. I agree with Riley that the soundtrack is only there to enhance a movie, otherwise I pay little attention to it.
ReplyDeleteFirst, if the child at the end gets killed Chel quits watching these things with me, so good thing she didn't. That was the only redeeming quality of this movie.
I know I'm in a bigger minority than Shane here, but Only God Forgives reminded me of No Country fold Old Men set in Thailand. Did I mention I'm going to Thailand this summer - remind me not to get involved in a boxing ring or drug dealing. Anyway, I wanted to shut this movie and No Country off about 2/3 of the way through realizing they weren't getting better and I'd rather spend the rest of that time doing something else. In a simplistic way No Country and Only God Forgives are both about screwed up people doing screwed up things with little to no remorse for other people or the world around them. The dialogue, or lack there-of, in both was brutal. Both movies are way to dark for me. I'll sit and watch something sad (Shindler's List) if I'm going to learn something or evaluate humanity/myself on a deeper level. I walked away from both movies thinking the same thing - "Well that was sad and boring."
A couple of redeeming traits, but no enough to save it from a D-. The detective character was moderately amusing and the fight scene was fantastic, maybe one of the best I've seen.
Shane - I love Andy Samberg, and if he does a comedy knock-off of this movie it would be hilarious.
Alright, my apologies for the late entry, but here I am.
ReplyDeleteLet me start by saying that I have never seen Drive, or any of Refn's other flicks. And after viewing Only God Forgives, I am little disappointed in myself. While I wouldn't recommend watching if you are on a first date, I think it's a film worth spending time on.
The music was great, and I completely disagree with some of you who discount how important music can be to a film. It's more than an enhancement. Music sets the tone, tells a story, and directs the emotions of the viewer. The same can be said for the lighting. The reds, greens, and blues used for the movie provided a backdrop that enhanced the characters moods. In fact, I think because those two key elements were largely ignored by some, you missed a major theme of the movie. That being the movement of a story line based more on visual and auditory cues than dialogue. No scene illustrates this better than when Gosling's character Julian cuts open his dead mother's belly to grasp at her womb. No words are spoken, but you can tell that there is some serious Oedipus shit going on. The wardrobes also spoke volumes, with a consistent contrast of black and white prevalent throughout the film.
That being said, the dialogue that is present in the film is very well delivered. From the perverse mother dropping some cuntbombs and referencing her own son's dick sizes and their sexual prowess, to the carefree Chang singing karaoke, the dialogue was thought provoking. The karaoke scene in particular was one of my favorites. The minimalist approach to dialogue works for me here.
As for the characters themselves, I am only going to focus on Lt. Chang. Neither evil or good (I thought his black suit with white collar illustrated this perfectly), Chang delivers God's justice with a swift swing of that kick ass sword he's got stashed away under his shirt. Reminiscent of the archangel Raguel, Chang works to bring harmony back to the streets of Bangkok. When not dispensing deserved ass kickings and hand removals, Chang shows his natural state of harmony with his mellow karaoke melodies. When Chang is on stage, all is right in the world. Don't bring Chang off the stage.
The movie earned a solid B almost a B+ from me. I would recommend watching to only those who want a movie that will provoke thought...or if you are tripping balls on acid.
I realized after the fact that I didn't give the movie a grade in my initial review. It's a C-, putting me somewhere in the middle of the group. I can't really imagine a scenario where I'm going to watch it again, but there was enough that I liked to get it to C-level i.e. the tail end of meh.
ReplyDeleteI do want to go into more detail on the fight scene, which I thought was the climax and the pivotal scene of the movie. Gosling instigates it as someone who's not on Chang's radar, out of a misplaced sense of duty to his mother. That Chang so thoroughly destroys him is the point. Gosling is passive to the point of being unable to have sex with or even touch his girlfriend/prostitute. His heart isn't in anything, much less the decision to fight Chang, who is a force of nature, the God of the Old Testament. Not even taking into account their disparate fighting skills, the fight can only have one result. I think Joe's pretty close on the statue being Chang, an immobile block of stone gazing down from on high. That works, but cutting away from a fight that's filmed as well as this one is still a choice I don't like. The inclusion of the fight is the main reason it gets to the C-range.
Sara brings up the idea of avant-garde film-making. I've heard of Luis Bunuel, and Lynch as a comparison is dead-on, too. The difference between Lynch and Refn is that Lynch can take non-linear, anti-narrative scenes and make something beautiful out of them, a la Mulholland Drive. As Shane says, Refn might be making the film he wanted to make with no consideration for the viewer, but it's fundamentally ugly. Refn must have had a lot of juice after the success of Drive. Him choosing to do this is a weird choice.
Something no one's mentioned yet about the karaoke is how rapt everyone in the audience is when Chang's performing. It's a religious service, further establishing Chang as the God/arbiter of justice for this universe. Also, did anyone get a Stannis Baratheon-vibe from Chang? You might have saved his daughter, but you did kill my guard and my nanny, so I'm taking your hands.
This reply is more positive than my initial comment, and some of the positive comments are convincing, but Only God Forgives is still not enough of a complete package to elevate beyond the C-. I understand why Gosling is the way he is and why he does what he does, but I don't find it interesting. His performance is fine, but the characterization is flat throughout, with no arc and no catharsis. His final decision is passive again, but to a different master. I found the experience of watching mostly unpleasant, which was likely what Refn was going for, so well done I guess. The accomplishment of a director's goals does not a good movie make.
You bringing up Gosling being unable to have sex and his mommy issues send me back to a Roman History course. Was it Nero whose mother had him sexually molested as a child so she could hold power over him? I can't quite recall. Gosling is pretty much just barely human emotionally.
DeleteAlso, I think comparing Chang to the Old Testament God is pretty spot on.
For further Refn viewing, Joe, Drive is beginner-level, such that it's accessible, follows a straightforward narrative, and is an incredible sensory experience. The Pusher trilogy is more difficult, as it's filmed in Refn's native Danish, and has a complicated interweaving story between the three movies. Pusher II is great, III is very good, I is fine. Bronson is grad-level, such that it's weird for the sake of weird. That was a hard movie to watch. He also did Valhalla Rising which I haven't seen, but because it stars Mads Mikkelson, is very much on my radar.
ReplyDeleteA closing note on scores and soundtracks. For the vast majority of them, I would agree with Riley and Hartman that they exist as window dressing, and are typically overused (Gravity). The top tier of them, though, serve as the best kind of exposition for their movie. The opening credits music for The Social Network tell you everything you need to know about Zuckerberg's brain. Breaking Bad's score tracks the life and death of Walter White's split personalities. Tarantino's soundtrack choices in Django Unchained illustrate the life that's now open to Django and raise the stakes to not just his life, but the lives of all his descendants. Probably only the top 10-20% exist in this space, but when they hit, they hit as big, if not bigger, than the movie itself.
Thank you, Jon, for that. I do not have much to add but I would like clarification as to why people - Joe mainly - think this is a good movie. It's artsy? I apologize but I do not see it. Maybe there is a cultural disconnect that I missed and if that is case, I should read up on Thailand. Really? This gets a B? I am all for someone being a sensible contrarian but that grade is too high.
ReplyDeleteStill one of the worst movies I saw. Troll 2 and Cabin Boy are right up there.
On to you, Sara.
I know this is out of order but my only addition would be that I would rather watch an endless loop of the "Cake Farts" video than ever see this movie again. If you've never seen or heard of cake farts it is not child or work friendly.
ReplyDelete