Teaser Trailer for Park Chan-Wook's 'I'm A Cyborg, But That's O.K'.

thanks

The link isn't working logboy. I clicked through to KFC though, they have a bunch of working links. Trailer looks sweet. I have a feeling this film is going to be awesome.

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

Nice teaser trailer.

Even though it's so different in tone, the style is distinctively Park Chan Wook.

Link's fixed.

Oh yes please, looks very nice indeed.

too gorgeous to resist

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

before i couldn't wait. now i really, really, really can't wait.

dd

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.

December shall be a good month.

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.

Looks great.

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 with jon pais this looks like the Korean Amelie and Park Chan-wook seems to be becoming as much of a magpie as Tarantino. I love Jeunet's work for the most part, but unlike many Amelie really did nothing for me other than its obvious visual appeal. Still if you love Amelie as most people seem to, I guess a slice of something similar will be something to look forward to

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.

logboy so beyond what people generalize not everyone thinks the way you do.

Him being a magpie does not refer to his openness or lack of its more a case that magpies take lots of things and put them in one nest. Tarantino is very talented and part of his talent is being a magpie in that he "borrows" from other sources and recombines them in a way that usefully makes for great viewing. In my opinion Park Chan-wook beginning to do the same, there was a fair amount of borrowing in Lady Vengeance although I note it was not really mentioned much. I personal did not say I would avoid this, only that it's similarities to Amelie don't exactly appeal to me.. I don't follow the route that many do that you must like everything a director does or comes from a certain nation. I am not a Korean film fanboy, I will watch them if they appeal and if they don't I will put something else higher on my to see list. I don't really buy the its "Insert director" there for it will be good. Sure some directors click more with my taste than others, but that does not mean I will like everything they do. Take Miike he is just a capable of producing drivel as he is in genius.

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.]

mrmarzo - yes, thank you for pointing out the obvious.

fan316 - i would expect you to use clean language instead of resulting to insults. todd will probably not be a happy man - and he can ban people - calm down...!

I dont actually care logboy...its my first time around here. I simply despise critics-wannabes whom already are pointing negative things on a film that hasnt been released yet.... thats a little childish, dont u think so?? If u wanna criticize a film at least wait for the release... doing it before is kind of pathetic. But i apologize for my colorful language it wasnt my intention to offend any1 (just feral & jon).

fan316 - i understand what you're saying, though theres a difference between writing something off, being prejudiced, and having concerns, garnering information from what information is available. plus, its incredibly hard and potentially dangerous, limiting, to infer what someones entirely trying to communicate from written text without hearing or seeing them speak it.

there is only one true filmaker living today .. joel schumacher, well and godard ( is he stil alive?)

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.

Damn, blackmothra. You just melted my brain. Equating Shumacher with Godard? That's .... bold.

He was laughable in the drama series Full House, but he doesn't look as annoying in this movie.

Admittedly, the first shot reminded me of a Amelie meets Brazil, but the latter half of that went by the way as the trailer went along. Not sure how many of you saw Park's piece in the original If You Were Me (and the fact that he wrote The Boy Who Went to Heaven), but he's got a side of him that most people haven't yet seen. Personally, I have nothing against the Jeunet-like visuals (or gimmickry, as some of you have stated), as long as he presents us with a story and a reason to care. Also, Lady Vengeance being Amelie for fanboys? Please do explain, because I'm a little lost on that.

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...

That was a very well thought out argument, Jon. While I'm not ready to say I've been insulted by anything Park has made, I do understand your point about his manipulativeness. Of course, manipulating one's audience is one of the key skills for a filmmaker. Park does it well, but I agree that he's better when he's letting the audience think for itself rather than being as forceful as he was in Cut. Regarding his visual restraint in his earlier films, are you sure you're not confusing it with inexperience and/or lack of budget? As Park gains popularity and thus funding, he's able to create his visual style exactly the way he intends to. There's nothing inherently wrong with every frame of a movie looking like a work of art in itself.

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.

Jonpais, I just have to disagree with your use of the expression style over substance. I Imagine what you mean is that the movie is very visual and the story/characters aren't as good as they could/should be. That I can understand. But there is no way you could say that Style and substance has to be apart. Even if a movie calls for bizarre acting and laughable plot there CAN still be substance in the beauty of the pictures and editing, the director might not even want the acting to be believable. I get your point, but would refrain myself from the use "style over substance" since it's pretty abusing to the visually driven media that film really is. Do you think the people who saw the train arriving at the station in molières early film complained of style over substance? No. We must understand that there are more functions in a movie then to just deliver a story that is entertaining/moving with help of special kinds of visuals/acting. I do not critic your opinions of the movie but only your use of this term which is, in my opinion, very questionable to use when talking about movies.

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

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

Rain looks totally cute in this show! I wanna watch it badly!

"FUCK"

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

The ad ran for three months