Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

ebossert While perusing IMDb comments lately I've noticed a rather interesting perspective that glorifies cinematography as if it's the only meaningful aspect of film-making. I always thought that things like directing, acting, scriptwriting, action choreography, and post-production (only to name a few) are all important parts of making an entertaining film. Realistically, almost every film is lacking in some of these elements, but the good movies make up for it by excelling in others. Unfortunately, lots of people apparently think that cinematography alone can carry a film. I disagree, and Duelist provides a case in point.This movie is essentially an action/comedy, which to me automatically signals an emphasis on action choreography and humor. The most entertaining films of this genre take the fight scenes to exceptional levels while sprinkling in some good laughs along the way – e.g., The Legend of Drunken Master (1994). Duelist, on the other hand, provides subpar humor and downright atrocious sword duels. I actually liked the lead actress and actor in other Korean films I've seen, but they were not utilized well at all here. Quite frankly, this film is a disaster. If I had known it was directed by Myung-se Lee (Nowhere to Hide), I probably would have never watched it to begin with. Shame on me for not doing my homework.For the record, there is a lot of action here, but it is utterly destroyed by inept directing because the camera-work used during the sword duels sucks to high heaven. It's almost as if the director's sole purpose was to sabotage his own movie. Here are a few examples: 1. The opening scene was nonsensical, schizophrenic, and overly sloppy in its execution. A wagon full of money crashes and sprays on a road. The officials try to stop people from stealing it. The scene is nothing more than amateurs scuffling and falling over each other. Not good. There is a very brief duel at the end, but it only entails one or two sword swings.2. One particular night duel had this viewer's blood boiling as the only discernible "action" was a series of special effects sparks on a pitch black screen. Two of the lead characters are in a dark alleyway, but instead of having them fight where we can see them, the director cuts to total blackness and adds some sparks. This kind of copout really grates on my nerves, because the director knows that he can take the easy way out and not even bother to map out carefully choreographed sword motions or character movements. This sequence, in and of itself, solidifies Myung-se Lee as one of the laziest directors in the industry today. Hey jackass, do us all a favor and don't even bother shooting an action scene if you're too lazy to do it right.3. Another brief duel takes place in a courtyard and would have been pretty good had the director not placed the camera directly behind an obstruction, thereby showing only portions of the characters as they fought. Seriously, he could have placed the camera just about ANYWHERE else and it would have been acceptable. Instead, he tracks behind a thick fence. What an idiot.4. Yet another scene has a character in a room with dozens of baddies, but every time he swings his weapon the director moves the camera behind a pillar to obscure the action. The scene itself lasts a matter of seconds and ends prematurely with a freeze frame of the protagonist screaming. At this point, I wanted to break something.The aforementioned points convincingly argue against other IMDb comments that assert that the action scenes are entertaining. On the contrary, they are not the slightest bit entertaining for viewers who actually want to SEE the characters fight in well-choreographed sword duels. I'm perplexed that so many reviewers enjoy having so many events occur off-screen. You people need to raise your standards a bit.Someone should seriously tell Myung-se Lee that the Andrew Lau/Wong Kar Wai Wuxia method of "slideshow" photography is the single worst way to film a fight scene, primarily because the viewer cannot see what the hell is going on (ala Storm Riders and Ashes of Time). Someone should also tell him to stop aiming the camera at walls and start aiming the camera at the actors. After suffering through Lee's Nowhere to Hide and this feat of idiocy, I pray to God this imbecile never makes another action film. And if he does, I pray that I'm not stupid enough to watch it.Which brings me to the cinematography. Lots of reviewers here have claimed that the cinematography of Duelist carries the film. I see this reasoning often, and quite frequently the most overrated movies are those with good cinematography, because the people who love them conveniently forget that everything else sucks badly – e.g., Akira Kurosawa's Dreams. Hey, I love great cinematography too, but the movie has to have SOMETHING else, lest it be a very pretty but hollow shell. For example, Kiyoshi Kurosawa's films have excellent atmosphere, but without innovative philosophical concepts they would be practically worthless, like this film.Everyone mocks me because I consider The Twins Effect (2003) to be one of the most entertaining in this genre, yet I'm vindicated every time a crappy action/comedy like Duelist comes out. Go figure.

chrichtonsworld When movies are being showed at festivals people automatically presume that these movies are special! My experience is that most of the time that is not the case! Most of these movies only will be shown at film festivals and not find their way into the normal theaters! The reason that most of these so called "special" movies are just bad! And they always cover up these facts by giving these movies more meaning than the movies actually have! Talking about symbolism and history and so and so on! There have been movies where I could agree with some symbolism and such! And sometimes discovering this symbolism and metaphors can be fun! But for this to happen the movie itself has to be enjoyable so that you will watch the movie more times to discover all of the special elements used! "The duelist" is not an enjoyable movie! It is one of the "special" movies mentioned above! The whole movie is set up like one big dance scene with people twirling,spinning,jumping and swinging swords! Maybe some people will call this martial arts,but believe me it isn't! It qualifies as action,nothing more nothing less! It is also not clear if this supposed to be a comedy or a drama! Trust me that it is neither! It is sometimes funny and touches dramatic elements! But for the most time actors fail to carry the drama because they act as real fools (so how can I take matters seriously)! The ending contains a little twist! We find out that the man who is telling stories (throughout the movie) to his buddies actually is telling this story! So maybe all is made up! "Oh joy!" We have been tricked,it is even worse than I thought! Is everything as bad as I say! Well,I must mention that the cinematography is very beautiful and is the main reason that this movie is worth a glance! But just a glance!

Reha ULKU 3 axioms:1. Cinema in its history has a special moment during the 'past 5 plus next 5 years' decade. Genre-art film and feature-documentary film categorization confuses and brings us hybrid products. In these circumstances experimental way may give best results. 2. Korea is a passage between China and Japan. Far East Asia Metaphysics culturally followed the same way. Today there is a new moment. War choreographed and kitsch accepted movies of Japan and China is recomposed by Korea. This is an experimental way. 3. Directors (genre or auteur) may not have historical consciousness (Hegelian indifference), ie may not know what they do.3 interpretations:1. Tango is firstly used in a kung-fu film, but not in butoh (Japanese modern dance). Tango is a novum element as music, as action, and as thought. It strangely conjugates with Far East Asia Metaphysics of body (ie war, sex, cure, pray, and dance together). An experimental step, but strictly match in this film. 2. To watch the war of a man and a woman may bring orgasm to a man or a woman. This is natural and normal. But this war may not will end till even after post-humanism. This film shows it. 3. Form and concept may not be synthesized or praxisized, but may still give us a novum film. This is such an example. But the director may not know it or wants to do it.

dvdguy2005 2005 Toronto Film Festival report: One more film for today, new one from South Korea, directed by Lee Myung-Es: "Duelist"."A tale of political intrigue The Duelist is told from the perspective of a group of undercover police officers in historical Korea. Ahn Sung-Ki - one of Korea's most dependable actors who many on these shores will recognize from his part in the stellar Musa: The Warrior - is the wise senior leader of the group, Ha Jiwan the headstrong and fiery tempered Detective Namsoo. When a mysterious masked man scatters bags of counterfeit coins into a crowd at a town fair - nearly triggering a riot - the young female detective sets off in pursuit, engages him in combat and catches a brief glimpse of his true face." Style… Style and more style. The Director Lee Myung-Es was there (Must be a big deal back in South Korea as he was swarmed with folks after the screening) and he explained the story original came from a Comic Book. Wish I had known that going in. It is a period piece, with a modern flare. Characters do things not because it makes sense, but to strike a pose. The director did not want to tag this as an action film, but as a 'Melodrama'. Full of color, especially in the early market scenes, I am sure the fans of comic at happy as hell. Does that make it a good movie? Not really. Lee Myung-Es said the film just opened in Korea, with the critics loving it… and the audience 50/50 on it. The film took ninety three days to shoot, and I am sure most of that time was spent getting the color scheme right. It's looks wonderful, and he uses Dark shadows to make some beautiful images. All this just doesn't work for me. The attempts at comedy are so over the top and goofy it is hard to take the characters seriously. The "Namsoon" character is just so goofy during the first half of the film I never really bought the romance between her and the "Sad Eyes" character. There are many action scenes, oh sorry, dance scenes, but they never had any real sense of danger for me. If you do not care who is fighting, or why they are fighting, then it comes across as really cold to me. Some will like it, others like me will not. Can not see this playing at all with a North American Audience, so the chances you will see this on the big screen are slim. A better reviewer than I has said on the internet "I think, that director Lee's films are poetry, not prose." Guess this fearless reviewer is not really a poetry kind of guy.