Ku Dong's life is going nowhere, spending his days beating people in the streets, he seems to be confined to repeat the same mistakes of his father, who happens to be already in jail. Even his younger brother is not far from going into the same tracks. Then a struck of luck, if you could call it that, hits Ku Dong, a crime syndicate kidnaps him in order to train him to pass the police admission exam. It's something they have been doing for a while, sneaking moles in the police force to protect their leader, and making it easier to do dirty jobs here and there. The training of Ku Dong is both painful and hilarious, a very black humour that seems to be something natural for Korean cinema The thing is, Ku Dong really wanted to be in the force, at first just as an excuse to keep beating people, but eventually starts to realize this is his chance to give his life a real purpose.
A low-life scumbag gets kidnapped by a mysterious gang and put through inhumane training to become a mole inside the police force. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Mr. Socrates torrent reviews
(fr) wrote: "Cult Classic" in the making.
(it) wrote: A good movie. Not my favorite dance movie. Loved the ending though.
(it) wrote: Just visiting is trying to reproduce the successful formulas of: The Visitors, a French classic comedy from the early 90's but fail completely to be interesting or funny because transposed to the United States, the story doesn't have the same impact at all. Sometimes a story is too much anchored into it's culture and transposing it into a different one kills the effects, the jokes and the fun. Here it's exactly what happened and I'm sorry to say the film is a complete waste of time. Un-funny, boring and above all terribly ludicrous, this new version is terrible and fail in every ways while the original was succeeding effortlessly.
(de) wrote: Teaming up John Carpenter with Sam Neill, In the Mouth of Madness served as a collaboration between a talented director and actor alike.It is really hard to articulate my thoughts on In the Mouth of Madness because it is certainly a rare breed of a film. It is clear that John Carpenter had greater creative control over In the Mouth of Madness than the bigger budget pictures that left him disillusioned with Hollywood, but that doesn't guarantee the greatest quality of material in the first place. I was certainly left with a polarized mind by the end of the entire experience and struggling to confirm how much I honestly enjoyed the film.The story is one with very much potential as it chronicles characters in pursuit of a lost novelist who soon find themselves living out the stories written within his books. It's the kind of tale which wants to make audiences question the boundaries between reality and dark fantasy. Alas, in its pursuit of an oscillated combination of surreal horror and psychological thrills, the story makes it all too clear that the horror is real from early on. There is little that plays with the idea that the horror could be an illusion to the main characters as they are dragged into it far too often. And once this becomes apparent, the entire film is just a series of different horror concepts which are dominated by whatever visuals John Carpenter can muster up. The film seems to give up on its story halfway through to take a backseat to visuals and a scattered collection of different arbitrary horror plot points. This does help to build up an unpredictable universe of the tale, but it's also rather tedious. The psychological concepts are tossed back into the story close to the end as the means of creating a twist, but the manner in which the story is structured makes it difficult to believe it. It is theorized that everything goes on inside the head of protagonist John Trent, but upon the first arrival in Hobbs End there are many strange occurrences that he fails to witness since they are only seen by Linda Styles. Yet even her entire existence is thrown into question. Frankly, there are many small elements of In the Mouth of Madness which makes it structural logic collapse when the viewer chooses to pick them apart due to an endless array of changes to the story's path.In the Mouth of Madness offers a mystery which completely pervades viewers, but it's almost as if Michael De Luca's own ambitions exceed his narrative grasp. By the end of the film there is an ideal ending which is distinctive of John Carpenter and ties things up nicely, but the journey up until that point is an inconsistent one. There is some strange intrigue that comes with the imbalance since it gives viewers a certain sense of uncertainty, but a lot of the time this is a simple reliance on basic methods to convey it. The concepts take a back seat and there ends up being little story to keep things moving, ensuring that the overall development in the narrative is ultimately rather meandering. The problem is that In the Mouth of Madness is a horror film pretending to be a psychological thriller, and the elements of the former are too obvious while the latter are underdeveloped and rather generic. The film essentially stops having a story midway through and becomes an endless flurry of horror themed visuals handed to audiences. The special effects are cool, but they can only take the film so far. And occasionally there is a sense that the lighting is a little too dark to provide audiences with the right perspective on it all even when the cinematography is placed nicely.But as with any John Carpenter film, the musical score is a nice touch. In the Mouth of Madness benefits from Johhn Carpenter's composition because it enters the feature in a gentle manner, mixing elements of both synthesizer 80's style with an eerie dark glamour. The rock-themed elements perhaps fail to match up to the overall feeling of the feature, but they are few and procure some climactic moments when they enter the auditory field.And though the writing for In the Mouth of Madness limits the amount of character development available to the story, the cast still manage to deal a powerful effort.Sam Neill manages to provide an effective leading performance. John Trent is a pretty basic protagonist whose confidence is his key staple, even in the face of such complex horror he finds himself facing. Though the development in the role is very gradual, Sam Neill stands strong in the role and progressively grips a greater sense of confusion and insanity which grows more intense as the film draws to its climax. Sam Neill develops John Trent from a one-dimensional archetype into a twisted product of his own psychology which is characterized by blunt insanity and unpredictability. The repetitive sophistication of John Trent at the beginning of the film turns into a hard-edged brutality by the end of it all, effectively embracing the mood of the story. Sam Neill proves his worth for In the Mouth of Madness, even if the story takes its time to let him do so.Julie Carmen's vulnerability in the role of Linda Styles makes for a compelling case which she similarly turns into an embrace to the world around her, and the manipulative subtlety and tenacious darkness of Jurgen Prochnow makes him a perfect antagonist within meagre minutes of screen time through his raw confidence in understanding the convoluted world around him. The supporting presence of Charlton Heston is also a credible touch.In the Mouth of Madness displays John Carpenter attempting to challenge the borders between a horror reality and a psychological thriller with an unbalanced narrative which relies more on imagery than story, but there is no denying the innovative ambition behind its concepts and the dark atmosphere that embraces this all.
(br) wrote: The storyline was pretty stupid, but there were some funny parts.
(nl) wrote: Interesting modern Jekyll + Hyde. Not very scary or exciting, the movie was ok.
(au) wrote: Grande show onde se pode ver a dimenssao da banda liderada por Freddie Mercury. Must see!
(jp) wrote: Erin Whalen loves this movie! It was pretty entertaining... I mean, Ron Howard makes a movie about hookers working out of a morgue... that has to be funny!
(br) wrote: Interesting 50s take on pollution emanating from big business. Other elements of this movie are classic Western tropes, old vs new, family and generational conflict. Soft liberal message on race and inter-racial marriage was welcome
(it) wrote: The tag line sells it. 'Your Not The Only One Who Wants The Dead.'Other than that you get a fairly standard stalk and slash film that offers little in the way of surprises and brings nothing fresh to the genre. The fact that almost all the characters are so deeply unlikeable doesn't help you one way or another. You want them to die but get little pleasure from their eventual demises.
(us) wrote: Of course "Zero Theorem" will not be to everyone's liking and those in need of a traditional and linear narrative are best advised to skip this one. This is no surprise for anyone familiar with Terry Gilliam, but unlike some of his later cinematic adventures, this one might actually be his best film since "12 Monkeys".Terry Gilliam was always a brilliant stylist and even his worst films had there fair share of breathtaking imagery(and some nice ideas, here and there) and one can notice that in "Zero Theorem" as well in scenes of sheer beauty and in a "Dark Side of Fellini" way of imagining our future.What makes "Zero Theorem" stand apart is that, underneath the seeming chaos, there is a very well thought out film, a film unafraid to show its "sensitive side" in scenes of great emotional power. On the other hand, the wave of complaints about this flick being to muddled, experimental, incomprehensible is unfounded. Actually, while some things about it are, indeed, eerie, the film is not difficult to get, nor is its logic too "exotic". That it is an unusual film, yes, that's true. But that's not to say is one without interest or point, for that matter. Actually, from it's very opening act, "Zero Theorem" is very firm and clear on the path it will follow and the ideas it will exhibit. Yes, those ideas as not new, but this is irrelevant: if you are looking for a new message, stop watching movies, cause no film will give you that. No film should. What this film does - and does very well, by the way - is to create the perfect world to mirror these ideas. I said before that there is a method to this seeming chaos, because the film progresses in a certain way. It starts from being noisy, frantic, surreal, but, little by little, it becomes clearer and more compelling. It mirrors its protagonist, also.I am giving max. rating and I admit it might be a bit too much, but I think cinema needs more films like this and more directors bold enough to follow their own vision, instead of listening to billboard charts, pop prizes and other things alike.My two cents: 5/5.