Park / Lee Song Kyung / - rich businessman, married, lives in a luxury house with servants
Yeon-gye / Cho Yo-jong / - Park's wife, is engaged in hiring domestic workers, raising children, does nothing at home, does not work anywhere; the couple has a teenage daughter and a son of 10 years who has behavioral problems.
Kim (Sung Kang Ho) - the head of a poor family living in a slum in a basement, fraudulently becomes the driver of Park.
Ki Woo / Choi Woo Sik / - Kim's son, on the recommendation of a friend becomes a private teacher of Park's daughter
Ki Jong / Pak Seo Dam / Kim's daughter, does not study, does not work, fraudulently becomes a teacher of drawing for Park's youngest son
Chung / Zhang Ye Jin / - Kim's wife, fraudulently becomes a housekeeper in Park's house, whose family members are unaware of the family ties of their new servant.
At one time, this film thundered in the world box office, at various competitions and festivals and in the communities of film lovers. In fact, I did not watch it at first, because the mainstream is my personal phobia. Five years after the movie came out, it was my turn to see it.
Well, he's really as good as many people said he was. A film about the two extremes of life – poverty and wealth. The two worlds will never be able to understand each other or become close to each other. Because some people will always hate injustice, thinking, "They're everything and I'm nothing." And others will unconsciously turn their noses away from those from whom even the real-physical smell of poverty emanates.
The picture has a very interesting plot. Here everything is twisted-up, you never get tired of watching. Events develop dynamically, sometimes turning in a direction that you did not know existed. And the finale just stunned me, such I did not expect.
What is sad is that representatives of the grassroots not only did not draw any conclusions, but in general it is not clear what they wanted. Well, yes, we were shown that there is no job, it is difficult to get it, but why should we resort to such methods? And what values should they have in their heads if they thought they could cross all possible traits? There is no concept of friendship, honor, kindness, compassion. Even to each other, I sometimes thought so. As if they are a flock of animals that support each other not out of warm kinship, but because a flock without one of its members will cease to exist.
Parasites here, of course, are poor. But the rich are not very sympathy. A well-off woman who has nothing to do, but can not take care of the house, nor the mind of her children. A businessman who is constantly working... He has the least questions, by the way. It was pathetic. But also, it is his periodically manifested snobbish mood.
So there's a lot to talk about. I certainly recommend the film. The film is excellent, the plot is not broken, for which we love Asian cinema.
I don’t understand the excitement around this film. The answer to the most important question: “How is it that some have to live in the basement starving, and others live in a big house and have everything they want?” – the film does not give. It is very interesting and revealing how a rich family literally shouts: Look, we speak English, we buy American goods!!! Take us into your American family, stop seeing us as Koreans!!! We'll do anything for that! It reminds me of something.
Imagine that you are invited to a regular family party, and you decide to go just to relax. Everything seems normal and boring, but then something wildly unexpected begins. This is how I felt when I watched Parasites, a Korean movie that blew my mind. But there are still questions for him.
Honestly, I was expecting to see another story about the rich and the poor. Like, yeah, the poor are envious of the rich, the rich are fried, nothing new. But then director Bong Joon Ho took this cliché and turned it upside down, making it something absolutely wild and memorable.
The film begins as a comedy. The Kim family, who live in a basement and are interrupted by odd jobs, suddenly find a way to get into the home of the wealthy Park family. Here begins a real thriller, when the Kims gradually enter the life of the Packs, like parasites. At first it was fun to watch their tricks, but then everything gets much darker.
And that's where the real hardness begins. We see how cruel the world is. How poverty makes people inventive but ruthless. How wealth does not protect against problems, and sometimes even makes them worse The Park family lives in their cozy world, unaware that they are surrounded by a bunch of problems that are about to break out.
The film makes us think about how we live. Here is this chic life to show, where everything seems to be perfect, but under the surface, passions are boiling, which at any moment can spill out. And when that happens in a movie, you just can't get away from the screen. Literally every minute I expected something new, even more shocking, to happen.
When it comes to what I didn’t like... There may be a few lingering moments in the middle of the film. Sometimes it seemed that the plot was a little stagnant. But these are small things compared to how masterfully built the film itself and how powerfully it hits the nerves.
Parasites is not just a movie. This is a real immersion in the brutal reality of modern Korea, where the boundaries between classes are becoming increasingly blurred, but rigid social structures persist. The film left me with a sense of the bitter truth about the world we live in. And yes, it is definitely worth watching.
You know, I think you need to know how to measure everything. Yes, measure, that's a good word. Those who want too much risk losing everything. It is true that he who wants too little out of life may get nothing at all. In my opinion, the quote of the legendary Tomi Angelo fits this film as well as possible. It was quite predictable that people parasitizing on other people who had achieved everything in an unfair way, people who treated the same people with cruelty, would have a sad, tragic ending. Of course, not all "dishonest" people are unlucky, very many succeed. Probably someone will say that they were just unlucky, and they could continue to live such a life for many years, to develop their success. Maybe so.
However, as is often the case, the main characters have too much faith in themselves, in their success, in the fact that they can not get away with anything, in the fact that they are omnipotent. But it wasn't. Reality played a cruel joke on them. Those who wear a crown over their heads often fail. They were no exception. Perhaps someone will risk justifying their plight. To me, this was far from a decisive factor. The former maid and her husband were just like them. Their cruelty is hardly justified. GG just crossed a line that could not be crossed. And life punished them, as it often happens. How she punished Tomi Angelo. .
Cinematography can be assessed by the maximum score, and the film itself, in my opinion, is difficult to evaluate in principle, and no – this does not mean that the film is bad. On the contrary!
What delighted me the most was that while watching, I experienced a variety of emotions: in some moments it was simply impossible to contain laughter; the second half of the film makes you feel real tension, which increases with every second. The viewing became pleasant due to the professional work of the operators, a well-thought-out plot, the skill of the actors and playing with light and color palette.
However, in my opinion, the main advantage of this film is that the picture “Parasites” is able to give a thoughtful viewer a ground for reflection. Indeed, a number of questions immediately arise in my mind. For example, why are members of a wealthy family so short-sighted and naive? To be honest, at first I was very annoyed by the behavior of the wealthy “mistress”, who allowed herself to follow the recommendations of strangers and believe everyone she met. But! It is foolish to think that this was done unintentionally. Of course, the director absurdly exaggerates the incredulity of the rich specifically so that the viewer immediately sided with a close-knit poor family consisting of quite talented personalities. In large part because of this, we involuntarily begin to feel sympathy for the poor, not the rich. However, scenes where the rich are shown to be too trusting and strange will be painful to watch people who hate stupidity and illogicality (I can consider myself one of them).
What about the ending? It could not be different: the director simply could not organize a different outcome of events, since the main idea was not to elevate the poor over the rich or vice versa, but to portray the global problem of social inequality. This is how the protest against the injustice of the rigid South Korean (and not only) social hierarchy is expressed. It seems we are only beginning to marvel at the poor family’s genius when Kim commits an act that is hard to justify. And no one makes him justify himself. The director simply refuses to take sides. Pan Jung-hoo does not want to tell us what is good and what is bad, he only wants to draw people’s attention to what is happening in the world today. Tonight! Right now!
9 out of 10
P. S. This film inspired me to write my first review.
In today’s world, class inequality is very important. Every day so many people face this in their lives. The director of “Parasites” decided to show that in Korea this topic was once relevant.
In this picture, a low social class and a high social class are shown very accurately and clearly, any person will understand which is which. This is a good director's move, it does not make the viewer think long, but clearly shows everything that is happening. With the situation of people in the film, everything is clear, now the main plot of the film, "parasitism", from which the name comes. Turning to parasitism from a biological point of view, it becomes clear that this process of the existence of an organism at the expense of another, that is, using it for one’s own needs, sounds cruel, and now we apply this term to the film. In the story, each family member hiding his real position in society gets to work with very rich people, as if jumping over the social stages. That is, the low class begins to live at the expense of the high. But is that really true? If you go back to biology, the parasites just get what they need, doing nothing, the body itself gives everything that the parasite needs. Back to the painting. Note that a poor family works there, the key word is “works,” meaning they get paid. Yes, they forged documents and lied when they got a job, it is similar to the nature of parasites, but the fact that they worked there is not part of the nature of parasites.
Nevertheless, this is a rather deep branch into the essence of the picture, do not forget that this is a film that touches on class inequality, and in the film it is shown at a height, pay attention to the color in the film, the angle of the camera, it is all very accurately played and look at it is a pleasure. I think the movie was interesting, I recommend it!
What an unusual composition and color! Is that the chimpanzee in the picture? - No, it's a self-portrait. "Parasites" begins as a roguish comedy. And of those rare comedies that are just a comedy. The plot itself, in which a family of lumpens begins to seep into the house of wealthy Koreans from high society, occupying all possible jobs - a driver, governess, tutor, psycho-art therapist - is a traditional scheme of a rogue comedy. To add to that, marginalized people who are in close family relationships, at work must carefully hide them - here is a seasoning in the form of a qui pro quo. Even about housekeeping and driving an expensive car crooks know firsthand. And about art-psychotherapy have only the very communication idea. But the “cream of society” is so glad to be deceived that the dust put into their eyes is mistaken for golden sand – here is a comedy of morals. Plus the visual difference between a basement on the outskirts of a big city and an exquisite mansion in the suburbs - please social satire. But, amusing the viewer with a bright laughing start, "Parasites" comedic charge is gradually reduced. The fact that this carnival will end badly, becomes clear when in the basement of the miracle house will be discovered another inhabitant: the husband of a housekeeper expelled from work. That fifth year sits in the basement, fearing creditors. The housekeeper cannot leave her husband without food and water, so she has to sneak into the house when the owners left for a picnic. Once there, she not only reveals her secret, but also learns another: that all new workers are husband, wife and children. Blackmail, bidding, intrigue, fights will begin. It ends in a stabbing. Laughter subsides. A bloody ending is inevitable.
Ham is coming: this theme is increasingly coming to the first place in cinema. The Russian “Helena” directly says that not today – tomorrow elite houses in the center of the capital will fill the marginals from Biryulev. Abdulatif Kesheesh from film to film continues his social tale that the seemingly free world of “equal opportunities” is just a collection of prison cells. The walls of this prison are invisible, but there is no way to overcome or tear them down. It's funny: last year, Cann's winner was also an East Asian film from Japan. And also on the topic of the relationship between two worlds: marginal and elite. In The Shop Thieves, Hirokazu Koraedo was heart and soul on the side of the humiliated and offended. Children, by the will of fate were part of a poor, penniless family, the director did not regret: he envied them. There is no money for a lollipop, but how much sincere love, how much truth is in motherly words addressed to daughters and fatherly instructions to sons. Only in poverty there was room for unpretentious, sincere feelings, the rest of the world in pursuit of material goods has long forgotten about sincerity and unselfishness. The Korean had a controversy with him. In many ways, “Parasites” look like a remake of Ettore Scola’s long-standing Italian painting “Disgusting, Dirty, Evil.” In that film, an already authoritative master of Italian cinema addressed his mentors and contemporaries: Friends, you are too carried away in protecting the poor. Behind the pathos of compassion for the fallen and social pain, what you haven't noticed is that most of the poor have been so through their own fault. They know nothing, do not know, and do not want to know anything or know anything, except to burn a life in drunkenness, debauchery, bad habits and that simplicity of relationships that is worse than stealing. Parasites inherit this idea. To sympathize with these small scammers only for the fact that they are constrained in means, somehow does not work. However, their employers do not cause much sympathy either.
Country house of author's design director turns into a symbol - a model of society. The top is occupied by the rising generation of the ruling class. Nearby are successful parents who, apart from their success, see nothing at all. Below is the servant. And finally, in the basement, the losers of the market economy society thrown out there, whose business did not go, but their debts remained. In addition to the social model, the house also illustrates the types of consciousness. The top that soars in the heavens of fantasy, not realizing what is happening on the ground on which the house is built. A pragmatic consciousness of the rules and tricks of survival in a market society of equal opportunity. And below: repressed complexes, fears, repressed injuries, driven into a reliable bunker of the subconscious.
These floors are not fenced off from each other by impassable blocks. In fact, they're drawn to each other. Lower, in the absence of owners, comes to life saunas, Jacuzzi, bedrooms of the world of the upper. The upper one shows physiological interest in the representatives of the social “bottom”. A young daughter experiences a kind of puberty in love with her "teacher." A young artist who plays Indians, like a silk behaves at the "art therapist." Even the hostess of the house is happy to secret with a new friend "housekeeper". Only Dad did. Having tested the chauffeur skills of a new reliable elderly driver, the head of a successful family can not put up with the smell that comes from him. With the smell of a household cloth that has been boiled - he can not pick up another formulation. He does not know the smell of the suburban basement: dampness, insecticide, sewage. Sewerage will eventually break through due to heavy rain, flooding the impoverished values of the inhabitants. And the sharp reaction of the boss to the driver's smell will be the point from which the spring twisted to the point will straighten into an equally acute bloody reaction. Not everyone dies. Some. The gods will move away from the design house. I guess it’s another one, no less designer. An abandoned killer driver will take the place of a ghost in the basement. And his son will develop a plan according to which he, having earned money, will buy the same house and free his father from the dungeon.
A marginalized son will remember the lessons of his father for a long time: the best plan is in the absence of a plan as such. Then it will come true. Bong Joon-ho is moving away from both vulgar sociology and apocalyptic predictions. The meeting of all three worlds of capitalist economy is inevitable. How and when it will happen: the war plan will show.
All the best is American. At first, it makes you roll your eyes, but then it turns out that this is the ridicule, which is reinforced by wearing Indian costumes on the Koreans. Between the lines you can catch - now they are the main dish for all the best ... and then - you will find out what the finale in Indian costumes is.
Pros:
Imagery of the top and bottom of society. The image in the movie is beaten, but here it is shown qualitatively. This gap is shown so grotesquely, especially as they run down the stairs into their flooded housing. When ' Upper' begin to praise this downpour in the presence of the victims ' Lower' It was conveyed so qualitatively, I felt the gravity of the situation, the injustice and hypocrisy.
In this film, I felt the gap between rich and poor. It creates the right sense of injustice.
Hidden parallel:
In one episode, the director made one think that the two impoverished families of this film symbolize not parasites at all, but North and South Korea. That these two families are actually hostages of someone else's superiority. I thought about the red button episode. Two similar families are in dire straits and one threatens the other with a red button with a direct message to North Korea from dialogue. It's hard not to draw a parallel.
Cons:
Some kind of double play. First, we are shown incompetently rolled up food boxes for which they were not paid, that is, they show their unwillingness to work. Then they are shown as people who learn, work well and try to just live, cope with hardships, steal nothing. Then they show that it's not a choice, it's a need - adding more heroes with the same problems.
Then they show a hypocritical attitude and primitive thinking ' top ' which are no less like parasites. But parasites are those who take without risk, who appropriate without giving anything in return. And in this film, all the characters lost something important, and did not try to take someone else.
The question is, who are the parasites in this movie? It seems that parasites are present invisibly. I don't like those tricks in movies. It's a minus for me.
I don’t often watch pictures of Korean production, but the acclaimed film “Parasites” interested me. The film received four Academy Awards and many positive reviews from the audience.
The film turned out to be high-quality, with an interesting unbeaten plot and well-remembered heroes. What's this movie about? A poor Korean family barely makes ends meet and lives in the poorest neighborhood in the basement. The Kim family is working part-time, but everything changes when the son’s friend is offered to work as a tutor in a rich house.
The title of the film "Parasites" as never before conveys the accuracy of the plot. The problems shown in the picture are vital and relevant. In South Korea, there is indeed great economic inequality between classes. The idea is interesting and after viewing the question in my head.
The Kim family got a good, high-paying job, got into trust, but for some reason did not want to change their lifestyle and move on. They also continue to live in the basement, irritating their owners and insolent more and more. The hosts are also shown as such spoiled and vain snobs who try to be nice to the staff, but in fact this is pure hypocrisy.
Who is the director in this film showing a parasite? A well-to-do family looking down on those below class or poor Kims trying to grab a piece of fatter and fiercely jealous of the rich? The real parasites in the film are greed (the Kim family) and pride (the Park family). It is these feelings that push each of the families to actions that lead to irreversible consequences.
The creators masterfully woven many genres into one whole. It's both tragicomedy and social drama at the same time. By the end, a thrash begins that could not be predicted. And the movie turns into a thriller. The ending is completely unpredictable.
The cast plays wonderfully. Usually Koreans for us are all the same and similar to each other, but in Parasites each hero is individual and well remembered. Most of all, I liked the play of the father of the Kim family, he had the most emotions.
The film is long in time, but looks cheerful and not boring. The final shots will cheer up and undoubtedly surprise. I agree with the Oscar in the nomination “Best Screenplay”, such films are very rare and memorable for a long time.
Strangely, many have seen “Parasites”, but it seems that they did not watch. From the beginning, the problem of poverty is introduced. The most common Korean family lives in the basement and tries to find something to eat. Why is this happening, why are they poor? They don't get paid enough, they don't have arms without legs? Almost immediately, the director gives an answer. They're lazy and freeloaders. Nobody's looking for a job. At the same time, we see that the heroes are not deprived of talent. The daughter is a good designer. But to use her talent is not easy for her. Therefore, she will forge documents, but she will not look for earnings. Dad's a driver, but he doesn't want to work for pennies. My mother was a successful athlete in the past. My son knows English well. And even when the family gets a chance to make money, all the members do the work in vain, but enthusiastically demand to pay up to the last penny. They need a nice neighborhood Internet. Asking to share for a service is not about them. Such parasites. But the son, on the recommendation, settles in a rich family tutor. A sister who, in response to help, commits meanness in order to arrange her father. And even more mean work in the house gets the mother. Having received earnings, the parasites do not show any gratitude, but on the contrary, think about how to rob employers even more and fit in even better. Is this a film about economic injustice? Not at all. It's about poverty from laziness and vice. The film does not poorly reflect the Korean theme of the centrality of the family. Family is holy, family members stand up for each other and work as a team. Other people can be treated almost like enemies. A similar topic is that in Korea you can settle only under protection. Personal connections decide everything. But the message is very American. The poor are poor because they are lazy. If they had taken up work and worked twenty hours a day in all the shoulder blades, soon Forbes would have written about them. The Korean-American dream. It is not clear whether the director means individual poor or all at once. If the latter is true, the film begins to smell bad. As is often the case, the term “comedy” is misleading. Some situations in the film are typical of sitcoms, but they are used differently and not for comic effect. The funniest scene is a parody of North Korean television. Surprisingly, the film showcases many American clichés. Inspiring, profound monologues about nothing. Sudden activation of action in the middle of the picture. A lyrical, profound moment before the denouement. The end of an important event. In some places, the script sags, although not often. The rich should have a decorative dog, which will certainly be worn in their hands. Are there any rich people in movies without decorative dogs? It's hard to believe in stupid rich people, sometimes divorce is too obvious. The housewife is impressed by the speech that the main thing for passing the English exam is confidence. Any sane person who heard such pretentious nonsense would throw out the door immediately. As for the coincidence in the denouement, I do not believe. Made purely for the spectacle. In the end, the film is not bad, but it is far from a masterpiece. He did not deserve a golden palm tree. In my opinion, it was given for reasons of inclusiveness, so that not only Europeans were represented. And here the story is clear and shot on a familiar pattern. And most importantly, another part of the world. The film is really emotional about a world that Europeans are not familiar with. That's a plus. But the movie itself is too average. I don’t know what was in the competition program in 2019, but did all the films have the same level? It seems that the unimaginable perfection in the film, the audience saw after it was seen by professional awards distributors. In fact, between 6 and 7.
The other day I watched the work of the well-known film director Bong Joon Ho, winner of four Oscars. There was a desire to share some emotions and thoughts caused by watching, and there is simply no place better than here, in my opinion.
Parasites. An interesting and intriguing title, and interest and intrigue are born from the moment when acquaintance with the film is just beginning. I think that it is not necessary to go into the details of the plot, since the post is not intended to be something in the spirit of review, but is only the result of a fleeting desire to express.
Here, in the universe of the rich and the poor, you will find a huge number of scenes, metaphorically demonstrating the social status of people in different strata of society. The film is literally permeated with such seemingly superficial scenes. "Surface"? That is, because they are so, because the essence of their display is reported only after a certain time. Everything in this film is not just for beauty or any effect, every detail has a plan. A particularly curious viewer will find a huge number of reasons for thinking.
I hope I’m interested in someone, moved to watch and proved the work of a South Korean filmmaker as a worthwhile waste of time. As for my interest in this, it is only that, in my opinion, “Parasites” is worth watching.
Strange movie. Initially, we watch a series of boring long scenes for about half an hour, and for the first time there is a desire to escape from this masterpiece. Then we're thrown into the so-called 'event cycle'. What caused the most confusion and irritation were gaps in the plot, the size of a whale.
A family of low-income people struggling to make ends meet who suddenly have a chance. And, either because of such a magical coincidence, or a miracle stone helped, several people who have been living in poverty for years and consider themselves losers (the son directly declares himself to his friend in the first minutes of the film), suddenly, as conspirators, become brilliant intriguers! They suddenly and fool people at times richer themselves easily could (and many so-called ' rich' not without reason have made a fortune and have an outstanding mind and abilities), and substitute innocent people for them once spit.
Then follows a series of strange events, apparently designed to emphasize inequality and catch up with drama, in fact, once again stuffy. At the end of the day, the son has the goal of getting rich to help his father. Yeah, apparently, before only a worthy motive was not enough to begin to improve their life and the life of their family.
As a result, once again incredible ' important' cinema with ' important' subtexts, and absolutely devoid of a coherent plot and motivation of the characters.
In other words, for what they love cinema today: give the audience an acute social problem, and everyone will close their eyes to the rest.
3 out of 10
And then only for aesthetic staff and good work engaged in props.
Asian films are not the most frequent guests on our screens, and perhaps the main reason for this is the significant difference in the perception of the world and mentality between East and West, which eventually finds its reflection in cinema as a special art form. Despite the abundance of awards, primarily in Western cinema (4 Oscars, and 1 in the main nomination), the viewer, accustomed to clearly divided into genres of Western cinema, this film will not be easy to watch. In terms of belonging to the genre, I would call 'Parasites' a tragicomedy of positions built on the grotesque, and such a combination can hardly be called common and easy to perceive.
The plot of this film tells about the attempt of a rather enterprising Korean family, living literally on the social bottom, to escape from the poverty and starving reality in the seemingly dream-full life of a servant in a rich house. It would seem that this is the embodiment of the Korean version of the fairy tale about Cinderella, but the methods of achieving the goal of family members are not fabulous at all: in the fight for a warm place at the host feeder, all the means are good. And if at first the methods of competition cause only a smile, then the closer to the end the story develops, the more often the question arises, what else is a person capable of in his desire to live better, and where is the line that cannot be crossed on the way to personal well-being. In the end, is this the warmest place at the feet of the master of these efforts, if along with material well-being there is a need to live in constant lies and fear of being exposed?
It is both a simple and complex movie. It is simple because something similar (of course, in a less protruding form) we see around us all the time: in any country and in any society, everyone is forced to wear masks and play roles, and everyone wants to live better tomorrow than today. This movie is difficult because it sharply ridicules social vices and the cult of consumption, turning comedy on the screen first into a farce and then into a tragedy, it does not give an unambiguous answer, but can it be different, or is this desire for human well-being always parasitic on the well-being of someone else?
The heroes of this story, played by a strong acting ensemble, in which everyone looks organic and in their place, also do not cause warm feelings: hypocrisy, adaptability, snobbery and vanity are the main characteristics of the characters of the film. The brightest role in the film, in my opinion, has the father of the family, who was played by the famous actor Son Kang-ho in Korea, who showed the most interesting development of his hero.
Should I watch this movie? Definitely yes, if you have a desire to look at the social problems of the modern world from an unexpected angle, there are no prejudices about the form of presentation of history and you are not confused by the lack of lying on the surface morality. For all its ambiguity, this is still a film about the ineradicable hope for the best that lives in every person.
Of course, the Koreans may surprise, but for Oscar, they tried not to gesture.
So in the film, there are two families: one survives, the other lives in a beautiful house with staff. In theory, their worlds do not overlap at all.
But a boy from a poor family is asked to replace the tutor from the daughter of the rich. Then he sits all the workers at home and offers his family members to replace. Everything is based on lies and undercover games. I wish they were just working there.
So the whole family began to feel like second owners there.
But as soon as you think of them, “Here, parasites”, a new layer of unpleasant circumstances opens.
As if there is no limit to human dirt.
It is a pity for the family of the owners of the house who did nothing wrong to anyone, just live their ordinary life, try to be nice to the staff, treat them fairly, and in return receive only an increasingly tangled tangle of human vices.
Of course, there are events in the film that are not quite logical and do not fit into my head. But I blame the peculiarity of the Korean mentality and artistic fiction.
But what was missing was the story of how a poor family came to this life. Why didn’t they get a job sooner with good skills?
When watching the movie, there is always a feeling of growing hell. And only the son of the poor was able to pleasantly surprise me, to break out of this paradigm of a precarious lifestyle.
I don't recommend looking impressionable. But there won't be any abominations. Only human vices.
Korea is a terribly poor country where people survive as best they can. I was recommended to watch 'Parasites' for a long time, and I still couldn't find the time. Let me just say, the movie impressed me. Shot very cool, stylish and spectacular. I almost got claustrophobic after some scenes. I was very, very sad to see what was happening on the screen. This is a survival scenario in harsh conditions. Where morality retreats to the second or third plane and remains dry calculation.
Everything revolves around money. People make money.
It's a wonderful, layered film. Adhering to leftist views, the director boldly arranges a satire over the device for work according to recommendations, passes on the love of Koreans for loans, tutors, elite universities, goods ordered from America, and even about the specific smell in the Seoul subway.
There are no positive characters here: the poor, parasitizing the gullible, spoiled and arrogant rich, do not cause much sympathy.
“Parasites”, however, are revealed in different ways: first it is a roguish comedy, then goes into satire, then - an almost serious piece of it - just a farce, with elements of a thriller or even horror. But in the end, everything turns into the total seriousness and injustice of the very structure of things, disillusionment with capitalist society - which adds the necessary energy to this mess.
Everything ends with a cold waterfall that refreshes and makes you think about important things.
Music, beautiful interiors, bright characters, cinematography, lively atmosphere and thirst for profit make this film a serious challenge to yourself and makes you ask yourself the question: '.
I watched this film solely on the wave of my interest in Korean film production, which, in turn, was spurred by one Korean series, so popular now that everyone knows what the series is about. Moreover, this film occasionally popped up in the commentary on the series, as it also reflects social issues.
Unfortunately, the film was very boring. The point is not even that, as they write above, it is not clear who 'Parasites' (just everything is clear). The thing is, it's kind of served a little bland. I don’t even know why that feeling is. Probably because there is no interesting dialogue in the film. Heroes are quite banal, both from one family and from another. It is clear that some assumptions are always made for an artistic picture, but the naivety of the wife-mistress of such a house, to be honest, seems very hypertrophied. The cellar story seems to have been invented to introduce some Korean element to the film 'Tresha' although there is nothing tresh. The plot lines are somehow thrown: the line of the son of the poor and his student is not developed, with the younger child of the owners of the house, too, somehow everything is not squeezed. It’s a bit of a smack in the ears.
In general, it’s an average movie and I honestly don’t understand what it was awarded for or why it was talked about two years ago.
It’s a movie that doesn’t capture, doesn’t engage. But it completely immerses you in the atmosphere, raises a huge number of social problems. I won’t spoil it, but the issues of poverty and wealth, their interactions, love, family, honesty, national interactions, emotions, behavior, reason and recklessness are raised very boldly here. I only put 9/10 on this absolutely brilliant film because there are moments of hyperbolization and cinematicism in the neighborhood. Although I probably just don't want to admit that some people can actually be parasites. I am not a film critic or an expert. I think this film lacks some simple moments. There's too much sociality in this film, as a simple viewer, I had all the viewing anxiety. Should I watch this movie? Clearly worth it. It's not for nothing that he got a confession. But this movie is clearly for one-time viewing. Do not expect positive emotions from him.
The film isn’t that bad, it just doesn’t get all the praise it received. Very schematically, systematically and measuredly, we are presented with a plot that is foreseen by each previous scene. Replicas written with such care that the actors must have memorized them by heart, the contrast of interclass positions, amplified to the level of satire, about which praise is constantly trumpeted - all this looks like a carefully calibrated, polished to shine, the thesis of the most diligent, capable and ambitious student of the course. The whole film as if the director pokes the viewer in the face of the unpleasant truth, exclaiming enthusiastically ' Look! look how it happens!' Yes, the viewer is not an idiot, he knows how everything happens in life. Why would you talk about it with such enthusiasm? Does the film have a different target audience? Maybe all the well-to-do film critics suddenly saw a threat to their prosperous and cloudless existence, which shocked them to the core, with what simplicity this world can be destroyed? It is difficult to find another explanation to explain how this picture, which remotely echoes Dostoevsky & #39; Crime and Punishment' and thus plays up classical interclass inequality, achieved such high marks.
I also don’t appreciate this film because that same class inequality doesn’t really have the social poignancy that the film is trying to portray. Modern man most cherishes his sense of dignity, to be a really mean, real marginal, not disdaining any way on the way to the goal - no one wants it. And that’s why the plot seems so illogical, no matter how metaphorical it is called.
The title was long repulsed from viewing, despite the praise. Coupled with ' nationality' the film was expected simply abomination.
And it turned out very interesting! Everything in order.
The family is on the verge of survival. They work part-time, stealing WiFi from neighbors. In fact, parents have a profession, but for some reason they do not want or cannot work in it - this is not disclosed.
Children kind of have to study, but the boy did not go to college, and about the girl and is quite strange.
So it all starts with a guy's friend offering him his tutoring job for the duration of his internship. The first question is, why falsify documents if you have already been recommended? The final decision still occurs after an open lesson in the presence of the mother.
Question two - why lie that it's not your sister, but some distant acquaintance? Perhaps this is a Korean mentality. But if the owners are not against nepotism and recommendations, then I see no reason to invent anything.
It is not disclosed the moment when the owner leaked the driver in the end. This is an obvious failure in the script.
But it is very well shown how a simple housewife can screw up a problem out of nothing, but then it is doubly strange why she does not use the services of trusted agencies. Moreover, they are not divorced from society, but are friends with the same families and certainly exchange experience. Plus, taking a person into a family without a total check is like walking through a minefield. Stupid and pointless. Especially when the husband is the head of an IT corporation, and he doesn’t care.
And check the former driver for drugs - once spit and for entertainment with a girl you can just reprimand with a warning.
In short, the credibility of the film is very limping.
But the nature of people who not only could not honestly get a job, but also began to feel like masters there is well revealed. Fighting for their place, they were ready for a lot. I didn’t want to go back to my scented life.
Honestly, it is a pity for the Pak family, who just wanted peace and quiet in the house, wanted to raise a child normally, sometimes complaining about each other to the staff, like ordinary spouses who have already passed the candy and bouquet period. They wanted a normal life. But they were not very lucky with the staff.
I would like to see the scene of their lives after what happened, how it all affected them.
But we only saw the finale of the parasite family. The sad events still gave them an impetus to take up their minds and somehow take care of each other.
I will speak separately about the house of the Paks. This is a completely uncomfortable place that is not suitable for a family with a child, but looks great on the screen. Such wives always decorate the house with something smoother, softer - after all, she bought a wigwam baby, but carried it out on the lawn. It’s like there’s a separate world that doesn’t fit into their home. The garden was again decorated for the child’s birthday. And the interiors were left with cold textures and clear lines.
Yes, the script is interesting, dynamic and at the same time quite cruel, with unusual twists and turns - this is a plus. At the same time, there are shortcomings and gaps that could be closed only by slightly increasing screen time.
As a result, we got a rather slick picture shot product that is unlikely to want to reconsider.
6 out of 10
How not to be in the highest soul the worst of parasites? Nietzsche.
Well, let's start with the good one. It’s a good movie, which is pretty important in my opinion. It's not made in ' hello-goodbye' so to speak. It's got everything right. It seems that the director of the film Bong Jun-ho graduated from one of the three most prestigious universities in South Korea. There is an academic consistent and competent style of presentation of the plot. There is a tie that occupies most of the tape, and then - the climax and denouement, which is devoted to about the second half of the picture. There is something to see and it feels like it.
More than that. The film manages to keep in suspense, there is always something happening in it. There is always someone here saying or doing something. I won’t say that something deep, but action is, and that’s a plus.
It is impossible not to note a certain sense of humor, it is also great, even relaxing.
But on this, talking about the pros becomes more difficult. Oh, yes, there's also a clear musical design. I would not say that very well selected, but clear, confident, author. So, we count 4 points.
Now, maybe the downsides. I am always struck by all improbability. I'm just sick of her at the movies. If the movie isn't believable, it's the devil knows what, not the movie. Implausible places anywhere else - in art (fine art), in fairy tales for children, in fraudulent tricks in real life, but not in what is filmed on camera. Perhaps this is the only really important criterion for cinematography. And in this regard, alas, 'Parasites' do not shine. I'm not surprised that this moment was largely ignored by the public. Contemporary society does not differ, unfortunately, in this sense of vitality, even vitality, if you will, the adequacy of what is happening, its correspondence to the way the world and society are arranged. People love illusions, a known fact. And this South Korean film is essentially such an illusion, albeit neatly crafted. Cheat of the year. If you look closely, you can find a lot of implausible moments from the tie-up to the denouement, in which they are most. Honestly, I don’t understand, does the viewer really need the epic ending that is here? Is there no place for that? Where do all these big endings come from? What are they for? Whatever it is, the ending here is very implausible. Take at least a letter read in Morse code, which contains something like the words 'something', 'Why' So, seriously, the author of the letter was not lazy in Morse code to knock out such words? It's absurd. I’m not talking about the main final moments, which are simply designed to shock the viewer at last, wake him up, make the film memorable for him. But it's utter banality! Implausibility here can be forgiven only in the middle of the film, when the characters are intoxicated. It is really unclear how a person would behave. However, the scene in the basement, again, is not plausible.
But let's talk about the movie! So you think it's okay for rich people to be trusting people who are stupid enough to let a fucking gang of poor people into their house? So it's normal that the poor are so clever swindlers and professional actors that they quietly fool a rich family? It seems to me that the author underestimates the vigilance of materially secure members of society. As the title of my review shows, I do not overestimate this vigilance. It's just really too much. Well, if you came to the film for the contrast of the lives of the rich and the poor, you will not be disappointed, this moment is hurried, you can even add another point for it. But if you want to see something believable, then you have another session.
From the improbability follows another drawback of the film - it's bad acting actors. Especially worth noting is Cho Yo-jon - actress, who played 'Mistress'. Her behavior in the frame looks like some kind of banter. I don’t know how much she was paid for the role, but she played it badly. She portrays some simpleton who trusts everyone and everything in a row, cries for and without reason, but it is perfectly clear at the same time that she is not as simple and naive as she tries to seem. If it were possible to issue anti-oscars, then it would be just right here to issue one.
So, 5 advantages and 2 disadvantages of what I noticed. I may have had very high expectations for the movie that broke down. But rather, the work itself falls short of the masterpiece I thought it was or was recently considered. The flaws are pretty serious to me. The film isn’t too bad, but it’s far (very!) from a masterpiece. It should not be overestimated simply because it looks unusual due to the fact that it was shot not in the West or for anything else. Let's evaluate it objectively! Suppose, in the end, there is at least 5, but not more than 7 points out of 10. I do not claim to have a full analysis of this undermaster, so plus minus one point from
In the first lines of my letter I want to draw attention to the fact that this story is very instructive in one important question: in this life one must be able to do at least some business very well, to understand at least some issue. It is desirable to be a true professional, at least against the background of others. One day, it can provide a significant advantage and greatly change your life. And in general, it will allow you to find your place in the labor market. On the example of the heroes of this film, it is clear that each of them was well versed in their business, and this opened up great opportunities for them. The most revealing are the brother and sister who did not spend time idle, but worked hard and reached a good level in their business (this is beyond the plot, this is a fantasy on a given topic).
In part, my thesis is refuted by the bottom, on which all our heroes were at the beginning of the journey, i.e. they could not, other things being equal, apply their abilities and express themselves somewhere, they needed a happy coincidence of circumstances (however, so often happens in life – a happy pendal is necessary for the beginning of a long journey). But still it is like with a Chekhov rifle, which must be fired at the end - and for this it must still be a gun, not a stick!
Let me go back to the previous point, because the film is based on this. The characters of the film are so professional scammers that it looked strange how they were presented at the beginning of the story. This is a significant logical inconsistency in the plot. However, it is not necessary to find fault with it, because any people have periods of ups and downs in life, the white stripe is replaced by black.
It is useless to condemn this family for the ridiculous mistakes that led to the final, otherwise it would not have been such an interesting and exciting plot. (In the context of this, it is impossible to keep silent about obvious unprofessionalism, since such smart people should take into account the possible hidden video shooting in the house, which in such situations with employees is generally the norm. It doesn’t matter that it didn’t matter here, but with that in mind, things could have been different.
The director and screenwriter was such a powerful talent as Bong Jun-ho, who directed the best-selling Memories of a Murder. That alone should raise the initial level of confidence in this picture. And the main role here is the same actor Son Kang-ho.
Conclusion. Before the start of viewing, I did not know what the film was about, I did not even read the synopsis, it seemed by the title that this was another pro-apocalyptic nonsense. That's it! .
Up to a point, the film looks purely Western, not counting Korean faces and some setting. But then it breaks into a thriller and begins a dashing whirlwind, so characteristic of the best South Korean films. A very good film, definitely a classic of the Korean film industry (a bunch of Oscars, getting into the TOP-250 - everything corresponds). Amateurs are required to watch.
Without a doubt, a very good drama with the highest level in all respects. Well, technically, they don't give Oscars to films that aren't perfect. I don’t know if this is the best film of the year, for me it was cooler candidates, but the movie in any case is worth watching.
The story of a poor South Korean family, consisting of talented, but somehow morally and physically degraded people who accidentally, and then all truths and falsely fall into the workers of a rich family and reap the benefits of civilization. Up to the middle of the film there is rather a dramatic narrative, but then there is a sharp turn, replacing the plot with a tragic one with thriller elements. At the same time, there is clearly a socio-satirical subtext in everything, which is noticeably enhanced by the final. The ending itself is rather plot open, although the general idea already becomes quite understandable. The remaining themes have some unobtrusive and soft substance, which can even be smeared with moments due to action dynamics. But in addition to the general idea, there are other interesting topics to think about. And because of this softness, they can arise and escape. For example, the idea of procrastination from fatalism. There are some hidden nuances associated with the peculiarities of mentality and culture. For example, the topic of the traditional Asian relationship between social strata. Well, the general idea that I saw and which is obvious to me is the peculiarities of social inequality in the modern world in general and the related misunderstanding of some life things in principle. By the way, this has a political connotation, because the political elite is unlikely to belong to the lower strata of the population, and based on the idea of the film can hardly understand the needs of a large part of the population of their country.
And a little bit about the creator of the film - director Bong Jun-ho. He’s made relatively few films so far, but from what I’ve seen, it’s at a very high level. So his psychological drama Mother, in my order above Parasites. And there is also a very successful and original dystopian action movie Through the Snow.
So I advise everyone to watch Parasites and other films by Bong Joon-ho.
Pon Joon-ho's film reveals the unfamiliar world of South Korean life. Behind the bourgeois showcase of Samsungs, LG and Hundai, we somehow do not think that in ' thriving ' South Korea there is such terrible poverty, where people live with whole families in absolutely terrible basement conditions. In the story, it is such a family that tricks its way into the service staff to the rich, living in a parallel world of prosperity and prosperity. And this story cannot end with a happy ending.
There is an analogy with the film of Mr. Zvyagintsev ' Elena'. The same setup, similar accents and development. And I would venture to disagree with korinevski2015, a well-established Marxist, that there is no class struggle in the film. The story is just an excuse to touch on the topic. The film itself is an example of class struggle. The director, who stands on the positions of the bourgeoisie, demonstrates the good, kind, naive and sweet bourgeois as opposed to the evil lumpenes who are ready to commit any crime in order to achieve wealth. That's the opposite of Marx. After all, it is the capitalist who is ready to commit any crime for the sake of 300% of profit, not the proletarian.
And if it was a film by a Russian director, such an interpretation of the film would be almost exhaustive. However, in the case of 'Parasites' it's not that simple. In my opinion, one of the obvious conclusions that Bong Jun-ho tries to convey to the viewer is the idea that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Social elevators in the declared ' democratic society of equal opportunities' no word 'totally' And in no other way than forgery, deception (and then, thanks to a coincidence), poor people do not have the opportunity to break out on the human level of life. But even in this case ' good luck' everything ends dramatically for both sides.
Taking into account the fact that the representatives of the proletariat in principle do not have the opportunity to make films, we always see on the screen the position of the creative intelligentsia, harassing the ruling class. In this case, bourgeois. Therefore, this film can be seen as another attempt to reach out to the powerful and say: gentlemen, do something so that the gap between rich and poor is not so catastrophic!
The attempt, of course, commendable, but completely useless. A well-fed hungry man cannot understand. Don't yell.