Review Let's talk about M (2007, South Korea)

plsletitrain

Member: Rank 5
You know I was thinking about it and I think it was really a part of the novel. But since the movie was directed in a way that will also make the viewer confused and decide for himself, the director placed a "voice" on the novel lines. I assume it was all for Mimi. The movie gave me the impression that he was still imprisoned for the love that would-have-been.

I still can't honestly decipher the "I could only love you by leaving you" line. It is very powerful and gave me the shivers but its depth is something that my shallow brain can't fathom. I only interpreted it to mean that she could continue to love him when he finally sets her free. Y'know that myth they say that a spirit remains to roam and never comes at peace until it finds the justice/closure it wants.
 

plsletitrain

Member: Rank 5
I really find that line when he said "Are your breasts big now?" funny yet gave me quite the confusion. It was at this point that I was unsure if his love was romantic or platonic (but of course the latter scenes reveal it to be romantic). I mean, you don't just come talking about breasts to someone you just found out you loved a long time ago like that.
 

plsletitrain

Member: Rank 5
I think my genius mind just came up with the perfect explanation for that line. "I can only love you by leaving you". Their love was not meant to be from the start. She has to go somewhere (ugh, should I still hold on from putting spoilers?) somewhere far that their love can never meet. Both literal and figurative (Literal because she's in another dimension. Figurative because he is set to meet and marry another woman). That's their destiny. And if she wants to defy it, she can. They defied destiny by falling in love with each other yet they can't defy the fate of death. If she wants to continue loving him, she can. But she has to do it from afar. Again, both literal and figurative. Thus, she can love him....but....by leaving him--because that's their destiny.

No? sad5.gif Ahem, you can always count on me to come up with the most plausible theories. sad5.gif afro.gif I should seriously stop watching cheesy drama series.
 

sitenoise

Member: Rank 5
I think my genius mind just came up with the perfect explanation for that line. "I can only love you by leaving you". Their love was not meant to be from the start. She has to go somewhere (ugh, should I still hold on from putting spoilers?) somewhere far that their love can never meet. Both literal and figurative (Literal because she's in another dimension. Figurative because he is set to meet and marry another woman). That's their destiny. And if she wants to defy it, she can. They defied destiny by falling in love with each other yet they can't defy the fate of death. If she wants to continue loving him, she can. But she has to do it from afar. Again, both literal and figurative. Thus, she can love him....but....by leaving him--because that's their destiny.

No? View attachment 6311 Ahem, you can always count on me to come up with the most plausible theories. View attachment 6311 View attachment 6312 I should seriously stop watching cheesy drama series.
I think it is something like that. Or maybe it is just bad English Translation lol? I was going to say that, assuming we understand the lines about "how could you without me" "only two months" as him asking her (in the novel?) why did you completely die (without me), that that is what is meant by "I can only love you by leaving you". Why would that be? Because hanging around in that weird stalker half-dead state wasn't allowing her to really love him. She has to completely die so she won't be around watching marry another woman. I really don't know.

The boobs line was weird. That came from the other side of his split personality, I guess. The one that yells at people and such. I really don't know this one either.

I think maybe these are the kind of thing that cause some people to be disappointed in the story telling. I don't care much about having easy explanations about this kind of stuff. In fact I kkind of like that it's ambiguous. I just like that almost every scene in the film is beautiful beautiful.
 

plsletitrain

Member: Rank 5
Or maybe it is just bad English Translation lol?
Probably. Perhaps she meant "I have loved you but I had to leave you" or "I loved you but I can't be with you". sad2.gif All together now, "nyaaawwwwww". Personally I'd like to stick with that I can love you by leaving you line even if I can't really comprehend what it means.

The boobs line was weird. That came from the other side of his split personality, I guess. The one that yells at people and such. I really don't know this one either.
Yes, there's no other explanation for that than his split personality. Wonder why Mimi just laughed it off. She should have given a fake laugh and screamed "We loved each other for two years and I was half-dead stalking you for 12 (?) years and now that we get to talk to each other one of your first questions is if my breasts are big now?????? Did you truly love me or you just wanted my breasts dammit!!!!!!!!" And since they were in a bar, she could've reached for a glass with water and threw it in his face. Hahaha!


I don't care much about having easy explanations about this kind of stuff. In fact I kkind of like that it's ambiguous. I just like that almost every scene in the film is beautiful beautiful.
Same here. I do love films that are straightforward but I also love films that have some ambiguity in them. Not the kind that will totally leave me clueless but those that give me a homework to think on. I can't find a reason not to love this film. Except perhaps if you're not a fan of love stories. Other than that, I think this is top-notch.
 

divemaster13

Member: Rank 4
As I mentioned in the "recently seen" thread for June, I absolutely loved this film. 5 stars.

I read through y'all's discussion here and don't really have a lot to add. Y'all have captured the look and style and "feeling" of the film beautifully.

Both the actor and actress of the girl are perfect. She is so cute and innocent-looking. Was that really her? Or just how he remembers her? I don't know and I don't care.

She seems somewhat self-aware that she might be dead. At least later in the film. Much of her story and existence seems completely independent of what the author may be thinking/remembering/hallucinating. How does that work? Is she stuck in this limbo until he comes to terms and beats his writer's block? I don't know and I don't care.

I liked the repetition theme throughout. A scene replayed or revisited. The meeting with the editor is revisited as a meeting with his father-in-law, which is revisited again where our guy is the editor and the presumed editor is now the author. What does it mean? Which of the three is the "real" scene? (Obviously they all can't be). Or, are any of them real? I don't know and I don't care.

The repeated looping back to the plaza and the entrance to the alley. Each time, plaza in daylight (with cicadas buzzing), and the alley often at night (or maybe just dark). The frequent motif of the AC fans, and mirrors, and picture frames where they seem to walk out of. Very creative.

He walks out of the apartment to "go get cigarettes" and says "bye" to his wife. Then she goes back to his writing desk and he's sitting there contemplating. She is surprised he is still there. No recollection of cigarettes. Logistically, it would be impossible for him to be there like that, but she seems him. Is she part of the hallucination? I don't know and I don't care.

The "blue bar" (what I call it). A real place? It seems very surreal.

I loved the scene where she tells him to let his story out via the cigarette smoke. She inhales his smoke and you can see the emotions of the story play out on her face (interest...joy...sadness) until she is overcome. She just breathed his creative self into her self...literally. Masterful.

I did catch myself trying to figure out the "2 months" thing. Like, he didn't follow up with her for two months, and during that time she died? But I just let it go. It means nothing to my enjoyment.

I noticed a few times where an image in one scene was inserted into the next--just a stylistic touch. I recall a full red moon in one scene. And then in the next scene, one of the mirrors or paintings had a full red moon subtly in the corner. The camera did not linger or draw attention to it--it was just there. Genius.

Everything about this movie was a treat. I can see some Lynchian-type comparison, but unlike Lynch (where I feel compelled to try to figure out who is who and what and why); with M, I am perfectly content to just have it wash over me.
 

sitenoise

Member: Rank 5
The scenes in the blue bar were the best. All the tricky camerawork and whatnot. The soundtrack. There's a dance number! But I bring this up because another thing to wonder and then not care about is that the bartender had a cane that looks suspiciously like the cane that the person chasing after and roughing up our heroine had. Or something like that, maybe.

For me, it's a great feat when you can make not-caring about this or that a virtue. I can't argue with anyone who doesn't like a film because it's hard to follow, or doesn't add up. But the freedom to not care is sublime. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I was glad @plsletitrain enjoyed the film. Probably surprised both times. I remember comrade @Zelena (shucks, his name doesn't auto-complete, he must be completely gone) punted the film: "I know what this is doing. I get why sitenoise likes it. There's not enough Hyo-jin Kong. I'm done".

I wonder if I ever recommended this film to @clayton-12 thinking3.gif
 

plsletitrain

Member: Rank 5
Was that really her? Or just how he remembers her?
I think that was her. Wait, are you saying there's another alternative universe here, that the "her" her is a product of his..........imagination????? Hmmmm.................................................


I don't know and I don't care.
Yeah, I like that. I do have the habit of trying to find answers in almost anything but there are times when you break your head and you realize life is much better when you've got lesser questions. lol

She seems somewhat self-aware that she might be dead. At least later in the film. Much of her story and existence seems completely independent of what the author may be thinking/remembering/hallucinating. How does that work? Is she stuck in this limbo until he comes to terms and beats his writer's block? I don't know and I don't care.

I liked the repetition theme throughout. A scene replayed or revisited. The meeting with the editor is revisited as a meeting with his father-in-law, which is revisited again where our guy is the editor and the presumed editor is now the author. What does it mean? Which of the three is the "real" scene? (Obviously they all can't be). Or, are any of them real? I don't know and I don't care.

He walks out of the apartment to "go get cigarettes" and says "bye" to his wife. Then she goes back to his writing desk and he's sitting there contemplating. She is surprised he is still there. No recollection of cigarettes. Logistically, it would be impossible for him to be there like that, but she seems him. Is she part of the hallucination? I don't know and I don't care.
I like it! I don't have the most convincing answers to your quandaries (owing more to me having forgotten the exact sequential scenes and plot movements) but I still remember the plot summary and I love how we just let it at that...unanswered.

The "blue bar" (what I call it). A real place? It seems very surreal.
I think it was surREAL. Hehe both.

that the bartender had a cane that looks suspiciously like the cane that the person chasing after and roughing up our heroine had. Or something like that, maybe.
I think the bartender was old wasn't he? I think yeah, wasn't he carrying a cane? Sorry I kinda really have forgotten.

I remember comrade @Zelena (shucks, his name doesn't auto-complete, he must be completely gone) punted the film: "I know what this is doing. I get why sitenoise likes it. There's not enough Hyo-jin Kong. I'm done".
Hahaha! If he revisits it now, I think he's gonna like it. I mean, I myself didn't expect to love this film. I was also skeptical with divemaster but turned out we both loved it. So maybe zelena might. He was asking too much, Kong Hyo-jin was so sexy here. What more does he want? :emoji_blush: I think he wants to see Kong Hyo-Jin do this


I wonder if I ever recommended this film to @clayton-12 View attachment 9218
I think you did. If I remember it correctly, he was the one who brought up M on a recently seen thread and it all started there.
 
Last edited:

BuX

Member: Rank 1
Looks like ive got to watch this film, suprised ive not. Dont think its out in the UK on dvd so that probs why.
 
Top