I know there are people who are willing to "work with" this movie - I too really, really wanted this to be a great movie, "a masterpiece" as so many are willing to call it, and I think a lot of people gloss over the horrible incoherence of the story precisely because they want so bad for it to be "a masterpiece." But wishing won't change the facts, or as the great lyricist and percussionist Mr. Peart put it: "You can twist perceptions / reality won't budge." And incidentally, I think a review is only as worthwhile as its honesty - I flatly refuse to sugar-coat a lame movie for the sake of "Useful" votes.
I sought this movie out specifically because I'd read a number of reviews talking about a "masterpiece" with "a stunning surprise ending." I have to say it's been a long, long time since I've been this disappointed - no, this utterly disgusted - with a film.
Yes, "Tale of Two Sisters" has a certain sense of style, the cinematography is rich and well-photographed throughout, the acting is very good, the dialog is well done - though certainly not outstanding in any of those elements. The story, unfortunately, is an incoherent, unresolved mess. "Surprise" indeed.
Along with the positive technical aspects listed above, I think the reason people are so willing to shower "Tale of Two Sisters" with the comically-undeserved label of "masterpiece," is the same reason people give historic figures like Kant, Hegel and the like the label of "great thinkers." If you say something nonsensical enough and wrap it up in a slick enough veneer, you will invariably find plenty of people who will be willing to confuse incoherence with profundity. In other words, "I don't understand it, therefore it must be deep." I say: That there emperor is buck nekkid.
An essential requirement of good storytelling is to maintain a solid logical framework no matter what plot twists, misdirections, red herrings or stylistic deceptions you may weave into it. "Tale of Two Sisters" is a game of logical 52-pick-up. It starts with a promising setup but in the midst of the plot-thickening process refuses to lock into a coherent, final set of facts underlying the intriguing questions. Instead the writer tosses half a dozen possible explanations skyward, lets them drop in a random, clattering jumble, then hastily flips out the lights and runs for the door.
Compare this with "Donnie Darko," "The Machinist," or the excellent Hong Kong thrillers "Koma" and "The Eye." In each of these the audience is led through an increasingly-confusing series of events; in each there is a surprise ending that plays off of carefully-constructed misconceptions maintained up to that point. But most importantly, each is a great film because there is one, solid, definite truth beneath all of the deceptive ruses. It is that jarring contrast between the carefully constructed false premises and the actual, final fact, that makes each story work. If instead you leave out that essential, final truth, as does "Tale of Two Sisters," what remains is a meaningless hash of arbitrary possibilities with no reality to anchor them.
It is no accident that there are dozens of "theories" as to what the hell actually happens in "Tale of Two Sisters": The writer and director didn't bother to complete the story.
Put simply, we don't know what really happened, and we never will.
Is the younger sister a ghost? Is the older sister an alter-ego of the stepmother? Why was the older sister in a mental hospital? Or was it both of them? If the younger sister is a ghost, how did she die? Did she get beat to death inside that sack or was that something the older sister imagined? If so, who did it, the older sister or the stepmother? Why? If the younger sister was beat to death in a sack, why is she later shown being killed by a wardrobe containing her mother's body falling on top of her? Is the stepmother a psycho? How much of this happened in the past and how much in the present? How did the mother die? If the stepmother did it, what is the explanation for the two of them living in the same house together? If the father did it, why? Why did the dinner guest's wife go into a violent seizure? Who was the greasy kid she saw under the sink? Why would that ghost happen to appear to someone largely irrelevant to the story? Etc., etc.
The only possible answer to any and all of these questions is: Anybody's guess.
Since there's nothing identified as the final, actual fact, they all remain arbitrary possibilities, and there is no logical thread tying any of it together. The only proper, rational response to arbitrary assertions is: Who cares? A writer bailing out on his responsibility to construct a coherent story is a phenomenon deserving designation not as a "masterpiece" but rather as: contemptible laziness in storytelling.
"Tale of Two Sisters" is a pretty building with no internal framework - it collapses into the void where a solid, logical story with a coherent resolution needed to be. -ZBG
I sought this movie out specifically because I'd read a number of reviews talking about a "masterpiece" with "a stunning surprise ending." I have to say it's been a long, long time since I've been this disappointed - no, this utterly disgusted - with a film.
Yes, "Tale of Two Sisters" has a certain sense of style, the cinematography is rich and well-photographed throughout, the acting is very good, the dialog is well done - though certainly not outstanding in any of those elements. The story, unfortunately, is an incoherent, unresolved mess. "Surprise" indeed.
Along with the positive technical aspects listed above, I think the reason people are so willing to shower "Tale of Two Sisters" with the comically-undeserved label of "masterpiece," is the same reason people give historic figures like Kant, Hegel and the like the label of "great thinkers." If you say something nonsensical enough and wrap it up in a slick enough veneer, you will invariably find plenty of people who will be willing to confuse incoherence with profundity. In other words, "I don't understand it, therefore it must be deep." I say: That there emperor is buck nekkid.
An essential requirement of good storytelling is to maintain a solid logical framework no matter what plot twists, misdirections, red herrings or stylistic deceptions you may weave into it. "Tale of Two Sisters" is a game of logical 52-pick-up. It starts with a promising setup but in the midst of the plot-thickening process refuses to lock into a coherent, final set of facts underlying the intriguing questions. Instead the writer tosses half a dozen possible explanations skyward, lets them drop in a random, clattering jumble, then hastily flips out the lights and runs for the door.
Compare this with "Donnie Darko," "The Machinist," or the excellent Hong Kong thrillers "Koma" and "The Eye." In each of these the audience is led through an increasingly-confusing series of events; in each there is a surprise ending that plays off of carefully-constructed misconceptions maintained up to that point. But most importantly, each is a great film because there is one, solid, definite truth beneath all of the deceptive ruses. It is that jarring contrast between the carefully constructed false premises and the actual, final fact, that makes each story work. If instead you leave out that essential, final truth, as does "Tale of Two Sisters," what remains is a meaningless hash of arbitrary possibilities with no reality to anchor them.
It is no accident that there are dozens of "theories" as to what the hell actually happens in "Tale of Two Sisters": The writer and director didn't bother to complete the story.
Put simply, we don't know what really happened, and we never will.
Is the younger sister a ghost? Is the older sister an alter-ego of the stepmother? Why was the older sister in a mental hospital? Or was it both of them? If the younger sister is a ghost, how did she die? Did she get beat to death inside that sack or was that something the older sister imagined? If so, who did it, the older sister or the stepmother? Why? If the younger sister was beat to death in a sack, why is she later shown being killed by a wardrobe containing her mother's body falling on top of her? Is the stepmother a psycho? How much of this happened in the past and how much in the present? How did the mother die? If the stepmother did it, what is the explanation for the two of them living in the same house together? If the father did it, why? Why did the dinner guest's wife go into a violent seizure? Who was the greasy kid she saw under the sink? Why would that ghost happen to appear to someone largely irrelevant to the story? Etc., etc.
The only possible answer to any and all of these questions is: Anybody's guess.
Since there's nothing identified as the final, actual fact, they all remain arbitrary possibilities, and there is no logical thread tying any of it together. The only proper, rational response to arbitrary assertions is: Who cares? A writer bailing out on his responsibility to construct a coherent story is a phenomenon deserving designation not as a "masterpiece" but rather as: contemptible laziness in storytelling.
"Tale of Two Sisters" is a pretty building with no internal framework - it collapses into the void where a solid, logical story with a coherent resolution needed to be. -ZBG