kretuzerwilhelmxiii
This review may contain spoilers
A silly movie that takes itself way too seriously
This movie did everything wrong. For example:
-Canons shoot at wall once, it's enough to crumble it. WRONG! It takes many days of bombarding a single section of wall to collapse it. The movie had such an opportunity to portray what it is like to be under constant bombardment, and didn't take it.
-A single breach is portrayed as a big deal. WRONG! A single breach is a bottleneck that's disastrous for the attacker more than the defender.
-No one is fighting or marching in any sort of formation, ever. Soldiers march in a loose group of rifles, crossbowmen, spearmen and swordsmen.
-Even when cavalry charges at them, the rifles stay at front, and at no point are replaced by pikemen/spearmen. Could it be that koreans were so stupid that they didn't know pike and shoot formations in 1630's? Is this what this movie is saying?
-Somehow, everyone hears the officer shouting orders in the middle of the battle.
-Armor is like paper.
-Most footsoldiers are armed with swords, not polearms.
-They send the blacksmith on a suicidal mission. Why the blacksmith? The movie also implies he was the only blacksmith the fortress had.
-Little is shown from the perspective of common soldiers. It's just constant back and forth between the king and his one-dimensional advisors. Also, very funny how the advisors can echo the words their representative said in unison. Did they practice for it?
-The movie shows from the very beginning that the plan to defend that fortress was always a VERY BAD IDEA. It's underlined at every possible moment, to the point it's silly. It makes everyone who decided to defend despite such overwhelming odds look like a suicidal imbecile.
-Thus, when they finally surrender, the scene of king sloooowly prostrating himself before the Khan is not sad nor tragic nor melodramatic. It's just silly. It was the obvious outcome. And if it wasn't supposed to be obvious, the movie made no effort in portraying that, we weren't given any clue, any number, any ray of hope that maybe the idea to defend wasn't so bad after all.
-At the end of the movie, the conservative proponent of defence says "things will change for the better only when we all pass, and king passes, and kingdom passes, and all old things pass away....". Yeee, just drop feudalism and install democracy already. That's totally what a noble in 17th-century korea would have said.
And probably more, but whatever. It's a bad movie, it lacks historical authenticity, and fails to makes us care about the conflict portrayed. You cheer for the antagonists, but probably because you don't see them enough to witness them doing dumb and illogical things like the main characters do.
-Canons shoot at wall once, it's enough to crumble it. WRONG! It takes many days of bombarding a single section of wall to collapse it. The movie had such an opportunity to portray what it is like to be under constant bombardment, and didn't take it.
-A single breach is portrayed as a big deal. WRONG! A single breach is a bottleneck that's disastrous for the attacker more than the defender.
-No one is fighting or marching in any sort of formation, ever. Soldiers march in a loose group of rifles, crossbowmen, spearmen and swordsmen.
-Even when cavalry charges at them, the rifles stay at front, and at no point are replaced by pikemen/spearmen. Could it be that koreans were so stupid that they didn't know pike and shoot formations in 1630's? Is this what this movie is saying?
-Somehow, everyone hears the officer shouting orders in the middle of the battle.
-Armor is like paper.
-Most footsoldiers are armed with swords, not polearms.
-They send the blacksmith on a suicidal mission. Why the blacksmith? The movie also implies he was the only blacksmith the fortress had.
-Little is shown from the perspective of common soldiers. It's just constant back and forth between the king and his one-dimensional advisors. Also, very funny how the advisors can echo the words their representative said in unison. Did they practice for it?
-The movie shows from the very beginning that the plan to defend that fortress was always a VERY BAD IDEA. It's underlined at every possible moment, to the point it's silly. It makes everyone who decided to defend despite such overwhelming odds look like a suicidal imbecile.
-Thus, when they finally surrender, the scene of king sloooowly prostrating himself before the Khan is not sad nor tragic nor melodramatic. It's just silly. It was the obvious outcome. And if it wasn't supposed to be obvious, the movie made no effort in portraying that, we weren't given any clue, any number, any ray of hope that maybe the idea to defend wasn't so bad after all.
-At the end of the movie, the conservative proponent of defence says "things will change for the better only when we all pass, and king passes, and kingdom passes, and all old things pass away....". Yeee, just drop feudalism and install democracy already. That's totally what a noble in 17th-century korea would have said.
And probably more, but whatever. It's a bad movie, it lacks historical authenticity, and fails to makes us care about the conflict portrayed. You cheer for the antagonists, but probably because you don't see them enough to witness them doing dumb and illogical things like the main characters do.
Was this review helpful to you?
