Oasis

Oasis

89%
  • Oasis
    5 minutes 49 seconds
    Added: Apr 28, 2010

Critic Review - Chicago Sun-Times

A brave film in the way it shows two people who find any relationship almost impossible, and yet find a way to make theirs work.

August 27, 2004 Full Review Source: Chicago Sun-Times | Comments (2)
Chicago Sun-Times
Top Critic IconTop Critic

Comments

Koala

Casey A

Usually I agree with Roger Ebert, but this time I think he completely missed the point. I almost wonder if he was even paying attention while watching.

Read this review instead: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0320193/usercomments I can't find a way to link to it directly, but it's the review titled "What love truly means"

Jul 31 - 08:43 AM

Koala

Casey A

Usually I agree with Roger Ebert, but this time I think he *completely* missed the point. I almost wonder if he was even paying attention to what was going on.

Read this review instead: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0320193/usercomments I can't find a way to link to it directly, but it's the review titled "What love truly means"

Jul 31 - 08:44 AM

Koala

Casey A

Usually I agree with Roger Ebert, but this time I think he *completely* missed the point. I almost wonder if he was even paying attention to what was going on.

Read this review instead: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0320193/usercomments I can't find a way to link to it directly, but it's the review titled "What love truly means"

Also, I think it's too harsh to say he's mentally retarded. It seems more like that, most of the time, he's just kind of an idiot.

Jul 31 - 08:54 AM

Matt B.

Matt Brenneman

If you look at the context, Ebert is saying that he "may be" mentally retarded, as in it's a possibility. I thought the same thing when I first read his review, but then realized what he was saying.

Still, I agree that he missed the point of the movie. His definition of "rape" is too broad; what the guy in this movie did was "attempted rape," but he never completed the deed. I remember him misusing the term in his review of "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" as well, where the sex, as disturbing as it was, is better classified as "blackmailed prostitution" but not "rape".

But when he states that Jong-Du "rapes her and leaves" I think he is simplifying their first meeting and Jong-Du as a character to the point of misinterpretation, and when he states "For Gong-Ju, her new friend is a prize who provides sex, companionship, and a way to get out of the house," I think he is misunderstanding Gong-Ju's reasons for wanting to see him (especially because he's not a sex-provider until the very end).

I always read Ebert's reviews, because i think he's a good writer and insightful, even though I often disagree. It is torture for me, though, when he misunderstands (in my mind) and consequently de-values (for me) a film I was truly moved by.

Mar 24 - 09:25 PM

Matt B.

Matt Brenneman

If you look at the context, Ebert is saying that he "may be" mentally retarded, as in it's a possibility. I thought the same thing when I first read his review, but then realized what he was saying.

Still, I agree that he missed the point of the movie. His definition of "rape" is too broad; what the guy in this movie did was "attempted rape," but he never completed the deed. I remember him misusing the term in his review of "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" as well, where the sex, as disturbing as it was, is better classified as "blackmailed prostitution" but not "rape".

But when he states that Jong-Du "rapes her and leaves" I think he is simplifying their first meeting and Jong-Du as a character to the point of misinterpretation, and when he states "For Gong-Ju, her new friend is a prize who provides sex, companionship, and a way to get out of the house," I think he is misunderstanding Gong-Ju's reasons for wanting to see him (especially because he's not a sex-provider until the very end).

I always read Ebert's reviews, because i think he's a good writer and insightful, even though I often disagree. It is torture for me, though, when he misunderstands (in my mind) and consequently de-values (for me) a film I was truly moved by.

Mar 24 - 09:26 PM

Matt B.

Matt Brenneman

If you look at the context, Ebert is saying that he "may be" mentally retarded, as in it's a possibility. I thought the same thing when I first read his review, but then realized what he was saying.

Still, I agree that he missed the point of the movie. His definition of "rape" is too broad; what the guy in this movie did was "attempted rape," but he never completed the deed. I remember him misusing the term in his review of "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" as well, where the sex, as disturbing as it was, is better classified as "blackmailed prostitution" but not "rape".

But when he states that Jong-Du "rapes her and leaves" I think he is simplifying their first meeting and Jong-Du as a character to the point of misinterpretation, and when he states "For Gong-Ju, her new friend is a prize who provides sex, companionship, and a way to get out of the house," I think he is misunderstanding Gong-Ju's reasons for wanting to see him (especially because he's not a sex-provider until the very end).

I always read Ebert's reviews, because i think he's a good writer and insightful, even though I often disagree. It is torture for me, though, when he misunderstands (in my mind) and consequently de-values (for me) a film I was truly moved by.

Mar 24 - 09:26 PM

Matt B.

Matt Brenneman

If you look at the context, Ebert is saying that he "may be" mentally retarded, as in it's a possibility. I thought the same thing when I first read his review, but then realized what he was saying.

Still, I agree that he missed the point of the movie. His definition of "rape" is too broad; what the guy in this movie did was "attempted rape," but he never completed the deed. I remember him misusing the term in his review of "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" as well, where the sex, as disturbing as it was, is better classified as "blackmailed prostitution" but not "rape".

But when he states that Jong-Du "rapes her and leaves" I think he is simplifying their first meeting and Jong-Du as a character to the point of misinterpretation, and when he states "For Gong-Ju, her new friend is a prize who provides sex, companionship, and a way to get out of the house," I think he is misunderstanding Gong-Ju's reasons for wanting to see him (especially because he's not a sex-provider until the very end).

I always read Ebert's reviews, because i think he's a good writer and insightful, even though I often disagree. It is torture for me, though, when he misunderstands (in my mind) and consequently de-values (for me) a film I was truly moved by.

Mar 24 - 09:26 PM

Matt B.

Matt Brenneman

If you look at the context, Ebert is saying that he "may be" mentally retarded, as in it's a possibility. I thought the same thing when I first read his review, but then realized what he was saying.

Still, I agree that he missed the point of the movie. His definition of "rape" is too broad; what the guy in this movie did was "attempted rape," but he never completed the deed. I remember him misusing the term in his review of "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" as well, where the sex, as disturbing as it was, is better classified as "blackmailed prostitution" but not "rape".

But when he states that Jong-Du "rapes her and leaves" I think he is simplifying their first meeting and Jong-Du as a character to the point of misinterpretation, and when he states "For Gong-Ju, her new friend is a prize who provides sex, companionship, and a way to get out of the house," I think he is misunderstanding Gong-Ju's reasons for wanting to see him (especially because he's not a sex-provider until the very end).

I always read Ebert's reviews, because i think he's a good writer and insightful, even though I often disagree. It is torture for me, though, when he misunderstands (in my mind) and consequently de-values (for me) a film I was truly moved by.

Mar 24 - 09:26 PM

Matt B.

Matt Brenneman

If you look at the context, Ebert is saying that he "may be" mentally retarded, as in it's a possibility. I thought the same thing when I first read his review, but then realized what he was saying.

Still, I agree that he missed the point of the movie. His definition of "rape" is too broad; what the guy in this movie did was "attempted rape," but he never completed the deed. I remember him misusing the term in his review of "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" as well, where the sex, as disturbing as it was, is better classified as "blackmailed prostitution" but not "rape".

But when he states that Jong-Du "rapes her and leaves" I think he is simplifying their first meeting and Jong-Du as a character to the point of misinterpretation, and when he states "For Gong-Ju, her new friend is a prize who provides sex, companionship, and a way to get out of the house," I think he is misunderstanding Gong-Ju's reasons for wanting to see him (especially because he's not a sex-provider until the very end).

I always read Ebert's reviews, because i think he's a good writer and insightful, even though I often disagree. It is torture for me, though, when he misunderstands (in my mind) and consequently de-values (for me) a film I was truly moved by.

Mar 24 - 09:26 PM

Matt B.

Matt Brenneman

If you look at the context, Ebert is saying that he "may be" mentally retarded, as in it's a possibility. I thought the same thing when I first read his review, but then realized what he was saying.

Still, I agree that he missed the point of the movie. His definition of "rape" is too broad; what the guy in this movie did was "attempted rape," but he never completed the deed. I remember him misusing the term in his review of "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" as well, where the sex, as disturbing as it was, is better classified as "blackmailed prostitution" but not "rape".

But when he states that Jong-Du "rapes her and leaves" I think he is simplifying their first meeting and Jong-Du as a character to the point of misinterpretation, and when he states "For Gong-Ju, her new friend is a prize who provides sex, companionship, and a way to get out of the house," I think he is misunderstanding Gong-Ju's reasons for wanting to see him (especially because he's not a sex-provider until the very end).

I always read Ebert's reviews, because i think he's a good writer and insightful, even though I often disagree. It is torture for me, though, when he misunderstands (in my mind) and consequently de-values (for me) a film I was truly moved by.

Mar 24 - 09:26 PM

Matt B.

Matt Brenneman

If you look at the context, Ebert is saying that he "may be" mentally retarded, as in it's a possibility. I thought the same thing when I first read his review, but then realized what he was saying.

Still, I agree that he missed the point of the movie. His definition of "rape" is too broad; what the guy in this movie did was "attempted rape," but he never completed the deed. I remember him misusing the term in his review of "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" as well, where the sex, as disturbing as it was, is better classified as "blackmailed prostitution" but not "rape".

But when he states that Jong-Du "rapes her and leaves" I think he is simplifying their first meeting and Jong-Du as a character to the point of misinterpretation, and when he states "For Gong-Ju, her new friend is a prize who provides sex, companionship, and a way to get out of the house," I think he is misunderstanding Gong-Ju's reasons for wanting to see him (especially because he's not a sex-provider until the very end).

I always read Ebert's reviews, because i think he's a good writer and insightful, even though I often disagree. It is torture for me, though, when he misunderstands (in my mind) and consequently de-values (for me) a film I was truly moved by.

Mar 24 - 09:26 PM

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile