Tran Anh Hung could have been proud of three extraordinarily poetic reflections of life in his native Vietnam ("The Scent of Green Papaya", "Cyclo" and "The Vertical Ray of the Sun") before he committed "I Come with the Rain" in English (followed by even worse "Norwegian Wood" in Japanese)- sickly romantic neodecadent fantasy nurtured by masochistic-messianic wet dreams with a crush on American/Korean gore. The story itself abounds in nonsense. While Byung Hun-lee is the right man for this picture, Josh Hartnett seems to have wandered into it from some teenage surfer romance. Imagery is as beautiful as it is hollow ; the sculptures might have been appreciated by the great Francis Bacon - if he could have got over Elias Koteas' meditations.
23 Reviews
It's not bad, just weird
Heislegend3 February 2010
I do love IMDb. Look up a movie...any movie...and you'll find at least one moron crying about how it's the worst thing they've ever seen. Fair enough, but if you can point to just one movie and tell me it's the worst thing ever then you obviously have not watched enough crap. Just glancing at the board section below reveals two people who share this sentiment without even going past one page. This movie is strange, a little disjointed, and it certainly has it's flaws...but the worst movie ever? Please.
If I had to sum up Josh Hartnett's career in a word it would be "odd". It's kind of like he went from being fodder for women's fantasies and decided "screw this...let's get weird". That really worked with Lucky Number Slevin, but not so much here. The story follows Hartnett as an investigator hunting down some rich guy's son. That sounds like something you've seen a million times, but that's just the start. It's full of poorly timed flashbacks, mismatched edits, and stuff that just plain doesn't make any sense. I'm probably missing something since I did catch a few religious undertones, but I was too busy trying to piece together what the hell was going on to pay much more attention to it. Other than that the films comes across very well in an almost dark, mildly unsettling way. The story has a lot of substance to it, but maybe a bit too much at times when it seems like too much is going on. All in all though it's really not that bad.
If I had to sum up Josh Hartnett's career in a word it would be "odd". It's kind of like he went from being fodder for women's fantasies and decided "screw this...let's get weird". That really worked with Lucky Number Slevin, but not so much here. The story follows Hartnett as an investigator hunting down some rich guy's son. That sounds like something you've seen a million times, but that's just the start. It's full of poorly timed flashbacks, mismatched edits, and stuff that just plain doesn't make any sense. I'm probably missing something since I did catch a few religious undertones, but I was too busy trying to piece together what the hell was going on to pay much more attention to it. Other than that the films comes across very well in an almost dark, mildly unsettling way. The story has a lot of substance to it, but maybe a bit too much at times when it seems like too much is going on. All in all though it's really not that bad.
"Rain" - an unfinished, mixed bag.
notmynamenemesis1 November 2009
Here's my 2 cents, and I rarely log in to IMDb to actually write anything, I usually just read the threads. I saw this film at the Pusan International Film Festival, and while I feel lucky to have seen it debut there, walked away with mixed feelings. "Rain" is a thoroughly unconventional film, which is fine. Unconventional is not for everyone, so that is not where the film falls short. Where it fails is in the lack of cohesiveness and not feeling like a finished product.
To answer one of the thread questions - yes, Shawn Yue's English is absolutely horrible. He just felt very uncomfortable and awkward. The rest of the cast was not bad, it's clear that English is not their first language, but it's bearable. Lee Byung Hun's is very good actually, and he's able to emote and act very well despite his lack of fluency.
Much of the acting is good - it's not excellent, but it is good. The cinematography is effective, and there's a lot of atmosphere as well as camera work that lends itself to the characters well. The POV is always very interesting and begs something of the viewer, whether it's a desire to see what is just off screen, or how the environment connects with the characters, or even how the lines running on screen draw comparisons to both themes occurring and characters state of mind. Particularly, there is something very interesting the vertical nature of HK, and the way it is captured on camera, and the more natural environment where *beep* is residing in a tent... if you watch carefully there's some visual comparisons drawn that show well thought out cinematography.
As for comparisons, there's also a lot of comparing and contrasting of the films main cast, as they deal with very similar questions of morality but deal with it very differently. This is perhaps the most interesting points of the film.
That much being said, I did not actually enjoy the film. It had its well made aspects, and was very intriguing, but never produces enough substance to turn the intriguing thematic material into anything more solid than mere intrigue. You'll walk out wondering - what the hell was all that about anyway? And you'll have ideas, especially about the messianic and religious symbolism the film draws upon, but there's just not enough substance to call it anything but flimsy at best. It's not even on the level of being ambiguous.
The soundtrack may work for some, and I even enjoy Radiohead, but it was overwhelming for me. Yes, it fits the atmosphere, but it was overused, it felt like the soundtrack equivalent of "Speed Racer's" cartoony VFX. It fit, but was just too much.
Finally, there was perhaps a bit too much unnecessary gruesome imagery that could have been more subtly shown or even implied. I'm not against violence in film, but "rain" took it beyond what was necessary, the audience simply did not need to see everything that was shown. I felt like this was enforced by the maggots in *beep* eye, which was not violent, but simply felt like it was put in for the explicit shock factor. Some may disagree with me on this point, fine, but I felt like it was a bit much.
I really wanted to like this film, and feel it could have been a very good movie. I don't think it could be a masterpiece of cinema, but could have been very solid, but in the end "Rain" felt like a film that had it been a bit more thought out, and about 30% more well executed, could have been a truly solid art house thriller, but ultimately falls short of not what we want, but rather what we need in order to actually comprehend the film as a whole.
To answer one of the thread questions - yes, Shawn Yue's English is absolutely horrible. He just felt very uncomfortable and awkward. The rest of the cast was not bad, it's clear that English is not their first language, but it's bearable. Lee Byung Hun's is very good actually, and he's able to emote and act very well despite his lack of fluency.
Much of the acting is good - it's not excellent, but it is good. The cinematography is effective, and there's a lot of atmosphere as well as camera work that lends itself to the characters well. The POV is always very interesting and begs something of the viewer, whether it's a desire to see what is just off screen, or how the environment connects with the characters, or even how the lines running on screen draw comparisons to both themes occurring and characters state of mind. Particularly, there is something very interesting the vertical nature of HK, and the way it is captured on camera, and the more natural environment where *beep* is residing in a tent... if you watch carefully there's some visual comparisons drawn that show well thought out cinematography.
As for comparisons, there's also a lot of comparing and contrasting of the films main cast, as they deal with very similar questions of morality but deal with it very differently. This is perhaps the most interesting points of the film.
That much being said, I did not actually enjoy the film. It had its well made aspects, and was very intriguing, but never produces enough substance to turn the intriguing thematic material into anything more solid than mere intrigue. You'll walk out wondering - what the hell was all that about anyway? And you'll have ideas, especially about the messianic and religious symbolism the film draws upon, but there's just not enough substance to call it anything but flimsy at best. It's not even on the level of being ambiguous.
The soundtrack may work for some, and I even enjoy Radiohead, but it was overwhelming for me. Yes, it fits the atmosphere, but it was overused, it felt like the soundtrack equivalent of "Speed Racer's" cartoony VFX. It fit, but was just too much.
Finally, there was perhaps a bit too much unnecessary gruesome imagery that could have been more subtly shown or even implied. I'm not against violence in film, but "rain" took it beyond what was necessary, the audience simply did not need to see everything that was shown. I felt like this was enforced by the maggots in *beep* eye, which was not violent, but simply felt like it was put in for the explicit shock factor. Some may disagree with me on this point, fine, but I felt like it was a bit much.
I really wanted to like this film, and feel it could have been a very good movie. I don't think it could be a masterpiece of cinema, but could have been very solid, but in the end "Rain" felt like a film that had it been a bit more thought out, and about 30% more well executed, could have been a truly solid art house thriller, but ultimately falls short of not what we want, but rather what we need in order to actually comprehend the film as a whole.
transnational disaster
LunarPoise31 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Kilne is a former detective, 'contaminated' from his investigation of a serial killer with a penchant for sculpture using human flesh. He turns private eye and goes in search of Shitao, the missing son of a Howard Hughes-style millionaire recluse, his journey taking him from The Philippines to the homeless ramshackle dwellings of Hong Kong's underbelly. Reliable reports say Shitao was gunned down and left for dead, but he seems to move ghost-like in the shadows and crevices of the city. And crucifix-like graffiti and barking prophets seems to carry a message connected to Shitao
Somebody had the idea to take a festival darling of a director, connects him with two of the biggest stars in the East Asian market, throw in a young Hollywood heartthrob to keep the dialogue in English for the all-important US market, all to a soundtrack by Radiohead – how can it lose? By a complete lack of a semi-coherent script, that's how. Rarely does a film fail so completely to display any shred of plot or coherence. There is some waffle about the beauty of human suffering, a bit of scripture misquoted here and there, but it resonates to absolutely nothing. Depressingly, it is a certainty some people will make great claims for this, condescendingly pontificating that if you didn't 'get' it you don't know your religious history, iconography, semiotics, blah blah blah Nonsense. This film is an insult to the intelligence, pure and simple.
The only multi-dimensional character is Harnett's Kline, and his arc is all in flashback to the guy you start the film with, he never grows during the course of the film. Shitao has an American father (actually, less Howard Hughes and more Charlie of the Angels fame) but hardly speaks English. This is obvious from the few lines of dialogue given to Kimura, who gets to grunt a lot clearly because he can hardly manage basic English. Every line he has punctures the suspension of disbelief.
The saving grace for this film is the acting, with Harnett especially powerful when we see his moment of contamination, and Byung-hun Lee effective in his vulnerable moments, few and far between as his day-job is psychotic gangster. Elias Koteas, one of the most reliable character actors around, is under-used, managing to charm and repel in the manner of Lecter, despite having the most giggle-inducing junk to say as dialogue.
Kimura, unfortunately, lets the side down badly. Apparently Byung-hun Lee prepared and rehearsed his scenes meticulously, while Kimura would turn up and ask "What do I have to do?" The Japanese star looks out of his depth beside the Korean. Far and away the most charismatic member of the boy band that spawned him here in Japan, Kimura has coasted through his acting career, looking like he could put in a shift if asked to rise to the challenge. He came close in Wong Kar Wai's 2046. I Come With the Rain asks him to step up to the plate, and he is found badly wanting. The charisma is all surface pouts; when asked to come up with something more nuanced, he simply doesn't have it. I for one thought he had, and to see him crash and burn like this is extremely unpleasant. I should have been feeling pity for the character, not the actor.
Apart from that, there is little to praise. The direction never gets out of third gear, while the editing looks like a work-in-progress. Continuity seems to have been sinful. Clearly the filmmakers think this film will travel on the elements alone, and spent little to no time developing the script. They may be right; the female fans of the male triumvirate pouting on the posters may just be young and naïve enough to think this is art. If they are wrong, they have the consolation of knowing Antichrist will keep them company this year in the category of misjudged art-house projects with messianic connections.
Somebody had the idea to take a festival darling of a director, connects him with two of the biggest stars in the East Asian market, throw in a young Hollywood heartthrob to keep the dialogue in English for the all-important US market, all to a soundtrack by Radiohead – how can it lose? By a complete lack of a semi-coherent script, that's how. Rarely does a film fail so completely to display any shred of plot or coherence. There is some waffle about the beauty of human suffering, a bit of scripture misquoted here and there, but it resonates to absolutely nothing. Depressingly, it is a certainty some people will make great claims for this, condescendingly pontificating that if you didn't 'get' it you don't know your religious history, iconography, semiotics, blah blah blah Nonsense. This film is an insult to the intelligence, pure and simple.
The only multi-dimensional character is Harnett's Kline, and his arc is all in flashback to the guy you start the film with, he never grows during the course of the film. Shitao has an American father (actually, less Howard Hughes and more Charlie of the Angels fame) but hardly speaks English. This is obvious from the few lines of dialogue given to Kimura, who gets to grunt a lot clearly because he can hardly manage basic English. Every line he has punctures the suspension of disbelief.
The saving grace for this film is the acting, with Harnett especially powerful when we see his moment of contamination, and Byung-hun Lee effective in his vulnerable moments, few and far between as his day-job is psychotic gangster. Elias Koteas, one of the most reliable character actors around, is under-used, managing to charm and repel in the manner of Lecter, despite having the most giggle-inducing junk to say as dialogue.
Kimura, unfortunately, lets the side down badly. Apparently Byung-hun Lee prepared and rehearsed his scenes meticulously, while Kimura would turn up and ask "What do I have to do?" The Japanese star looks out of his depth beside the Korean. Far and away the most charismatic member of the boy band that spawned him here in Japan, Kimura has coasted through his acting career, looking like he could put in a shift if asked to rise to the challenge. He came close in Wong Kar Wai's 2046. I Come With the Rain asks him to step up to the plate, and he is found badly wanting. The charisma is all surface pouts; when asked to come up with something more nuanced, he simply doesn't have it. I for one thought he had, and to see him crash and burn like this is extremely unpleasant. I should have been feeling pity for the character, not the actor.
Apart from that, there is little to praise. The direction never gets out of third gear, while the editing looks like a work-in-progress. Continuity seems to have been sinful. Clearly the filmmakers think this film will travel on the elements alone, and spent little to no time developing the script. They may be right; the female fans of the male triumvirate pouting on the posters may just be young and naïve enough to think this is art. If they are wrong, they have the consolation of knowing Antichrist will keep them company this year in the category of misjudged art-house projects with messianic connections.
Confused story
ogle23549 March 2012
Just too contrived. We start in the Philipines with a sort of lost in the jungle story and end up with "over the top" Chinese gangsters deep in recreational ultra violence... unrelated. I must have missed what all these bad guys had to do with anything. Could this have been two different rolls of film joined into one? Acting is wooden, accents are terrible and the poor American pretty boy looks as confused as I feel! There is some side story of a gangster trying to cure his dreadful girlfriend of heroin addiction in a lost cabin. Nothing to do with anything. The bare chested scenes are simply irrelevant and stick out like sweaty soft porn. Avoid.
Life of Christ interpreted
a44473041 August 2010
This is one of the best film I have watched. In fact, I watched it twice, and the second time on, I gave it a standing ovation. This film is a piece of art, just like a canvas to Tran Anh Hung ready to paint his imagination for the world to see. It may leave audience baffled after watching it, but you need to watch the details to know the story. This movie is Tran Anh Hung's interpretation of the Life of Christ, it is a fusion of mafia, rock, detective all roll into one. You can call it a misinterpretation of the Bible, but hey, this is art, he has the freedom to express himself. To me, this rocks more than The Passion of Christ, because it got substance.
It tries a bit too hard to be something it's not
KineticSeoul24 May 2011
The main reason why I decided to see this is because it has Byung-hun Lee in it although he isn't the main character in this. I wanted to see more movies where he is in mainstream Hollywood movies. Besides him being a top actor in Korea, I enjoyed few of the movies he was in and few dramas as well. And thought the movie was at least going to be interesting because of Lee's charisma and coolness he portrays on screen. He just didn't stand out in this and his character is wasted, plus the direction of it all made it a disaster. This is far from one of the best thrillers I seen, but it's a explicit thriller with violence and nudity. It's basically a thriller with shock value, but it sort of lacks in that department to some degree as well. It isn't really a clever thriller or anything like that although it has symbolism, it just seemed a bit forced at times. It also isn't really all that psychological either, even if it tries to be. While also trying to get the female audiences attention by getting the main actors to take off their shirts constantly, which might have worked. But it takes away from the movie because it just seems like a they are at a photo-shoot or shooting a commercial. After the first hour the movie starts to really drag with nothing much happening and without the plot progressing all that much. I also disliked the girl that played Byung-hun Lee's character's lover in this, I didn't like her presence in this movie and her acting was terrible. It would have been nice if Thea Aquino got a bigger role in this although currently she is a unknown actress, but her presence in this seemed much better and it's not only because she takes her clothes off. I know it's trying to go for the artsy approach but it fails in that level, it just didn't seem all that artistic. The second half of the movie just didn't feel the same as the first half and not in a good way either. When I first saw the trailer to this I thought it was going to be at least a decent movie, but was left disappointed. It just tries too hard to be something it's not. It should have just went with the direction of the first half without the crap that is thrown in for the second half.
3.8/10
3.8/10
Three parables make for an uneven film
smccar7729 March 2011
"I Come With The Rain," is a film that is hard to define. In some ways it is a redemption story, in other ways it is a reinterpretation of Christian mythology, and in yet further ways it is a study of evil. If anything, the film is ambitious in the themes that it tries to explore. As with most ambition, a degree of prudence is often needed for reaching higher quality. For example, one may wish to change the world for the better. However, trying to affect a whole planet is beyond the capabilities of most. The prudence enters in defining one's world more strictly. The wish to change the world changes into a wish and drive to change one's immediate world or community. The ambition becomes tempered by practical and manageable constraints. Unfortunately, ICWTR attempts more than it is capable of handling well. The film touches on the three interconnected themes mentioned above in a less than coherent way. By the end of the movie, one is left with the sense that valuable ideas have been brought to the table but never developed into anything that can be useful or fulfilling to the audience.
The premise of a damaged detective searching for a messianic figure amidst the corruption and evils of modern life is promising. The film falters by attempting to create three interconnected and artfully ambiguous tales about the detective, messiah figure, and the personification of modern corruption and evil. One of the hallmarks of parables is that they are rather simple. The parable usually develops a story around a single moral or epistemological rule. ICWTR attempts to tell three parables in tandem. The result is not a smooth synthesis commenting on the complexities of the human condition. Rather, the film comes of as confused and lacking in relevant concrete development. To be clear, the film itself is not overly difficult to understand; the attempts of the film to convey deeper meaning are muddled and shallow. In fairness, the raising of interesting questions may have been the goal of the film. The problem is that the film does not arm the audience with any tools to continue the discussion later on. As an example, how would you respond to the following question if asked by a random stranger: "Is 'good' tainted when it is saved by 'evil?'" Hopefully this is a jarring question and one that defies immediate answer. In one sense, the question is interesting and plumbs the depths of moral/ethical thinking. In another sense, the question is too brash and off putting. Such a question almost begs for some sort of established framework to deal with it. In essence, the above question comes later in the discussion after some context and philosophical norms are established. ICWTR asks questions like this without giving the audience any real framework to deal with said questions. The film methodically, and beautifully I might add, simply presents scenarios that lead to these questions. The result is a confusing and somewhat disjointed experience. As a viewer, I know I am supposed to have been exposed to some deeply meaningful symbols and questions; yet I do not really know what to do with these symbols or where to go with these questions. In the end, one really wants to find deeper meaning in this film and unfortunately cannot.
While the above may seem a harsh review, the film does offer a great many good points. The cinematography is beautiful. The scenes vary from lush tropical forests to oppressive and over developed cityscapes. The actors assembled are an international powerhouse. While Hartnett may be less than A status in America, Kimura and Lee are considered first rate stars in Asia. In this sense, the film is an international blockbuster. The acting by these stars is somewhat uneven. Of the three, Lee is the most consistent, turning in a nuanced performance that aptly captures the variegated emotions connected with his personification of modern corruption and evil. The editing and pacing are very well done and match the attempted themes. The Radiohead soundtrack adds a pleasant ethereal touch which aids in setting a more contemplative tone. In essence, the film is extremely well made, it just attempts too many messages within the story.
On a personal note, I really wanted to like this film and was somewhat saddened that I was underwhelmed. I enjoy having my knowledge and interpretations of symbolism expanded. Unfortunately, this film merely referenced a great many known symbols without expanding or deepening their meaning. For this and the above reasons, I will probably not recommend this film to many. I tend to see this as a film that attempted something artistic and philosophically profound. No doubt, many people will agree and furthermore extract something from the film. Sadly, I was not able to pull any greater meaning from this movie. 6.7 stars of 10.
The premise of a damaged detective searching for a messianic figure amidst the corruption and evils of modern life is promising. The film falters by attempting to create three interconnected and artfully ambiguous tales about the detective, messiah figure, and the personification of modern corruption and evil. One of the hallmarks of parables is that they are rather simple. The parable usually develops a story around a single moral or epistemological rule. ICWTR attempts to tell three parables in tandem. The result is not a smooth synthesis commenting on the complexities of the human condition. Rather, the film comes of as confused and lacking in relevant concrete development. To be clear, the film itself is not overly difficult to understand; the attempts of the film to convey deeper meaning are muddled and shallow. In fairness, the raising of interesting questions may have been the goal of the film. The problem is that the film does not arm the audience with any tools to continue the discussion later on. As an example, how would you respond to the following question if asked by a random stranger: "Is 'good' tainted when it is saved by 'evil?'" Hopefully this is a jarring question and one that defies immediate answer. In one sense, the question is interesting and plumbs the depths of moral/ethical thinking. In another sense, the question is too brash and off putting. Such a question almost begs for some sort of established framework to deal with it. In essence, the above question comes later in the discussion after some context and philosophical norms are established. ICWTR asks questions like this without giving the audience any real framework to deal with said questions. The film methodically, and beautifully I might add, simply presents scenarios that lead to these questions. The result is a confusing and somewhat disjointed experience. As a viewer, I know I am supposed to have been exposed to some deeply meaningful symbols and questions; yet I do not really know what to do with these symbols or where to go with these questions. In the end, one really wants to find deeper meaning in this film and unfortunately cannot.
While the above may seem a harsh review, the film does offer a great many good points. The cinematography is beautiful. The scenes vary from lush tropical forests to oppressive and over developed cityscapes. The actors assembled are an international powerhouse. While Hartnett may be less than A status in America, Kimura and Lee are considered first rate stars in Asia. In this sense, the film is an international blockbuster. The acting by these stars is somewhat uneven. Of the three, Lee is the most consistent, turning in a nuanced performance that aptly captures the variegated emotions connected with his personification of modern corruption and evil. The editing and pacing are very well done and match the attempted themes. The Radiohead soundtrack adds a pleasant ethereal touch which aids in setting a more contemplative tone. In essence, the film is extremely well made, it just attempts too many messages within the story.
On a personal note, I really wanted to like this film and was somewhat saddened that I was underwhelmed. I enjoy having my knowledge and interpretations of symbolism expanded. Unfortunately, this film merely referenced a great many known symbols without expanding or deepening their meaning. For this and the above reasons, I will probably not recommend this film to many. I tend to see this as a film that attempted something artistic and philosophically profound. No doubt, many people will agree and furthermore extract something from the film. Sadly, I was not able to pull any greater meaning from this movie. 6.7 stars of 10.
Apparently boredom also comes with the rain...
paul_haakonsen28 April 2017
"I Come with the Rain" actually had potential to be something unique and memorable, but it failed to do so. And director Tran Anh Hung just didn't manage to create a movie that stood out.
Set in seedy and gritty Hong Kong, this movie had so much potential, but it just never took off. The pace of the movie was good, but it never really delved deep into the plot or storyline, and it seemed like a half-hearted attempt of making a film, to be bluntly honest.
Actually, the storyline was a confusing and scrambled mess of a storyline, and it seemed more like a series of randomly filmed sequences put together in the editing room to make a movie. I wonder if the script never had that crucial red thread throughout the plot, or it was the director who managed to lose the red thread along the way.
"I Come with the Rain" had some rather interesting and good names to the cast list, which include Byung-hun Lee, Shawn Yue, Elias Koteas and Josh Hartnett. However, they had so little to work with in terms of script and story that they were never really given a chance to shine on the screen.
I have watched "I Come with the Rain" twice now, with several years in between. But the movie has just failed to improve over the years. So I doubt that I will return to watch it a third time. "I Come with the Rain" suffered terribly under a confusing and scrambled mess of a storyline.
It was a shame, because "I Come with the Rain" really had potential to be so much more than just your less than average thriller. In fact, there was nothing thrilling about this movie.
Set in seedy and gritty Hong Kong, this movie had so much potential, but it just never took off. The pace of the movie was good, but it never really delved deep into the plot or storyline, and it seemed like a half-hearted attempt of making a film, to be bluntly honest.
Actually, the storyline was a confusing and scrambled mess of a storyline, and it seemed more like a series of randomly filmed sequences put together in the editing room to make a movie. I wonder if the script never had that crucial red thread throughout the plot, or it was the director who managed to lose the red thread along the way.
"I Come with the Rain" had some rather interesting and good names to the cast list, which include Byung-hun Lee, Shawn Yue, Elias Koteas and Josh Hartnett. However, they had so little to work with in terms of script and story that they were never really given a chance to shine on the screen.
I have watched "I Come with the Rain" twice now, with several years in between. But the movie has just failed to improve over the years. So I doubt that I will return to watch it a third time. "I Come with the Rain" suffered terribly under a confusing and scrambled mess of a storyline.
It was a shame, because "I Come with the Rain" really had potential to be so much more than just your less than average thriller. In fact, there was nothing thrilling about this movie.
Too vague in symbolism, but it shows violence the way it truly is
deconstructing2 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I believe the director Anh Hung Tran once said I Come With the Rain is not finished. And it shows. With that in mind, though, it can offer a satisfying cinematic experience; but it's definitely not for everybody. Perhaps not for most of the people.
The plot is surprisingly simple: Kline (Hartnett) is an ex cop, now a private detective, who is sent to find a billionaire's missing son Shitao (Kimura). The trail leads to Hong Kong. Turns out the son is actually a Christ figure who uses his powers to heal people. Add in a gangster and his girlfriend and Kline's troubled past (in a form of haunting memories of a serial killer that made sculptures out of his victim's bodies), and there you go.
There have been some criticism for the acting, particularly for the Asian cast's shaky English. It might be distracting to some people, but it's not unbearable (the fact they speak English to each other is confusing, though). Hartnett is surprisingly good as Kline, portraying his apathy and madness in a reserved manner, rarely going over the top. So I don't think he should see this movie as a bad acting choice; it's another role (along with Mozart and the Whale and Lucky Number Slevin) in which he proves he can act, after all.
The story isn't told in a linear manner, which troubles some people. Editing does seem random at times, but it's actually possible to follow the plot just fine. But it's clear the film isn't really about the plot, but the symbolism; and it's where it becomes too vague to truly shine.
They say the best art is the one that doesn't force a message on you, and the one that lets you form your own interpretation. It is true, but there seems to be very little solid material to build your own interpretation here. It seems the director wanted to explore so many things at once: religious symbolism, common thriller tropes, evil and violence, and human body. Taken individually, these things work, but the end result lacks coherence.
However, some of these things do work well. The best is Kline's story that slowly unfolds in flashbacks: his identification with the murderer (and the sculptures inspired by Francis Bacon), his insanity, his apathy, and his inability to view human form in a healthy way. Human body is closely inspected in the film from various angles, and is not limited to grotesque sculptures and healer's tortured body: for example, actors are often seen shirtless, but it doesn't seem sexual.
There are some quite good things in this film. It might be gore, but it shows violence the way it truly is: disgusting, extreme, often grotesque, never romantic. In a way, the film can be taken as the inspection of evil and all the disgusting things people do to each other.
But at the end of the day, the most interesting seem to be the things we don't see: Kline's full story arc with the murderer and slipping into madness, or Shitao's whereabouts. What's in the film seems to be quite peripheral, which might, or might not, be intentional.
In any case, it's difficult to enjoy a film like I Come With the Rain, but it doesn't mean the movie was bad. There's some quite good stuff in it. Too bad it's too vague to truly engage us.
The plot is surprisingly simple: Kline (Hartnett) is an ex cop, now a private detective, who is sent to find a billionaire's missing son Shitao (Kimura). The trail leads to Hong Kong. Turns out the son is actually a Christ figure who uses his powers to heal people. Add in a gangster and his girlfriend and Kline's troubled past (in a form of haunting memories of a serial killer that made sculptures out of his victim's bodies), and there you go.
There have been some criticism for the acting, particularly for the Asian cast's shaky English. It might be distracting to some people, but it's not unbearable (the fact they speak English to each other is confusing, though). Hartnett is surprisingly good as Kline, portraying his apathy and madness in a reserved manner, rarely going over the top. So I don't think he should see this movie as a bad acting choice; it's another role (along with Mozart and the Whale and Lucky Number Slevin) in which he proves he can act, after all.
The story isn't told in a linear manner, which troubles some people. Editing does seem random at times, but it's actually possible to follow the plot just fine. But it's clear the film isn't really about the plot, but the symbolism; and it's where it becomes too vague to truly shine.
They say the best art is the one that doesn't force a message on you, and the one that lets you form your own interpretation. It is true, but there seems to be very little solid material to build your own interpretation here. It seems the director wanted to explore so many things at once: religious symbolism, common thriller tropes, evil and violence, and human body. Taken individually, these things work, but the end result lacks coherence.
However, some of these things do work well. The best is Kline's story that slowly unfolds in flashbacks: his identification with the murderer (and the sculptures inspired by Francis Bacon), his insanity, his apathy, and his inability to view human form in a healthy way. Human body is closely inspected in the film from various angles, and is not limited to grotesque sculptures and healer's tortured body: for example, actors are often seen shirtless, but it doesn't seem sexual.
There are some quite good things in this film. It might be gore, but it shows violence the way it truly is: disgusting, extreme, often grotesque, never romantic. In a way, the film can be taken as the inspection of evil and all the disgusting things people do to each other.
But at the end of the day, the most interesting seem to be the things we don't see: Kline's full story arc with the murderer and slipping into madness, or Shitao's whereabouts. What's in the film seems to be quite peripheral, which might, or might not, be intentional.
In any case, it's difficult to enjoy a film like I Come With the Rain, but it doesn't mean the movie was bad. There's some quite good stuff in it. Too bad it's too vague to truly engage us.
absolutely awful
gellerman024 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This film tries to hard to mix both art-house and religion . It FAILS . The pace of the film is so slow i felt as though i,d fallen asleep and had to skip back a few minutes just to make sure i hadn't .The cinematography although good dose very little to enhance the viewing pleasure and the rehashed Asian version of the resurrection is utterly ridiculous . Josh Hartnett gives a decent performance but is let down by the really poor story . The Asian cast at times are very hard to understand but i think that might have something to do with the sound track running into the dialogue continuously . The long lingering moody stares by all the characters in the movie get a bit tedious after a while and probably account for fifteen to twenty minutes of movie time or to put it another way MY TIME WASTED.
Touched by evil, a journey to meet good.
platothelapdog3 January 2010
Everything about this movie screamed for me to despise it. Yet this movie is like meeting a person whose appearance is ugly, yet whose inner beauty is unseen unless given a chance to shine. Dark.... nasty work with cuts of beauty. It just flows out in both directions, this movie got a 9 out of 10 from me.
Basically an ex-cop (Josh H.)named Kline who has seen and been overtaken by evil( a serial killer drives him insane over his investigation into this 24 mutilation killings then tortures Kline during a meeting,) is given the task of finding a lost son of a billionaire who turns out to be a new Christ figure, a saint. Which of these two meetings will have the most impact on Kline? Deep, slow and gory but oh so beautiful in a very disturbing way.
Basically an ex-cop (Josh H.)named Kline who has seen and been overtaken by evil( a serial killer drives him insane over his investigation into this 24 mutilation killings then tortures Kline during a meeting,) is given the task of finding a lost son of a billionaire who turns out to be a new Christ figure, a saint. Which of these two meetings will have the most impact on Kline? Deep, slow and gory but oh so beautiful in a very disturbing way.
Savior Complex
NikkoFranco28 May 2018
I had to watch this film twice as I missed the first fifteen minutes, so when it popped up again on Sky, I was finallly able to piece the puzzle. Josh Hartnett is an experimentalist of an actor gladly . As a private investigator hired to find a hermetic son of a pharma billionaire, he has his own mental battles to fight due to a serial killer in his police past which resulted to him quitting the force, and he delivered well that you will not be distracted by his handsome features at all. The missing party has turned into a faith healer meantime. Why- see it for yourself. This film has strong religious undertones , violence and horrific dead victim images. This film is for those who can take the aforementioned description and may not be suitable for impressionable viewers.
Does this movie worth watching? Probably not...
basribaba20 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
With a first glance, I thought the movie was OK. Although it has a further Asian cast and director, Josh Hartnett and Elias Koteas give a small piece of hope. I can be objective because I am neither Western oriented nor eastern cultured and not a Christ follower either. This movie's editing is just a piece of s..t. The sequences and continuity is so bad that you got lost in time and place. Jump backs two years earlier, and forwarding to current time, personal flash backs and more so we got confused. The music is a great loud, hardly instrumental and melodically. You have to reduce the volume to concentrate on the screen. Irritating human sculptures wants to make every watcher puke. Shitao is Christ or Saint i don't care. Just why is he going to Hong Kong? Can anyone explain why? I just Don't like the movie, Don't like Hartnett's meaningless staring, Koteass' worthless mumbling and preaching. Just 1 is enough for this movie.
What a bore fest
thebogofeternalstench18 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I turned this movie off half way through, I was bored to death.
It looks like a cross between a student film and a doco. The editing is terrible, and the story so boring you just don't care.
There is just nothing there to keep you interested, at all.
The only good thing I can say about the movie is that the blood/cuts etc fx were great, very realistic.
The movie just cuts from one random scene to another, which makes it seem very amateur. There isn't a pinch of substance, the movie felt really hollow.
I would not recommend wasting your time watching this movie at all.
It looks like a cross between a student film and a doco. The editing is terrible, and the story so boring you just don't care.
There is just nothing there to keep you interested, at all.
The only good thing I can say about the movie is that the blood/cuts etc fx were great, very realistic.
The movie just cuts from one random scene to another, which makes it seem very amateur. There isn't a pinch of substance, the movie felt really hollow.
I would not recommend wasting your time watching this movie at all.
How to waste 18 m dollars in a film
jackasstrange7 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I come with the rain is, for a plenty of reasons, an atrocious film. I don't know even where start talking about it. It's almost impossible to describe how fail it is.
But OK. I'll start with the technical aspects. The cinematography is grotesque, the lightning almost all the time is totally messed up. The lightning which'd covers the actors are often different than the lightning which covered the sets. Just weird.The CGI is really not well-done too. I don'want to mention the acting here, because almost every actor on this film was awful, except maybe by a couple which tried to gave their best to the film.
The plot is as well awful. The best things which i'd discovered in this film were some dull references and allegories about Christ and the conflicts of the human being trying to reach peace. That's all. But being said, 'The Best' in this case is not that much. In a short resume, it's poorly executed. Among with that collection of things which don't work in the film, we have poor dialogues,they are very bad, some sequences which are beyond nonsense and pointless. I mean, what the hell are the Radiohead songs playing entirely during the interminable and bad edited intercalated sequences? I almost felt that i was watching a music-video instead of a film.
Well, i don't need to say that you should avoid this film. 2.8/10
But OK. I'll start with the technical aspects. The cinematography is grotesque, the lightning almost all the time is totally messed up. The lightning which'd covers the actors are often different than the lightning which covered the sets. Just weird.The CGI is really not well-done too. I don'want to mention the acting here, because almost every actor on this film was awful, except maybe by a couple which tried to gave their best to the film.
The plot is as well awful. The best things which i'd discovered in this film were some dull references and allegories about Christ and the conflicts of the human being trying to reach peace. That's all. But being said, 'The Best' in this case is not that much. In a short resume, it's poorly executed. Among with that collection of things which don't work in the film, we have poor dialogues,they are very bad, some sequences which are beyond nonsense and pointless. I mean, what the hell are the Radiohead songs playing entirely during the interminable and bad edited intercalated sequences? I almost felt that i was watching a music-video instead of a film.
Well, i don't need to say that you should avoid this film. 2.8/10
Kline is an ex-cop and at present he is a detective hired by a pharmaceutical billionaire to search for his missing son. He goes to Mindanao and in Hong Kong to find him.
moviemarathonchampion14 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I watched the movie prior to support that I am a fan of Kimura Takuya. Anyhow, as much as I adore KimuTaku's versatile talent as an actor, I must say that the movie was not at its best but also not at its worst. The storyline was left unclear, maybe the viewers are left to suffice everything through personal conclusions. Furthermore, watching such kind of plot was new to me and thus, even I thought some parts of it were weird -- Hasford's creations, I just respected it, watched it how it is. Josh Hatnett gave his best as Kline. Kimura Takuya as Shitao was something that made an impression to me. Kimura acted so good, he gave his best, especially his healing scenes wherein you could see how hurt he is absorbing the pain of the weak, getting stigmata and the like. Also, his best scenes were those healing scenes and especially the scene where he was risen from the dead in the greenery of Mindanao, worms escaping his body during a rainy afternoon. What made me question myself was the fact that even he was nailed by Lee after 4/5 gunshots, he was still undying. Lee as a mafia also made me do a thumb up. Yes, only one thumb up. You can see the fury in his eyes throughout the movie as he kills using his ways (putting a man in a zipped plastic and hammering him all the way to his death). As for the screenplay, the OSTs made their way too much that the dialog, the much important part of the film, were disrupted. Josh Hartnett spoke some lines so unclear in some scenes too. By the way, Tran Anh Hung had been so imaginative while writing the plot but he overdid a few components of the movie.
To rate, the movie script - 7/10, the actors - 8/10, screenplay - 7/10.
To rate, the movie script - 7/10, the actors - 8/10, screenplay - 7/10.
beautiful yet ............
brockman200020 January 2010
OK, I've been wanting to watch this for soooo long and finally I made it! First of all forget the adverts, they completely betray the movie. I was expecting a real good HK gangster movie with a western edge but what I got was much slower, more serious and very edgy. Josh Hartnett was great, possibly the best I've ever seen him and to be honest I usually can't stand him. Well, changed my mind! Unfortunately there were parts of the movie where the dialog was difficult to understand, and this was down down to the Asian actors.....BUT.... It wasn't impossible, and overall the acting in the movie was great. The thing that struck me most about the film was the cinematography which had that real Asian edge, think of any modern Korean movie, it:s beautiful! And the speed of the movie which was sloooow but perfect! I loved it, and I think if you have ever been into Asian cinema or any other for that fact you will too. I:m not going to tell you anything about the story, just watch it......
'I Come With the Rain': Don't like? Go watch 'Gigli'.
Cazekiel26 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I'm compelled to write a review on this flick, seeing as it's gotten such a bad name here on IMDb. CONTAINS SERIOUS SPOILERS.
If you walked into this movie to watch a psycho-thriller or get a heaping dose of crime drama, you got it in spades. But if you hadn't expected that Chinese mob activities involved serious, brutal violence, or that a serial-killer like Hasford didn't do 'improper things' with his victims and that offended you, then you need to do some reading on ANY mob-activities and EVERY serial-killer profile--without pictures, saving your delicate sensibilities.
If you walked into this movie knowing that it involved a serial killer that made art out of his victim's bodies in a grotesque, terrifying manner, and that Kline's too-personal involvement over two years with the case had him go entirely mad, again, you got it in spades. But if you hadn't expected the blood (which is really quite ignorant, considering the first stills released showcased Hartnett covered from head-to-toe in blood) or couldn't see past what you'd call "OMG gratuitous nudity!" for what it really was: Kline's difficulty and outright inability to view any human form, especially women, as normal (after all, at no point does he engage sexual activity with any woman in the film, even the one he rented?)? Then you've got serious issues with that very human body. Considering the fact that there are only two scenes in which breasts are displayed, it doesn't EARN gratuity. The point of the nudity goes well beyond objectifying; the nudity, to Kline, is back at Hasford's, where he got the chance to see a bulging, unnatural sculpture made out of a pair of breasts.
Defenses made aside, this movie is more a sound and light production, created to stimulate the viewer's movie-watching experience. The music goes from ethereal and hypnotizing to jarring in all appropriateness, capturing the mood from scene-to-scene. And when it comes to characters, we're not listening to stilted conversation between Affleck and J-Lo, with drab backgrounds and meaningless characters wandering in and out. Everyone has their place, from Kline's trying to redeem himself for his killing and mutilating Hasford... well, a la Hasford, to the psychotic Hasford himself, to Shitao's constant self-sacrifices to the point of serious injury in order to save others from death. Onto Meng Zi, a good friend to Kline but an easily-frustrated, ruthless cop, then Dongpo's extreme indifference to his violent ways to the point where his beloved Lili falls headfirst into them.
If you're actually paying attention, it's not hard at all to follow. Each person has a story; even with the gory violence that Dongpo puts out, there are times when you feel for him. Despite Shitao's mutilated, torn-up body, as Lili tells him, he's 'beautiful'. And watching Kline's descent back into obsessive, over-detailing behavior, going so far as to make 'sculptures' out of the many police pictures documenting Shitao's injuries in a strange, maddening method of 'getting to know him' is overwhelmingly compelling. As a whole, the story is about Kline's mind and how it's trying to work everything out, his desperation to steer clear of insanity when really, he should quit the detective act and take up basket-weaving to save his sanity. Despite the "happy ending", one can hope he does just that. It's not that he's failed, it's that he's seen too much. So to assume that the film is too jumpy or confusing is to say that you didn't understand where it was coming from in the first place.
There ARE, however, some confusing bits. We can assume that the woman that Meng Zi gets with is a prostitute, but it's never explicitly explained. He's appeared as a relatively with-it guy, with the usual flaws, but--a prostitute? Who is she? We never get told. The black eye he shows up with not long after his time with her, again, a WTF? While one can understand that Lili is romantically tied to Dongpo, I can say that no matter how much I love my husband, I'd be a titch peeved if he killed a close friend of mine. Instead, she goes back with him instead of shunning him--another odd occurrence.
I give this movie 9 out of 10, which would've been a 10 were it not for the things listed in the above paragraph. Otherwise, it's a fantastic, stimulating film which depicts terrible monsters that are still, deep down, human. If you've seen this and didn't like it, either watch it more carefully next time or rent 'Pearl Harbor'. Though I'm sure Hartnett himself would advise you to do the former.
If you walked into this movie to watch a psycho-thriller or get a heaping dose of crime drama, you got it in spades. But if you hadn't expected that Chinese mob activities involved serious, brutal violence, or that a serial-killer like Hasford didn't do 'improper things' with his victims and that offended you, then you need to do some reading on ANY mob-activities and EVERY serial-killer profile--without pictures, saving your delicate sensibilities.
If you walked into this movie knowing that it involved a serial killer that made art out of his victim's bodies in a grotesque, terrifying manner, and that Kline's too-personal involvement over two years with the case had him go entirely mad, again, you got it in spades. But if you hadn't expected the blood (which is really quite ignorant, considering the first stills released showcased Hartnett covered from head-to-toe in blood) or couldn't see past what you'd call "OMG gratuitous nudity!" for what it really was: Kline's difficulty and outright inability to view any human form, especially women, as normal (after all, at no point does he engage sexual activity with any woman in the film, even the one he rented?)? Then you've got serious issues with that very human body. Considering the fact that there are only two scenes in which breasts are displayed, it doesn't EARN gratuity. The point of the nudity goes well beyond objectifying; the nudity, to Kline, is back at Hasford's, where he got the chance to see a bulging, unnatural sculpture made out of a pair of breasts.
Defenses made aside, this movie is more a sound and light production, created to stimulate the viewer's movie-watching experience. The music goes from ethereal and hypnotizing to jarring in all appropriateness, capturing the mood from scene-to-scene. And when it comes to characters, we're not listening to stilted conversation between Affleck and J-Lo, with drab backgrounds and meaningless characters wandering in and out. Everyone has their place, from Kline's trying to redeem himself for his killing and mutilating Hasford... well, a la Hasford, to the psychotic Hasford himself, to Shitao's constant self-sacrifices to the point of serious injury in order to save others from death. Onto Meng Zi, a good friend to Kline but an easily-frustrated, ruthless cop, then Dongpo's extreme indifference to his violent ways to the point where his beloved Lili falls headfirst into them.
If you're actually paying attention, it's not hard at all to follow. Each person has a story; even with the gory violence that Dongpo puts out, there are times when you feel for him. Despite Shitao's mutilated, torn-up body, as Lili tells him, he's 'beautiful'. And watching Kline's descent back into obsessive, over-detailing behavior, going so far as to make 'sculptures' out of the many police pictures documenting Shitao's injuries in a strange, maddening method of 'getting to know him' is overwhelmingly compelling. As a whole, the story is about Kline's mind and how it's trying to work everything out, his desperation to steer clear of insanity when really, he should quit the detective act and take up basket-weaving to save his sanity. Despite the "happy ending", one can hope he does just that. It's not that he's failed, it's that he's seen too much. So to assume that the film is too jumpy or confusing is to say that you didn't understand where it was coming from in the first place.
There ARE, however, some confusing bits. We can assume that the woman that Meng Zi gets with is a prostitute, but it's never explicitly explained. He's appeared as a relatively with-it guy, with the usual flaws, but--a prostitute? Who is she? We never get told. The black eye he shows up with not long after his time with her, again, a WTF? While one can understand that Lili is romantically tied to Dongpo, I can say that no matter how much I love my husband, I'd be a titch peeved if he killed a close friend of mine. Instead, she goes back with him instead of shunning him--another odd occurrence.
I give this movie 9 out of 10, which would've been a 10 were it not for the things listed in the above paragraph. Otherwise, it's a fantastic, stimulating film which depicts terrible monsters that are still, deep down, human. If you've seen this and didn't like it, either watch it more carefully next time or rent 'Pearl Harbor'. Though I'm sure Hartnett himself would advise you to do the former.
Excellence Unique
mkrjmn11 March 2010
It is an outstanding movie.
Authors' mind-playing is superb to an extent hardly followed by a reviewer as so much of different genres had been mixed and inter-lapped through detective Kline's sick-with-crime-solving-expertise brain. Family issues. Sexual fantasies, sadomasochism, pedophilia, blood-thirsty games and murdering, German-anatomy style art and fetish. Zombies. The modern USA, Philippines, Hong Kong. AND really nice music.
No wonder, everyone keeps this DVD on a shelf, no Amazon sales as "R" is too soft for classification as R is too soft for classification while "X" would hardly attract adult shop customers en masse.
Authors' mind-playing is superb to an extent hardly followed by a reviewer as so much of different genres had been mixed and inter-lapped through detective Kline's sick-with-crime-solving-expertise brain. Family issues. Sexual fantasies, sadomasochism, pedophilia, blood-thirsty games and murdering, German-anatomy style art and fetish. Zombies. The modern USA, Philippines, Hong Kong. AND really nice music.
No wonder, everyone keeps this DVD on a shelf, no Amazon sales as "R" is too soft for classification as R is too soft for classification while "X" would hardly attract adult shop customers en masse.
The opening scene was worth twice the price of admission alone.
yeodawg11 March 2011
one of the best things about deploying (besides defending freedom, liberating a people) is buying gems like these from the locals, years before its marketed to you Philistines in the states. If your like me you've seen every movie that features a cop recovering from a tragedy in his past. And the guy either breaks down while guzzling whiskey or it appears in flash-backs. Well you've never scene it like this before. The first scene puts everything in perspective so concise, sexy, and brilliantly. Then the second scene (which stands alone from the first scene) even nails it home even harder. I was like hey take your foot off the gas, I get it already he's messed up in the head, damage goods. Interesting characters, interesting dialog, and real and bizarre scenarios.
Likes and dislikes divide
mananana20069 June 2009
The dialog is very few, and the scene of the account for by the dialog is expressed by the image if usual. Radiohead's music piles up the atmosphere of the image instead of the dialog. I think that I can't understand painfully for the person who is not accustomed to such a movie because there are considerably a lot of flashbacks of the image of the Kline and Shitao. As for the Kline and Su Dongpo, there are a lot of nakedness in the scene that didn't feel the necessity. I think that the Anh Hung Tran director director uses and expressed its bloody body through this movie to talk about the pain in the mind and the pain of pain in the body. When the religion outlook on the Christianity is strong, and it knows the Bible, it's easy to understand, and individual meaning of few dialogs is made a mind more deeply and this work is seen. However, up to now, I have thought that it's the world that can't be understood in the person who has seen only the entertainment movie. I think that I run for frenzy because Su Dongpo as Hong Kong Mafia that plays Byung-hun Lee is love, there was terrible, and played it well. I think that acting of Takuya Kimura of this movie was very wonderful, and has evolved further. I think that the character that the post of the TV drama in recent years looks like though Takuya Kimura originally has the acting ability is a negative image. I think that the evaluation divides because it is a movie that the spectator receives by the sensibility. However, I like this movie very much.
At least makes you think
gevike-934-1280119 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
So many movies are like chewing gum. You get what the title says, the higher the number the more boring the story. No numbers here. Nice title. Then a story that is so confused and confusing that will make you think for some time. That's already worth it. Asian movies can do way better than the big factories of Hollywood. There is a brave and overly complex story here. There is 2 or 3 different story lines. 3-5 important characters. Asia as the backdrop. The head of a pharmaceutical company, that can't be seen or met by anyone, the private detective who has to find and protect the only son of the aforementioned, the son who can heal others by taking over their pain and who can't be killed, the artistic serial killer, the Asian mafia guy filled with cruelty but also with true love for her drug addict girl. Some of these are very obvious references to the Bible but others are more difficult to figure out. At least not chewing gum.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
