Last edited by a moderator:
Digibook Only God Forgives - Uncut LE Blu-ray Digibook [Germany]
- Thread starter softandy
- Start date
Haven't seen anyone mention yet or confirm if this version, the same being sold on amazon.de is the actual uncut version of the film? Amazon.de states it is uncut but at 90 mins. Zavvi is also showing the UK steel book at 90 mins..
You are correct AB, I now have this and can confirm that it is actually digibook size (like the US releases) and not actually the taller Mediabook size of the Austrian blood and guts releases for example.
I´ve edited the title of the OP to reflect this.
I made a video today for this good looking but not perfect digibook.
&feature=c4-overview&list=UUImNlgCseDHt2sU1CeAoVsw
&feature=c4-overview&list=UUImNlgCseDHt2sU1CeAoVsw
Last edited by a moderator:
Just an FYI guys if you're buying this digibook for the movie, then I'd say at least 50% of the dialogue is spoken in Thai
Yeah there is a lot of subtitles in the film. This is now a decent price but the lack of English subs still puts me off.
Really cool price, but I hate that it doesn't have subtitles other than german. And I can't speak thai so....
Have you actually watched the film? It really makes no difference if you understand English or Thai. I watched it twice now (gave it another viewing after all the "really cool and cinephile Refn experts" on HDN practically told me I was stupid for not liking it) and I firmly believe that none of the spoken words in the movie have any real impact.... it's a beautiful looking film (and in my book even more so beautiful looking Digibook), lots of nice shots and angles and endless symbolism² that is probably supposed to be subtle, but is executed with a hammer - make that sword - (like the final scene with mother and son).
I don't know, I really wanted to like this movie (I love the Pusher trilogy and Drive and thoroughly enjoyed Walhalla Rising and Fear X - even though it kinda falls flat if you have already watched Barton Fink by the Coen Brothers, even Bleeder has its moments), but sometimes a turd needs to be called what it is and if it hadn't been for "To Rome with Love", this would be the worst movie I watched in 2013.
Still a great Digibook and anybody getting it for 18,97€ is very lucky...if only for the Bonus Refn documentary that shows how somebody so thoroughly unlikable can still make a very good movie every once in a while
Last edited:
Have you actually watched the film? It really makes no difference if you understand English or Thai. I watched it twice now (gave it another viewing after all the "really cool and cinephile Refn experts" on HDN practically told me I was stupid for not liking it) and I firmly believe that none of the spoken words in the movie have any real impact.... it's a beautiful looking film (and in my book even more so beautiful looking Digibook), lots of nice shots and angles and endless symbolism² that is probably supposed to be subtle, but is executed with a hammer - make that sword - (like the final scene with mother and son).
I don't know, I really wanted to like this movie (I love the Pusher trilogy and Drive and thoroughly enjoyed Walhalla Rising and Fear X - even though it kinda falls flat if you have already watched Barton Fink by the Coen Brothers, even Bleeder has its moments), but sometimes a turd needs to be called what it is and if it hadn't been for "To Rome with Love", this would be the worst movie I watched in 2013.
Still a great Digibook and anybody getting it for 18,97€ is very lucky...if only for the Bonus Refn documentary that shows how somebody so thoroughly unlikable can still make a very good movie every once in a while
This is definatly a film which is going to split opinion. I like to be challenged by films so I found this interesting. The visual side of films is always huge for me, that's why I love Stanley Kubrick movies. They are all visual masterpieces but don't always tell a good story. I loved Drive, it was my favourite films of last year. I did hear a lot about this being more arty so I kind of knew what to expect coming into it. I watched it once but know it is going to take another viewing before I can make a proper opinion. I like the films that form an impression on you and keep you thinking once it's over and this is definatly one of them.
Have you tried watching with the commentary on Lutzo, I believe that's supposed to be explain a lot. I haven't seen the documentary but is Refn really that bad! He's come across as ok in the bits I have seen of him.
For me, Refn ist one of the smartest and most likeable directors who exist. Whoever says, he's arrogant, doesn't have any clue about an artist and his craft. Just because someone has his own opinion about life and art, it doesn't make him arrogant. It struggles me each time, how people can write something stupid like that...Arrogant are only people, who argue that a director should make a movie, they can enjoy and fully understand. Otherwise, it's simply crap for them. It's not an artist's task to satisfy narrow-minded people...
Actually, it's a movie in its purest cinematic vision: audiovisual storytelling, speaking to heart and subconscious. It's what cinema is all about. Movies are an audiovisual medium and should speak more like life: in moments. Not in dialogues...For me, it's the best movie of the year!
Actually, it's a movie in its purest cinematic vision: audiovisual storytelling, speaking to heart and subconscious. It's what cinema is all about. Movies are an audiovisual medium and should speak more like life: in moments. Not in dialogues...For me, it's the best movie of the year!
Last edited:
The thing is though, there is really no need to explain anything - the film presents everything more clearly than it should. I think Refn actually underestimates his audience by using such a bizarrly obvious symbolism (Goslings character going back to the womb to cut the umbilical cord - hello??? We get it, she is the mother from hell and she ruined your life - get over it).
This movie has absolutely nothing to do with an art-house movie, but it so desperately wants to by e.g. crediting Jodorowsky - giving the impression that Refn is just one great cinephile director who has watched the classics and obviously he is creating a classic here as well - only in his own mind though and in the minds of some nuthugging fanboys who wish to be arthouse fans as well. Well, those guys should go and check out Stalker by Tarkovsky and try to find the philosophical symbolism in there, but I have to warn them, there are no masturbating asian hotties, Lucio Fulci splatter effects and pseudo old testament vengeance shots AND it also doesn't only last 90 minutes.
Refn is a talented director, he showed that already. I can't blame him for trying to make this movie and giving it his best, but what I really can't stand is people telling other people that they have to love this masterpiece because it is so brilliant, because it is absolutely not brilliant, it's a mess, a bloody mess
People on here who defend Refn with a vengeance (see, its about vengeance, get it, get it???) want to feel special and and special they are, but if they are going to be a bit more honest to us and themselves, they will admit that they'd rather watch Jules and Vincent shoot Marvin in the head for the 38th time, than to watch Only God Forgives for a second time
Last edited:
@Lutzo: The only one feeling special here is you. You think, you have a better taste than others, simply by saying that Refn's symbolism is too plain and crap (always depicting the one same single shot) and that he is arrogant, just because he has his own vision. So you know movies by Tarkovsky? Great, man, great. You know so much more than others, tell us more, please. You tend to judge other people and put fake tastes in their heads. You call them fanboys who wish to be arthouse fans - yeah. That's very arrogant and ignorant. What are you? Master of cinema or what? It's about tastes. And how do you know that people who love "Only God Forgives" not know or even love Tarkovsky? As if he's the only one great arthouse director out there who everybody has to compare with. It's standard for people like you always telling that he alone is the greatest, wishing to be the most intellectual people out there. To each director his own vision. Camparing Refn's violence with Lucio Fulci is tasteless in my opinion. You simply compare a trashy vision made for money with a vision made for art. Violence in movies is always debatable, but it fits Refn's vision. And your last sentence is the most arrogant one I've ever read on here. So you are telling people who simply love this movie that they have to be more honest that it's crap? You have to be more honest that you are just defending your arrogance and ignorance, mister...
You think, you have a better taste than others, simply by saying that Refn's symbolism is too plain and crap (always depicting the one same single shot) and that he is arrogant, just because he has his own vision. So you know movies by Tarkovsky? Great, man, great. You know so much more than others, tell us more, please. You tend to judge other people and put fake tastes in their heads. You call them fanboys who wish to be arthouse fans - yeah. That's very arrogant and ignorant. What are you? Master of cinema or what? It's about tastes. And how do you know that people who love "Only God Forgives" not know or even love Tarkovsky? As if he's the only one great arthouse director out there who everybody has to compare with. It's standard for people like you always telling that he alone is the greatest, wishing to be the most intellectual people out there. To each director his own vision. Camparing Refn's violence with Lucio Fulci is tasteless in my opinion. You simply compare a trashy vision made for money with a vision made for art. Violence in movies is always debatable, but it fits Refn's vision. And your last sentence is the most arrogant one I've ever read on here. So you are telling people who simply love this movie that they have to be more honest that it's crap? You have to be more honest that you are just defending your arrogance and ignorance, mister...
The thing is though, there is really no need to explain anything - the film presents everything more clearly than it should. I think Refn actually underestimates his audience by using such a bizarrly obvious symbolism (Goslings character going back to the womb to cut the umbilical cord - hello??? We get it, she is the mother from hell and she ruined your life - get over it).
This movie has absolutely nothing to do with an art-house movie, but it so desperately wants to by e.g. crediting Jodorowsky - giving the impression that Refn is just one great cinephile director who has watched the classics and obviously he is creating a classic here as well - only in his own mind though and in the minds of some nuthugging fanboys who wish to be arthouse fans as well. Well, those guys should go and check out Stalker by Tarkovsky and try to find the philosophical symbolism in there, but I have to warn them, there are no masturbating asian hotties, Lucio Fulci splatter effects and pseudo old testament vengeance shots AND it also doesn't only last 90 minutes.
Refn is a talented director, he showed that already. I can't blame him for trying to make this movie and giving it his best, but what I really can't stand is people telling other people that they have to love this masterpiece because it is so brilliant, because it is absolutely not brilliant, it's a mess, a bloody mess
People on here who defend Refn with a vengeance (see, its about vengeance, get it, get it???) want to feel special and and special they are, but if they are going to be a bit more honest to us and themselves, they will admit that they'd rather watch Jules and Vincent shoot Marvin in the head for the 38th time, than to watch Only God Forgives for a second time
You make some valid points Lutzo but I don't believe that people will get it quite as quickly as you did. It also may be open to interpretation as to what each scene means. Everyone may take something different away from the movie. I think at this moment in time we need directors who are willing to make a mainstream movie like this that isn't just the standard stuff. Whilst Tarkovsky has made some movies that have deep inner meaning the majority of people will probably not have seen too much of his stuff. I admire a director who wants to do something different to the norm. The violence can be a little over the top but that has always been his style. I'm not a huge Refn fan by any means but visually I think he is up there with the best around at the moment and I eagerly await his next project!
Cool for you my friend, but if you search 'Only God Forgives explained' on youtube there's a critic there, who make a great analysis on the movie, but when he gets to the womb scene he's not really sure what it means. If you look in the comments-section there's hundreds of interpretations on that particular scene.
Not to sound arrogant, but I sat down and thought of it myself, and came with a conclusion similar to yours. The critic ended up liking my interpretation and it got a lot of thumbs up from users. But again, there was many great ideas from other users and it just shows that movies like this are up to the viewer to decide.
The thing is though, there is really no need to explain anything - the film presents everything more clearly than it should. I think Refn actually underestimates his audience by using such a bizarrly obvious symbolism (Goslings character going back to the womb to cut the umbilical cord - hello??? We get it, she is the mother from hell and she ruined your life - get over it).
This movie has absolutely nothing to do with an art-house movie, but it so desperately wants to by e.g. crediting Jodorowsky - giving the impression that Refn is just one great cinephile director who has watched the classics and obviously he is creating a classic here as well - only in his own mind though and in the minds of some nuthugging fanboys who wish to be arthouse fans as well. Well, those guys should go and check out Stalker by Tarkovsky and try to find the philosophical symbolism in there, but I have to warn them, there are no masturbating asian hotties, Lucio Fulci splatter effects and pseudo old testament vengeance shots AND it also doesn't only last 90 minutes.
Refn is a talented director, he showed that already. I can't blame him for trying to make this movie and giving it his best, but what I really can't stand is people telling other people that they have to love this masterpiece because it is so brilliant, because it is absolutely not brilliant, it's a mess, a bloody mess
People on here who defend Refn with a vengeance (see, its about vengeance, get it, get it???) want to feel special and and special they are, but if they are going to be a bit more honest to us and themselves, they will admit that they'd rather watch Jules and Vincent shoot Marvin in the head for the 38th time, than to watch Only God Forgives for a second time
You make many valid points but your last paragraph comes across as åure arrogance.
To say that a piece of art is trash is fine as long as you present it as your own opinion but when you say that a certain piece of art is trash and anyone that says differently are lying to themselves is fairly arrogant and narrowminded.
Only God Forgives has some clear negatives but there are also some positives and for me the positives are strong enough for me to overlook the negatives.
I agree that Pulp Fction is much much better but that's not really what we were discussing.
I beg you to continue to voice you opinion but please let others have theirs as well.
This discussion actually started in the "Last Digipack I required" thread where I posted a pic of the Digibook and said that I wasn't impressed with the movie and that I made the mistake of watching the NWR documentary before watching OGF. I called Refn "arrogant" and "unable to self-reflect" and kinda like suspected that my 1st impression of the movie was clouded by a certain dislike of the director. This got some pretty strong contra posts going by the 2 pro-Refn guys who now post here as well and my obvious arrogance in the post above was just my immature way of retaliation. Maybe not my proudest posting moment, but at least it got a discussion going about a movie and that is always good!
I didn't mention Tarkovsky because I'm an elitist tw@t, but there is a pretty interesting (and long) story behind the relationship between Danish directors Refn and Lars von Trier (just google the names and you'll find out all about it) who credited Tarkovsky in his movie "Antichrist" and now Refn counters with Jodorowsky who appears to be a Refn fan. Refns father worked for van Trier in the past and so did Refn Jr. and they have a bit of a beef going.
Anyway, I watched O.G.F. twice now and am just not impressed. It has some visually great shots and I also don't mind the violence at all. What I don't really like though is people telling me or anybody that anybody who doesn't like this (or any) movie just "didn't get it". I overreacted in my response, but I can say without any arrogance that I am perfectly capable of watching a movie and decide if I like it or not. I even watched O.G.F. again to check whether I let my dislike for the director's character really cloud my judgement, but I liked it even less the 2nd time around. Of course things can be put down as "taste only", but all the strong points folks on here (and quite a few enthusiastic reviewers as well) keep mentioning, just don't sound convincing to me at all. Everybody keeps coming back to aesthetic vision, cult and beautiful cinematography - who actually knows the impact the cinematographer (I forgot his name now, but he worked for Kubrick in the past) had on these things? I appreciate excellent visuals as much as the next guy, but at least for me they don't amount to a great movie or even a good movie. If people like it - excellent - but don't tell others they have to as well.
I will also immediately stop telling people NOT to like Only God Forgives
Last edited by a moderator:
I can completely understand why some may not like Refn and/or his work... to me he's like a modern day Kubrick. Personally I love all his films and find them very refreshing.
Back on topic now though - not sure I can resist this digibook any longer... may have to treat myself after Xmas.
Back on topic now though - not sure I can resist this digibook any longer... may have to treat myself after Xmas.
Similar threads
