70
The New York Times by Dana Stevens
Mr. Im's own aesthetic command is evident in the movie's wealth of beautiful, perfectly framed images of nature -- shots so full of passion and perception that they could almost be paintings themselves.
We hate to say it, but we can't find anywhere to view this film.
What are people saying?
What are critics saying?
80
Grounded by a vigorous, physical performance from Choi Min-Sik, who brings both earthiness and grandeur to the central role, the film vividly evokes the world of an obsessive natural talent.
90
Succeeds as the rehumanizing of a near mythical figure.
75
San Francisco Chronicle by Edward Guthmann
A handsome film, filled with lavish costumes and set designs and told in a series of exquisitely composed images. But even with its visual polish, it's a chilly, largely unaffecting film about an unsympathetic man.
70
Im distinguishes what might have otherwise been a standard Hollywood biopic through his use of exquisitely composed shots that could have been imagined by Jang himself.
75
The film is art in all its visual splendor, and no matter how confusing the historic story line may be to Westerners -- and it is -- the images on screen more than compensate for the faults.
100
Chicago Tribune by Michael Wilmington
Another masterpiece from one of the world's more neglected great directors, a master artist who here reveals the soul of another.
50
In the scope of things, Ohwon's story is a route into the larger story of an uncertain and tumultuous period in Korea, and it's here that Chi-hwa-seon loses its grip.
63
Beautiful to look at, with scrumptious period detail and a knowing performance by Choi Min-sik as the portly, goatéed painter. At the same time, Chihwaseon is slow and stilted.
75
This is that rare art flick whose subject goes nuts because his work is not self-indulgent ENOUGH.