It's easy to view the story of these brothers as a larger metaphor for the relationship between the two Koreas, which gives the film an added resonance that your typical Hollywood war movie wouldn't possess.
We hate to say it, but we can't find anywhere to view this film.
What are people saying?
What are critics saying?
Far more ambivalent and ambiguous film than Mr. Spielberg's. Both North and South are portrayed as brutal, abusive regimes that use their citizens as so much cannon fodder.
While it comes on like a flag-waver, it actually delivers something more nuanced. Its underlying skepticism about the Korean War seems to have jibed with the current national mood: The picture was, deservedly, a huge hit.
Almost entirely devoted to combat violence and sentimental interludes.
Kang remains a superb technician, but somewhere the movie forgot to pack any genuine emotion along with its ordnance and K rations.
In the rare moments when a rifle, grenade, howitzer, bayonet, dagger, fist, land mine, or flamethrower isn't being deployed, the film pushes its melodramatic plotline with soap operatic shamelessness.
After a sentimental opening sequence, he (Kang) scarcely lets the film pause to breathe, which dulls its effectiveness.
A complex film about the minefield of loyalty and betrayal.
An anti-war spectacle that uses the story of brothers divided by the 1950 civil war as a metaphor for the wounds of the split.
Shamelessly contrived and manipulative, Tae Guk Gi packs a visceral wallop.