REAL FICTION is a mildly enjoyable "experimental" rage-spree style film whose most notable feature is that the entire film was shot with no retakes using several cameramen in a little over three hours. An ambitious undertaking on behalf of director Ki-Duk Kim, but unfortunately the only really impressive aspect of the film.A young street artist lives a miserable life of solitude and timidity, where he spends his days drawing sub-par portraits in a park for money and is constantly beaten and harassed by local thugs. In a strange and confusing scene, the artist comes face-to-fact (so to speak) with his "dark-side" and decides to take revenge on all those in his past who have wronged him. The rest of the film is a somewhat entertaining but ultimately unsatisfyingly typical vengeance film where the artist goes from one person to the next in his past, taking out those that contributed to his current anti-social and introverted state...until a "twist" ending reveals that the whole film may not have played out as the viewer may have been lead to believe...My first problem with REAL FICTION is the subtitling. It seemed very "off" in places, and made it hard to follow conversations at several points. Another issue, is that with a film as straight-forward as this, the violence was very weak and understated. This is understandable in the fact that I assume the director was trying to make some sort of point by shooting a film in three hours, and therefore may not have been able to stage better on-screen violence - but honestly, shoot it in 6 hours and give me some more of the red-stuff. I like rage/revenge films as a whole, but they're just no fun without the "payoff". Also the twist ending - though not ridiculously over-done as has been seen in many films nowdays, seems a little too obvious and done as a way to add another element to a relatively dull plot. On the up-side - the acting is well-done for a film with no re-takes, and to be honest, had I not been aware of the way the film was being shot, I probably would have never known that the "no-retakes" aspect was it's claim-to-fame. Also, as stated before, REAL FICTION was relatively entertaining (as in, I didn't fall asleep...) it just wasn't very original. I would say that it may be worth a look to experimental film fans or rage/revenge films for a one-time view, but I think the draw of this film will be more about HOW it was done, not the film itself, and personally - I'm more about the finished product. 6/10

Another fine film from Kim Ki-duk, although not in the same league as his two masterpieces The Isle and Bad Guy.At its heart a simple revenge tale, it's elevated by an interesting psychological aspect that prevents it from being just another low-budget shocker. The protagonist is a put-upon street artist who meets an alternate version of himself who jolts him into action and convinces him to exact revenge on those who have wronged him.Or he's the alternate version of a reclusive pseudo-guru who uses him to exact revenge on his enemies. It's not clear, but I'd bet on the former. The acting is very good all round, especially from the lead, and there are numerous comic scenes that don't intrude, but serve to lighten the potentially very dark drama. Worth a look.

Another fascinating and frustrating film from Kim Ki-Duk. He reminds of Lars Von Trier in a lot of ways, in that they both have a lot of the same weaknesses along with being remarkable filmmakers. The thing that bothers me the most about both of them is the degree to which their films obviously serve as allegories. In this film in particular (like Von Trier with Dogville) this aspect is particularly emphasized to a debilitating extent. Also, it's worth noting that both filmmakers seem to have a lot of the same questionable ideas when it comes to women, but that's somewhat besides the point.As Kim Ki-Duk's films go, this one is actually one of the more obviously ambitious and noteworthy. The whole thing was shot in real time, with a bunch of cameras running simultaneously (including one digital camera that is incorporated into the story itself, to alternately ingenious and irritating effect). Objectively, this is one of the most promising things the filmmaker has attempted, although the method is less noticeable in the final film than it perhapse should have been. Still, in the moments where the technique is used effectively (particularly in scenes shot in public places), it proves to be one of the most admirable things Kim Ki-Duk has done.On a whole though, the film still has a fair share of flaws. Along with the aforementioned problems i have with the un-reality of his films, Kim Ki-Duk again proves he is pretty much worthless when it comes to using music. To begin with, the film (as is the case with many of his) has awful sounding, cheap music. But even then, in one scene in particular Kim Ki-Duk has the music come in at a terrible moment that ruins what could have been a very emotional scene. In other ways as well, the (understandable) low-budgetness of the project becomes glaringly obvious in a way it shouldn't, particularly in the way in which the film deals with violence.That said, as always, there is still enough genuine talent and obvious artistic vision that shines through in his work to make me not only not dismiss Kim Ki-Duk, but make me consider him one of the most interesting filmmakers working today. Even if, on a whole, the film falls short of it's ambitions (it seemed to be attempting a lot of what Man Bites Dog had already done wonderfully), it's still a very admirable and interesting undertaking.