I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

This is one of the most visually stunning films you will ever see - don't miss it!The director creates a sense of continuous movement that provides an arpeggio to the growing romance between the two lead characters - or is it a romance? Only you can decide

the movie is beautiful in its own accord, if you are a fan of beautiful actions sequences then this might mean something. It's sad to hear that the movie didn't do as well as expected but hey its not really a movie for everyone, though it is a feast to the eyes that know how to appreciate this genre of direction. The story maybe predictable but the characters are entirely new and the actors have done complete justice to their roles. my favorite part of the movie was watching them dancing-fighting, it was so beautiful and sensual in a gentle kind of way. This was good enough for me to watch it over and over again. I would definitely recommend this for a rainy day when you are in the mood for something different with patience.

While perusing IMDb comments lately I've noticed a rather interesting perspective that glorifies cinematography as if it's the only meaningful aspect of film-making. I always thought that things like directing, acting, scriptwriting, action choreography, and post-production (only to name a few) are all important parts of making an entertaining film. Realistically, almost every film is lacking in some of these elements, but the good movies make up for it by excelling in others. Unfortunately, lots of people apparently think that cinematography alone can carry a film. I disagree, and Duelist provides a case in point.This movie is essentially an action/comedy, which to me automatically signals an emphasis on action choreography and humor. The most entertaining films of this genre take the fight scenes to exceptional levels while sprinkling in some good laughs along the way – e.g., The Legend of Drunken Master (1994). Duelist, on the other hand, provides subpar humor and downright atrocious sword duels. I actually liked the lead actress and actor in other Korean films I've seen, but they were not utilized well at all here. Quite frankly, this film is a disaster. If I had known it was directed by Myung-se Lee (Nowhere to Hide), I probably would have never watched it to begin with. Shame on me for not doing my homework.For the record, there is a lot of action here, but it is utterly destroyed by inept directing because the camera-work used during the sword duels sucks to high heaven. It's almost as if the director's sole purpose was to sabotage his own movie. Here are a few examples: 1. The opening scene was nonsensical, schizophrenic, and overly sloppy in its execution. A wagon full of money crashes and sprays on a road. The officials try to stop people from stealing it. The scene is nothing more than amateurs scuffling and falling over each other. Not good. There is a very brief duel at the end, but it only entails one or two sword swings.2. One particular night duel had this viewer's blood boiling as the only discernible "action" was a series of special effects sparks on a pitch black screen. Two of the lead characters are in a dark alleyway, but instead of having them fight where we can see them, the director cuts to total blackness and adds some sparks. This kind of copout really grates on my nerves, because the director knows that he can take the easy way out and not even bother to map out carefully choreographed sword motions or character movements. This sequence, in and of itself, solidifies Myung-se Lee as one of the laziest directors in the industry today. Hey jackass, do us all a favor and don't even bother shooting an action scene if you're too lazy to do it right.3. Another brief duel takes place in a courtyard and would have been pretty good had the director not placed the camera directly behind an obstruction, thereby showing only portions of the characters as they fought. Seriously, he could have placed the camera just about ANYWHERE else and it would have been acceptable. Instead, he tracks behind a thick fence. What an idiot.4. Yet another scene has a character in a room with dozens of baddies, but every time he swings his weapon the director moves the camera behind a pillar to obscure the action. The scene itself lasts a matter of seconds and ends prematurely with a freeze frame of the protagonist screaming. At this point, I wanted to break something.The aforementioned points convincingly argue against other IMDb comments that assert that the action scenes are entertaining. On the contrary, they are not the slightest bit entertaining for viewers who actually want to SEE the characters fight in well-choreographed sword duels. I'm perplexed that so many reviewers enjoy having so many events occur off-screen. You people need to raise your standards a bit.Someone should seriously tell Myung-se Lee that the Andrew Lau/Wong Kar Wai Wuxia method of "slideshow" photography is the single worst way to film a fight scene, primarily because the viewer cannot see what the hell is going on (ala Storm Riders and Ashes of Time). Someone should also tell him to stop aiming the camera at walls and start aiming the camera at the actors. After suffering through Lee's Nowhere to Hide and this feat of idiocy, I pray to God this imbecile never makes another action film. And if he does, I pray that I'm not stupid enough to watch it.Which brings me to the cinematography. Lots of reviewers here have claimed that the cinematography of Duelist carries the film. I see this reasoning often, and quite frequently the most overrated movies are those with good cinematography, because the people who love them conveniently forget that everything else sucks badly – e.g., Akira Kurosawa's Dreams. Hey, I love great cinematography too, but the movie has to have SOMETHING else, lest it be a very pretty but hollow shell. For example, Kiyoshi Kurosawa's films have excellent atmosphere, but without innovative philosophical concepts they would be practically worthless, like this film.Everyone mocks me because I consider The Twins Effect (2003) to be one of the most entertaining in this genre, yet I'm vindicated every time a crappy action/comedy like Duelist comes out. Go figure.

I saw this film at the opening night of the Hawaii International Film Festival, as an unannounced special screening. Outrageously colorful and stylized, it's a tale of a girl trained as a sword-fighter who works as a cop, and a mysterious masked swordsman who may or may not be in league with a gang who is flooding the country with counterfeit money. The plot is confusing enough, but it really doesn't matter: it's just an excuse for some amazing set- pieces involving crowds of sword-fighters, fighters chasing through markets and dye factories, barroom brawls, and over the top humor. And swordplay as foreplay. Not likely to get a US release, but a lot of fun. Modern Korean cinema, in my opinion, is leading the world in terms of set and scenic design, and innovative cinematography. Catch this film to see what I mean.