The major themes of the movie are not so original as some people are lead to think. The fact that Kim Ki-Duk is Koreean and uses that environment is, of course,"exotic" but this doesn't mean the movie has anything to say. I am puzzled as to the overall meaning implied here. From what I could understand the whole thing was about plastic surgery and how bad it is...unfortunately nothing more. There was a great potential in the idea, but it realization is simply preposterous. I don't necessarily ask for "reality" in a movie but in this case only something painfully real would have hit the spot. The plot devices are laughable, to name some of them, the death of the male character at the end, the use of the locations is unrealistic (especially the coffee shop). The actors don't seem to bother too much with being at least mildly pleasant and making the viewer interested in their problems. <br /><br />I heard the director had a few issues with Koreeans when he made this movie, because he is believed to portray his country in dark colors. Well, considering some of his early movies this is certainly so. Though it is not something inherently bad in doing this if you manage to convey the artistry you desire, I think that there are some things in Time which are pointless and through an unjustified shadow on Koreea. First of all the violence, utterly gratuitous, who could ever believe that people who react as they do in public spaces are left alone by the police? In this movie you have a doctor beating the living day-light out of a guy he was having a meeting with. And by the way, is it customary in Koreea for the doctors to break their "vow of silence" and share the details of their patients with whoever wants it? Aren't there laws against behavior such as this? Wouldn't a doctor loose his reputation, credentials and probably freedom if he attempted such a thing? And how about those telephone companies who erase your number in only a few minutes...?<br /><br />Most of Kim Ki-Duk's fans don't seem to be bothered by all these obvious flaws and think that a good idea makes a good movie. Some reviewers identified elements common to other movies, they are right. The plot is not based on original ideas. I always thought watching this at Hitchcock's Vertigo, identity change, betrayal, mistrust, obsessive love, trying to reach out to a person that's no longer there...no plastic surgery but, again, that's not meant to be the essential point here. What is present in Vertigo but lacks in Time is: suspense, good acting, clarity (Kim doesn't seem to give a damn about this aspect in none of his movies), and especially a coherent meaning for the whole picture. Any director is good if he manages to obtain his goals. This movie fails completely, instead of leaving me wandering what's wrong with today's society (which is a thing I don't have to be reminded by a movie anyway) it left me wandering what was wrong with the director. Is it something related to cultural differences? Then how come I like Kurosawa or Ozu so much? Sorry for not being useful...!