I have no idea why the American critics love this movie, or why Martin Scorsese did the intro (which I skipped). "Emotional honesty?" For showing flawed people? Maybe I don't understand why I need to watch a movie when the existence of original sin is all around me. Sun Hyun-ah plays Park Sun-hwa--the character obviously never gets over being raped by an ex-bf, and allows herself to be treated as a sex toy by the two main characters, Lee Mun-ho (played by Yoo Ji-tae) and Kim Hyun-gon (Kim Tae-woo), both of whom are immature, though in different ways. Kim Hyun-gon seems to be the immature boy; Lee Mun-ho is the guy who is married, no doubt for the sake of respectability, but has no problems having sex with an ex-flame (Sun-hwa) or a student from his university. (Actually Hyun-gon is a bit of a cad as well--both he and Mun-ho try to get a waitress at the local restaurant to help them out with their "art"; Hyun-go is a filmmaker, while Mun-ho is an art teacher and claims to be a painter.)
Perhaps a film that shows human beings with all of their sins and defects is a breath of fresh air to Americans. I wouldn't want to say the film is nihilistic--perhaps the filmmaker is just portraying the human condition, and we are to draw the appropriate lessons if we choose to do so. But I find the teaching value of such a movie to be close to nil, even if it's well-executed, etc., and it ends up just making me angry.
New York Times
Here is a positive review of the movie.
Though not as satisfying as his other features, Woman is the Future of Man once again proves that Hong is unequaled when it comes to honestly exposing the weaknesses of the male psyche, particularly as it concerns women, relationships, and sex.
From the comments section in that review: a Film Quarterly article on the director, Hong Sang-soo.
Now, there is a suggestion that Mun-ho fantasizes a lot, and not all of what is shown is movie reality, but just in his imagination. I don't want to spend more time watching the movie again to sort "fact from fiction"...