But you’ve given no evidence of WHY you think that. In intellectual discussion, it is customary for both sides to give evidence for their arguments, rather than pay attention to spelling. I’ve been around here for a whole lot longer than you, kiddo. I was excused for my spelling a long time ago. However, I still have the courtesy to give specific examples from the film to back up my argument. I’m not stamping my foot and saying “I’m right, and you’re wrong, and that’s the way it is.”
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by pantom *
**
Wow, were you awake? Obviously the problem is that you weren’t paying attention. As I stated before, the central conflict (and not all films need them, it’s just a formula) was the struggle to be a woman of power (ie: warrior; business woman) in a society that represses women. And once you have acheived that status, how do you both retain your feminity and remain a strong, powerful human being? Shu Lein struggled with this, with her inablitity to relate to Mu Bai as anything more than a brother. Even as he’s dying, she won’t break her stoic emotional responce to him. It takes him to make the first move, to let her know that he accepts her.
This conflict was brilliantly then mirrored in the Jen/Lo relationship, but the twist was that Jen never figured out how to fit in. In the end, she has everything she claimed she needed, her freedom, Lo, and the acceptance of the Warriors. But she is still incapible of knowing who or how she fits into the society, so she kills herself. And Lo doesn’t attempt to stop her, because he knows this.
Really, maybe you just had such problem reading the subtitles you missed the entire point of the movie.
They, they, they. You’re impressed that the Chinese can employ symbolism? Are you also surprised that they can read and write? And does “basic motor-skill level” include fighting so elegantly and beautifully that it looks like a dance? Or do fistfights and guns only count?
I’m not even a film major and I got that part. The sword is just a plot device - a means to bring the characters together. It also symbolizes the concept that ideally, being a skilled fighter counts more than gender. It’s gender that holds Jade Fox back and makes her so bitter. It’s gender that holds Jen back and ultimately causes her suicide. It’s gender that forces Shu Lien to be such an emotionless, stoic woman when she really just wants to tell Mu Bai how she feels.
Should I thus pontificate that your idea of a “good” film is one that ties all the loose ribbons up in one pretty bow? CT,HD didn’t have a happy ending. But when you consider the plot, the ending to the conflicts fit. Each character faces the pain they caused themselves: Shu Lien cannot ever express her love for Mu Bai, for example. Jen has tried so hard to be the manly, emotionless warrior - the opposite of loving - that she cannot love Lo and kills herself. Jade Fox is repayed for killing Mu Bai’s master.
Everyone watching it with me loved it. I’m sure some people may have hated it, but the most vocal ones did not. Half the audience applauded, half of us were crying (myself included), and I overheard some very positive comments when I was leaving.
I am a Tae Kwon Do instructor and I also practice Brazillian JJ and Krav Maga. When discussing the difference between the fighting styles of the movies it is important to keep a few things in mind. No fight occurs the way they are portrayed in these types of movies. The Matrix or Drunken Master II fight scenes are no more realistic than CT,HD. So, to argue about which is better or more realistic is really a matter of taste. You say that people can’t fight in trees? Fine, then people can’t run up poles. One half dozen or another.
As far as the criticism is concerned, I would argue that a movie that is able to stir up so much discussion is indicative of the thought provoking ideas that many people seemed to find enjoyable. To paraphrase earlier sentiments, I doubt such a thread would exist about The Wedding Planer or Deuce Bigalow. Maybe then, one might argue, the mere existence of this thread validates those who argue CT,HD had a deeper meaning.
There are those who don’t like subtitles and that is fine. But, to discount a movie solely on this reason doesn’t truly address whether or not the movie itself was enjoyable. And to those who felt it necessary to add anecdotes about the children not enjoying it: this movie was not made for 10-12 year old american boys.
Essentially, this thread is akin to debating what tastes better: Coke or Pepsi? It is a matter of personal taste and choice. As for me, I though CT,HD was an excellent martial arts movie and story. I also prefer water.
The reason I feel that the fight scenes in The Matrix are ‘better’ is not that the scenes themselvews are necessarily better, but that they fit the film’s tone a little better, in my opinion.
The fight scenes in the Matrix were slick, and brutal, just like the movie.
Some of the fight scenes in CT, HD were kind of silly, with all of the extra wire work. To me, this didn’t match the overall tone of the movie (That said, I agree that the fight between Jen and Yeoh’s character in the middle of the movie was astounding. I actually had a Keanu “Woah” moment).
I don’t want anyone to take my statements of unrealistic fight scenes as critism: Princess Bride has a couple, and that movie rocks. I was simply trying to point out that maybe the OP was complaining about the movie because he/she went into it expecting another type of genre, the same way that many people hated The Mummy because they expected to see a horror movie (It’s actually in the Cheesy Indiana Jones ‘Homage’ genre).
The Keanu/Lawrence one seemed a little more brutal and ‘realistic’ than the Ziyi/Yeoh one. Depending on what mood I was in at the time, I could lean in either direction for a preference. I’d write more, but my lack of a brain is causing my motor skills to shut down.
For that matter, if you’re (The OP)looking for ‘realistic’ fight scenes, maybe Raging Bull or Fight Club would be more your cup of tea.
When someone (pantom) rags as heavily on a movie that so many other people obviously adore, I immediately am consumed with curiosity about what films they DO like.
It seems to me that most of Pantom’s criticisms come from wanting CTHD to conform to an obvious formula for a movie. That it didn’t leaves him spluttering about how badly it sucked.
I think it is ridiculous to claim that this film sucked. I can absolutely respect that someone may not have personally enjoyed it, that it just wasn’t their cup of tea, but the quality of the film is inarguable.
I"m gonna throw out a wild guess here and say that Pantom probably found Gladiator to be the pinnacle of filmaking, what with its unambiguous hero, clear and uncluttered central conflict, and 3-act structure. :rolleyes: Personally, pantom, I prefer films by people who are way beyond Screenwriting 101, I am not a big fan of those who are obviously enslaved to it!
(Disclaimer: I thought Gladiator was a perfectly fine entertainment spectacle, on a par with gladiator games themselves: colorful, rousing, entertaining, appealing to all the simplest emotions. But hardly a * great * film)
I agree, Stoid, and I can guess pantom’s response: “Do not presume to know my taste, Stoid - and that’s all I’m going to say to you.”
Anyway.
I watched it again Friday night with a friend who had never seen it before. We went out for drinks afterward and were both sort of shocked. I was awed into silence. Damn, it’s an incredible movie. The last movie that affected me so much was “American Beauty” - that last line played around in my mind until I went out and bought it so I could see it ten more times.
We ending up spending two hours debating what happened to Jen. I’m of the opinion that her death mimics that of Mu Bai’s - that her spirit will keep Lo comforted until he dies, and then his wish will come true. Any movie that is so thought-provoking is worth another $40 to see it four more times. I will be pissed if it doesn’t win Best Picture.
I try to refrain from “me too” and “what s/he said” posts, but I must say, Stoid, that was damn well said. Succinct, to the point, and dead on with what the voices in my head were arguing.
Having gone on vacation I never did get around to finishing this thread. But now someone started a new one over in the Pit about this dreck, and I remembered this one, dredged it up, and read the responses.
For the record, Gladiator was merely OK. Formulaic, sappy, pretentious. Hyped, unfortunately, like CTHD. One of these days I’m going to figure out why some pictures get hyped and others don’t.
When people like a pretentious turd, they generally feel, probably because they have to, that those who disagree are utter boors, tasteless Philistines, or plain dumb.
Right. But all pretentious movies like CTHD have one thing in common: they’re boring. They’re boring because they don’t at all engage you in the action of the movie. But they expect you to like it because, after all, they’re using a symbol, or they quote some “deep” cultural thingamabob, and on that basis you’re supposed to feel like yeah, these guys are smart! And I must be too, 'cause I get it!
And so the pretentiousness goes on…
As Hitchcock said, “It’s only a movie.” I have no doubt at all what he would’ve thought of this one.
