What asian film/series have you just seen.. marks out of 5

[Xenon]

And I hate how Japanese love to fuck up the whole plot

Interesting. Care to explain (concerning other films than Alive)?

Other films - no, but there are so many manga (Alive was also based on a manga, mind you) and anime which convolute the plot just because... they can, and because of that fuck up everything what was good about them in the first place. As examples Scryed manga, King of Thorn manga and Scrapped Princess anime immediately pop into mind.

[gasteropod]

Okaruto: Almost on a par with Noroi but not quite, pretty crazy ending.

[HungFist]

Throne of Blood (Japan, 1957) – 2.5/5
Kurosawa’s Shakespeare adaptation suffers from the expected problem: the source material. Not only is the storyline overly familiar by now, but its characters appear completely powerless in front of their fate. Telling a story that goes exactly where the viewer / reader knows it will go - and the only point in can go since characters are just theater puppets unable to affect on anything with their predestined actions - is as much Kurosawa’s fault as it is Shakespeare’s. Storyline aside, Throne of Blood is, of course an interesting film thanks to the Kurosawa / Mifune pairing that hardly needs further explanations. Unfortunately though, it is very much a storyline film, unlike Kurosawa's later masterpiece Ran.

The Hidden Fortress (Japan, 1958) – 3.5/5
One of Kurosawa’s most commercial movies is a humoristic adventure film that provided inspiration for Star Wars. The film is too long, with at least 30 minutes of less than vital comedic scenes, but also features iconic images and several moments of bigger than life adventure.

High and Low (Japan, 1963) – 4.5/5
Kurosawa’s kidnap thriller is one of the best crime films ever made. The two-act storyline begins from Heaven – following a rich businessman living in a luxurious house on a hill above Yokohama. A call from Hell – the downtown slums – changes his life: pay ransoms that will bankrupt him, or let an innocent child die. The film’s second half is perhaps the best depiction of realistic police work ever captured on film. The two halves are tied together with a phenomenally shot money exchange scene.

side note: I have watched this film twice within three days. Pure diamond.

[grim_tales]

Throne of Blood is fantastic - 2.5/5? I think thats a bit harsh just because the story is well known.

[HungFist]

Throne of Blood is fantastic - 2.5/5? I think thats a bit harsh just because the story is well known.

If you read again you'll see that's not why I gave it 2.5. The rating is low not because the storyline is well know, but because the story is badly told. The excitement of a good storyline is that it's unpredictable (if not the conclusion, then at least the journey). The excitement of good characters is that they're lively and they have the power to do choices that affect the course of events. Throne of Blood has neither. The song during the opening credits explains everything that is going the happen. The next 107 minutes we follow the characters fulfill their destiny in scenes that we can easily guess to be coming, and once those scenes do come, we know the conclusion of each of them already. All their actions are hence meaningless.

I could have left out the "storyline overly familiar" part, but I included it as a theorethical critisim. Theorethical because I have never read Macbeth. I don't didn't know the storyline until I had watched the first 3 minutes of Throne of Blood. After the first 30 minutes only one single scene slightly differed from what I figured out would be coming: the ending. Mifune wasn't killed by the old friend's son, but by his own troops for the old friends son.

Waiting for the forest to move was especially painful because it happened frame by frame the way I expected to it happen. And you even have to listen Mifune's speech of it being impossible, and dumb guards wonder what is that sound of trees being cut...

[Shingster]

Hmmmm... you criticise Throne of Blood because it's a bad adaptation of the source material and yet you've never actually read that source material. The whole point of Macbeth is that greed and corruption consigns the main characters to their fates.

The excitement of a good storyline is that it's unpredictable (if not the conclusion, then at least the journey). The excitement of good characters is that they're lively and they have the power to do choices that affect the course of events. Throne of Blood has neither.

I'll let you in on a little secret: it's exactly the same in Macbeth!

Surely any film that is an adaptation of a famous story is going to come with the trapping that its audience may already know exactly how it will develop, unless the writers make massive changes then they're going to be slaves to the narrative "fate" of their characters.

[grim_tales]

I've read Macbeth (in secondary school IIRC) but still thought ToB was really well done. Shingster that is an excellent point. When I studied the play Macbeth thinks he is invincible as he's told the person who'll kill him is "not of woman born". Considering when it was set and written, I wondered how it would end

[HungFist]

Hmmmm... you criticise Throne of Blood because it's a bad adaptation of the source material and yet you've never actually read that source material. The whole point of Macbeth is that greed and corruption consigns the main characters to their fates.

The excitement of a good storyline is that it's unpredictable (if not the conclusion, then at least the journey). The excitement of good characters is that they're lively and they have the power to do choices that affect the course of events. Throne of Blood has neither.

I'll let you in on a little secret: it's exactly the same in Macbeth!

Surely any film that is an adaptation of a famous story is going to come with the trapping that its audience may already know exactly how it will develop, unless the writers make massive changes then they're going to be slaves to the narrative "fate" of their characters.

aah, you misunderstood completely. I WAS critisising Macbeth, indirectly of course because I haven't read it. But all the film storyline critisism was intented applicable to Macbeth as well, as far as applicable (as stated, I haven't read it so I can't critisize it in detail, but instead I have to point my critisism at Throne of Blood). Kurosawa, however, is quilty of re-telling a story that was seemingly badly told (I'm going by an assumption here again) in the first place.

The fact that the story is well know is a negative factor as well, but that wasn't my main gripe. My problem was that the film was almost thoroughly predicable to me, even though I did not know the storyline from before. This was because the film constantly explained the viewer what is going to happen next (opening song explaing how a woman destroyed a man's happiness), the witch in the forest telling Mifune he will become a lord and his friend's son will become the next lord (when Mifune's wife suggest a crime, you can immediately guess that it will lead to a tragedy, and the friend's son will only become the new lord because Mifune will be killed), then again the witch explaing Mifune will lose a fight when the "forest will move" (again, it doesn't take you many seconds to figure out the enemy will somehow use trees in the attack, hence "forest will move") yet you have to wait for a long time before it happens and follow characters have speeches about it being impossible when you already know how it's gonna happen...

[Shingster]

I take it you're not a fan of biographies then!

[HungFist]

I take it you're not a fan of biographies then!

I did forget Macbeth is supposed to be based on a real person. But only loosely, right?

[Shingster]

Yeah, there was a King Macbeth and Macduff but tmk the play is in no way shape or form supposed to be a biography of their lives.

[grim_tales]

Wasn't there a King Duncan?

[Shingster]

yup

[bradavon]

Isn't Macbeth considered one of Shakespeare's best plays? I believe several film adoptions have one plenty of awards etc...

I like how Hung takes the time to in detail say why he likes or dislikes a film but his viewpoint is always such a polar opposite to mine I don't take much stock in what he says. It's literally a case of, if Hung hates it I'll probably like it and visa versa .

[Xenon]

City Warriors (1988) - above average HK b-action. Satisfying action and good pace. 7/10

Eastern Condors (1987) - holy mother of HK action. Was totally blown away by this. Awesome action scenes and plenty of them too. Sammo Hung proves that he can not only act, but also direct. 9/10

Duel to the Death (1981) - amazing production for it's time and also my introduction to wuxia genre. The remastered HK DVD is jaw-droppingly-awesome. 8/10

[gasteropod]

Royal Warriors: Very forgettable up until the final act, but the significant drop in subtitle translation quality on the Joy Sales DVD during the second half of the film gave me a few lols with things like, 'I will revenge for you', 'You're crazy mad-nutcase', and Michelle Yeoh apparently shouting out 'give me head!' It was also weird hearing Jackie Chan's Cantonese voice actor dubbing Michael Wong.

[luckystars]

I love Royal Warriors!! Excellent fun. Michelle Yeoh is cute as hell in it and Hiroyuki Sanada is just a fucking legend!

If you enjoyed that then I'd check out Magnificent Warriors next! It's a Director/Star type follow up, with really nice production values and nutty stunts!

http://www.lovehkfilm.com/reviews/magni ... rriors.htm

[gasteropod]

I used to own Magnificent Warriors but that got sold in one of my big DVD collection spring cleans because it's only so-so

[Markgway]

Michelle Yeoh apparently shouting out 'give me head!'

You'll need this then:

[gasteropod]

I don't need no guide mofo!

[bradavon]

I don't need no guide mofo!

. If you need a guide, you're in trouble.

and Michelle Yeoh apparently shouting out 'give me head!'

Instead of?

I've got the Fox R1 DVD. Which is Fortune Star but came out years earlier. I wonder if the same subtitle translation was used? I've not yet seen it. It only has DD5.1 or DTS (and no extras). I'm guessing the Joy Sales has Mono too?

[gasteropod]

Instead of?

I've got the Fox R1 DVD. Which is Fortune Star but came out years earlier. I wonder if the same subtitle translation was used? I've not yet seen it. It only has DD5.1 or DTS (and no extras). I'm guessing the Joy Sales has Mono too?

It has 'original Cantonese 2.0'.

I presume what she actually says is 'give me your hand', it's the bit right at the end where she rescues the guy on a cart on rails.

[bradavon]

Cheers. I've not seen the film yet.

[HungFist]

Cheers. I've not seen the film yet.

You are aware that all Joy Sales dvds state "original Cantonese 2.0", right? And that that 95% of the time it's bullshit.

As for Royal Warriors I'm not sure what is the case. Some of the more recent ones (2010) have been original cantonese indeed. But I think only one or two of the pre-2010 (IVL re-issues excluded) releases had the original track...

[bradavon]

You are aware that all Joy Sales dvds state "original Cantonese 2.0", right?

No. I don't own any.

And that that 95% of the time it's bullshit.

I do know, thanks. I doubt I'd be able to place extra foley etc.. though, so it wouldn't bother me. It would likely be the first time I'd seen the film.

Thanks on the info on Royal Warriors.