NationStates Jolt Archive

Did anyone else see that movie? That was phenominal!!! Exciting and epic all the way through!!! And Jet Li actually is a good actor in it!! Any thoughts?

Jet Li is a phenomenal talent, but I thought hero was heavy handed propaganda - though visually stunning.

I also felt some of the action sequences were a little too drawn out.

Shaolin Soccer was better.

Just got it for christmas and watched it a few hours ago. 'Twas a fantastic film, especially with Donnie Yen (Sky) In it. The fighting was fantastic, as was the film locations and plotline. I loved the directors use of color to express emotion through the film, and the interactions between the assassians.

To be frank, I thought it was Poetry in Motion.

Just got it for christmas and watched it a few hours ago. 'Twas a fantastic film, especially with Donnie Yen (Sky) In it. The fighting was fantastic, as was the film locations and plotline. I loved the directors use of color to express emotion through the film, and the interactions between the assassians.

To be frank, I thought it was Poetry in Motion.

I thought so as well. The colors they wore, in theme, I thought was awesome. As for propaganda, the thought entered my head but I quickly dismissed it because that clearly was not what the film was going for at all. Why can't China be proud of some of its foundations and beleifs as well?

I thought archery siege part, at the caligraphy school was particularly amazing. And Moon is beautiful.

Indeed, an excellent film. Well put together, thoughtful, dramatic, exciting...a number of complementary adjectives would work well to describe it. It was in no way lazy, like much of modern cinema fare.

I thought archery siege part, at the caligraphy school was particularly amazing. And Moon is beautiful.

Yes, I loved the scene where Flying Snow and Nameless deflect all those arrows from the calligraphy school. My favorite part, however, is a tie between the Lake scene and the fight in the woods between Moon and Flying snow.

I do think it was a tad too Propagandated(Is that even a word?) But I found myself enjoying the movie too much to care.

On a side note, The music was particularly good at displaying emotion through the film.

I haven't seen Hero, but according to an Irish critic it is "the most beautiful film ever made!"

Exquisite, stunning, and I could go on even more.

Due to hip injuries, I am usually a restless sitter in movie theaters.
When I finally tried to stand I couldn't for a bit - I realized I had sat motionless through the movie.

So no-one else noticed teh propaganda?

So no-one else noticed teh propaganda?
I saw a nationalist movie, much in the line of "The Patriot", except that this one was much better made and is actually exceptionally enjoyable.

Can't China be proud of its history?

I saw a nationalist movie, much in the line of "The Patriot", except that this one was much better made and is actually exceptionally enjoyable.

Can't China be proud of its history?

Yes, but that's not it's history. There was no single nation at that time, and the whole call for a unified China is pretty much an attempt to legitmize China's efforts to re-occupy Taiwan.

Yes, but that's not it's history. There was no single nation at that time, and the whole call for a unified China is pretty much an attempt to legitmize China's efforts to re-occupy Taiwan.
Neither is "The Patriot" historically accurate. I don't remember when "Hero" is set, I saw it a few months ago, but China has gone through several periods of unification and division.

I didn't see an attempt to justify a reoccupation of Taiwan. I don't think the Chinese in their minds need to justify anything. In any case they would try to modify international opinion through diplomacy and not a movie. You may be right, but from my point of view that would be a long-shot.

Neither is "The Patriot" historically accurate. I don't remember when "Hero" is set, I saw it a few months ago, but China has gone through several periods of unification and division.

I didn't see an attempt to justify a reoccupation of Taiwan. I don't think the Chinese in their minds need to justify anything. In any case they would try to modify international opinion through diplomacy and not a movie. You may be right, but from my point of view that would be a long-shot.

It's set in the period of Qin expansion. China had never been unified before. So the whole call for sacrifice for nationhood is clearly propaganda.

And yes, I agree the Patriot was not historically accurate either. And I liked that movie less.

Edit: And how would you feel if I made a movie about the Papal decree that ceded soveriegnty of Ireland to England, and the subsequent wars, which ended with a speech about how Ireland and England are destined to be one. Would that not irk you? It's really modern history compared to this you know.

With all due respect, I found "Hero" to be banal and cliche. I found nothing wrong with the actors, more with the writing/plot of the film. It was obviously contrived to justify the existence of fake-communist totalitarianism in China. We can thusly draw meaning from the emphasized overwhelming military position of the Quin (Chin, phonetically) dynasty.

With all due respect, I found "Hero" to be banal and cliche. I found nothing wrong with the actors, more with the writing/plot of the film. It was obviously contrived to justify the existence of fake-communist totalitarianism in China. We can thusly draw meaning from the emphasized overwhelming military position of the Quin (Chin, phonetically) dynasty.

See, it wasn't just me.

I saw it one or two years ago (yes it's possible I saw the imported DVD in Chinese)
I am Chinese (from the mainland) and in truth, there are lots and lots of movies and tv series in china depicting historical events like the one in "Hero". One can learn a lot from them (like The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, even though the poem was better) and even if there is propaganda, it doesn't stop me from enjoying a movie like "Hero".
The one thing that I loved about this movie was the color themes. I marveled at that for many days -.-; heh
I didn't see it for a second time when it showed in U.S. theaters...but I'm sure the dub would be only half as good at most. So, for those who unfortunately saw it in dub, I only have one thought:
The original was better and probably less cut too. ^^

I saw maybe the first two-thirds to three-quarters of it, and loved what I saw. But my father (we're from Taiwan, originally) was really ticked off at the propaganda messages and the load-o-crap (something about the Great Wall; I didn't actually see it, cuz I left to go play video games partway through watching the Chinese release) he said was near the end. So he's boycotting the DVD, and I don't get to see the last third of the film. But that's okay, because I think I got the gist of the film. And yeah, I liked Shaolin Soccer better, just for sheer popcorn value. I like my kung fu with a dash of comedy. Hero does have one edge over Shaolin Soccer, though: Zhang Ziyi (need I say more?).

I saw maybe the first two-thirds to three-quarters of it, and loved what I saw. But my father (we're from Taiwan, originally) was really ticked off at the propaganda messages and the load-o-crap (something about the Great Wall; I didn't actually see it, cuz I left to go play video games partway through watching the Chinese release) he said was near the end. So he's boycotting the DVD, and I don't get to see the last third of the film. But that's okay, because I think I got the gist of the film. And yeah, I liked Shaolin Soccer better, just for sheer popcorn value. I like my kung fu with a dash of comedy. Hero does have one edge over Shaolin Soccer, though: Zhang Ziyi (need I say more?).

Zhang Ziyi is also in "House of Flying Daggers" have you seen that yet?

and she's supposed to star in a movie version of the book "Memoirs of the Geisha"...I don't think that'll work quite as well as her kick-ass chinese kung fu movies but hey ya never know

Edit: And how would you feel if I made a movie about the Papal decree that ceded soveriegnty of Ireland to England, and the subsequent wars, which ended with a speech about how Ireland and England are destined to be one. Would that not irk you? It's really modern history compared to this you know.
Do it with great photography, good action sequences and engaging characters. Please, no Mel Gibson. It wouldn't irk me. Actually, I don't understand why humans insist in building borders.

Poetry on screen. I regularly ignore propaganda when presented with an engaging story and such a stunning visual tableau. My mother in law got me the DVD for Christmas and I was ecstatic. Incredible movie. So many striking scenes that I could in no way pick out one, or even two.

The one standout thing was easily the incredibly strong use of colour and tinted lighting. Awesome.

Well, I saw about the first third and last 15 minutes or so of it... and while I can't judge it from that, it's definitely Tarantino-ized. Normally that's a good thing... but with something this foreign and ethnic, he shoulda stayed out of it. I couldn't help comparing it to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which I basically worship, so Hero wasn't really in my favor.

Hero? 2 years late you guys are watching it. :p

Cool actions scenes, cool scenery, Cool fights (Jet Li is always awesome anyway).

But IMO, load of bull compared to any other chinese movie around.

This one is too artsy fartsy for my taste.

I do really find it awful that for all the great things about the movie, you guys stop yourselves short to be insulted by propaganda. It had a message about unifying China, so whatever. As if that in itself is bad, the idea in the movie was to bring peace to China. Even if China today isn't peaceful and perfect like (the movie version of) Qin wanted it to be, the message "Our land", the respect and passionate desire for peace, and what the characters go through personally and emotionally to bring it about, is still an important message.

You have to be ignoring a lot to dismiss all of that, to not appreciate the fight scenes, the moral statements, the landscapes, the use of color, etc. and dismiss that all because you want to be indignated for what this is saying about China (even though after you get past all the corruption and violence of their government, it is still possible for this to be a founding principal routed somewhere within China's history or people).

I think that by saying the film was nothing but propaganda is going too far, ignoring what the MOVIE was focusing on and centering in on what YOU are focusing on (notice how they are 2 different things). It sounds more like you guys are going out of your way to try to prove a point that you understand China isn't as great today as the movie made it out to be (again, completley regardless of whether this was the movie's point, and the fact that this can still represent China in many ways even with how it is today). That's totally unfair and that prevents you from absorbing the MANY beautiful and inspiring things about the movie, and ultimately you prevent yourself from taking in what value you could have from the movie.

And I think taking that spin on the movie is also revealing of the personal character of the people that choose to do so, that they are more capable (or would rather, which is even worse) come out of it with an indignant disaproving thought, even if they have to overlook the more mountainous layers of important messages more relevant themes that the movie actually is trying to portray.

Poetry on screen. I regularly ignore propaganda when presented with an engaging story and such a stunning visual tableau.

echoed

I thought the film Hero was awesome!

It was definately propaghanda in a pro-fascist sort of way. I definately 'agreed' with the message of the film. It was a China that was full of strife and constant conflict. They needed someone who would impose a stability and bring peace to the whole country.
That is what the Emperor did. He united the country and brought peace to China.

With all due respect, I found "Hero" to be banal and cliche. I found nothing wrong with the actors, more with the writing/plot of the film. It was obviously contrived to justify the existence of fake-communist totalitarianism in China. We can thusly draw meaning from the emphasized overwhelming military position of the Quin (Chin, phonetically) dynasty.

If you actually understood Chinese, you wouldn't be saying that.

Yeah, for me the big thing was the color and the interesting flow of the plot back and forth over the same incidences over and over from different angles. I loved watching the story be retold from all the points of view, each with a different color theme.

I thought the film Hero was awesome!

It was definately propaghanda in a pro-fascist sort of way. I definately 'agreed' with the message of the film. It was a China that was full of strife and constant conflict. They needed someone who would impose a stability and bring peace to the whole country.
That is what the Emperor did. He united the country and brought peace to China.
Unification, sure, sure. Peace to China? Bah.

Hey, I love kung-fu movies, especially when a swordplay film like Hero is done so well. I would love to see Hero in its entirety, but my father doesn't seem particularly happy with whatever that summarization-message he says was at the end. Speaking of which, what DID it say, specifically?

I would lik eto see that movie.. some good reviews, some bad, but most of the ones here said it was good.. if anyone wants another thriller, but perhaps for older-set age group (more drama), "The House of Flying Daggers," recently came out, with Zhang Ziyi (Same girl from Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon)...

well, I personally thought, after I saw it, it took place after the collaps of
the western Zhou, and the emperor was supposed to be Shi Huangdi (I can't spell). Also, aren't both house of flying daggers and Hero directed by Quentin Tarantino, or at least the same person?

Semi-Spoiler Alert

Unification, sure, sure. Peace to China? Bah.

Hey, I love kung-fu movies, especially when a swordplay film like Hero is done so well. I would love to see Hero in its entirety, but my father doesn't seem particularly happy with whatever that summarization-message he says was at the end. Speaking of which, what DID it say, specifically?

There's this major part in the movie about the words "Our Land" and how important it is to characters to have peace in China and unity.

At the end, it speaks of how Qin 'united' China, and that the great wall was built to protect them from enemies, and in general is a message about the 'success' of china. I think the last sentence is "Even today, as the Chinese speak about their country, they refer to it as "Our Land".

Which is like a pro-China message, (Edit: which could be) implying that China is peacefull and without problems today. But I also try not to let it get in the way of the great messages and action, etc. in the rest of the movie.

I just watched it yesterday. The falling flower petal fight scene was amazing. So much of the film is just beautiful in composition.

well, I personally thought, after I saw it, it took place after the collaps of
the western Zhou, and the emperor was supposed to be Shi Huangdi (I can't spell). Also, aren't both house of flying daggers and Hero directed by Quentin Tarantino, or at least the same person?

Lol, no, The House of Flying Daggers was directed by Zhang Yimou...anyway, Daggers didn't have that Tarantino twang to it, like Pulp Ficiton and Kill BIll 1/2...

ok this is probably a stretch but more likely not:
anybody who knows anything about early chinese history would know that Qin Shi Huang Di (the Qin Emperor) was the first person to ever unify the whole of China, and though I realize that his accomplishments are often overly glorified, the truth is that he did what he did. and the whole wall thing...he didn't build the wall. There were separate walls built before his time, and he only administered connecting the walls. I don't know what's such a big deal about the wall anyway. The Chinese were very ethnocentric, and ancient societies often built walls, so I'm not going to go into that.
There are two sides to the unification of Qin China. On the less attractive side, it is true that he imposed extreme legalism. The other side is that after several centuries of feudalism, he decided to be a leader and succeeded in this impossible feat to unite all the feudalistic states under his power. That is what he did. The movie just chose to show all the good peaceful side of things. But truthfully, would any of you enjoy the movie more if they took time to show the bad side of things? I would rather leave the objectiveness for history class.
And one last thing (sorry this is so long XD) if we're going to be so hard on one movie, we might as well pick on most other movies from all countries dealing with historic events too.

It's great to see people deciding to analyze things that were created for pure enjoyment thus destroying any happy feelings which had previously been achieved. I honestly don't see the need to feel out the propaganda in a FOREIGN FILM that much, all it's telling us is an enjoyable story about a truly talented swordsman who overcame his feelings of hatred in the pursuit of a greater good. If it was domestically made, such as "The Patriot," then I could understand it but no, you just don't want people to be happy.

There's this major part in the movie about the words "Our Land" and how important it is to characters to have peace in China and unity.

At the end, it speaks of how Qin 'united' China, and that the great wall was built to protect them from enemies, and in general is a message about the 'success' of china. I think the last sentence is "Even today, as the Chinese speak about their country, they refer to it as "Our Land".

Which is like a pro-China message, (Edit: which could be) implying that China is peacefull and without problems today. But I also try not to let it get in the way of the great messages and action, etc. in the rest of the movie.
Ah, I see. Well, in that case:

First of all, the Mandarin name for China (literally translated; please correct me if I'm wrong) means something to the tune of "Middle Country." According to my history book, that's because geographic isolation led the Chinese to consider China the center of the universe and, at the same time, to develop a heckuva superiority complex.

As for where my dad's going with the propaganda message, there's a phrase used to describe the Great Wall: "A body for every brick." Basically, Shi Huangdi did, indeed, complete the Great Wall into a unified barrier, but at the expense of the lives of his people. He was protecting his empire, not the citizens thereof.

And true, I thought the movie was extremely well done in cinematography, fight choreography, visual effects, and editing. A superb movie...if only the Chinese government and its compulsive need for self-glorification hadn't meddled.

Hero? I just watched it a week ago.

I guess I was a bit conflicted about it. One because it was a VERY good drama piece, and some of the actors were superb. The other side though was the sadly typical fighting scenes that were simply uninspired and overdone.

To start, I should disqualify myself from this discussion because I am not a fan of "swordfighting" movies in the first place. The Hong Kong way of making their martial artists fly and do really silly things like jump on top of buildings and dance on water...its just so stupid to me. These men and women are amazing martial artists, they don't need wires to impress me!

I hold up Bruce Lee and Zatoichi (indeed, many Japanese "swordfighting" movies) films, and to a certain extent Jackie Chan films as examples. Sure they're not 100% realistic, some are quite hokey, but all allow the martial artist's form to speak for itself. They don't dance on water and fly around because they trained hard...save that for Dragon Ball Z and other children's shows.

That said; Hero retains the standard "We can fly because we're martial artists" mentality. All fight scenes are then rated by how little they rely on useless "flash", and how much they showcase the brilliant fighting prowess of their actors. One overlooked but truly impressive fight scene was the brief clash between the Qin emperor and Broken Sword. This is made doubly impressive by the fact that the Qin emperor's actor had never done a fight scene.

The actor playing the Qin emperor was my favorite actor in the film. He was subtle of action, yet commanding of presence, a worthy portrayal of a tremendously difficult role. It reminded me of "The emperor and the assassin"...which I now intend to watch again.

The story has almost a Rashamon feel to it. My friend suggested that a woodcutter would enter the palace and say "No, no no, that's not how it happened, I saw the whole thing!" But alas, no wood cutter appeared. The use of dramatic color was good, but instead of being a subtle shift in mood by use of lighting and color, the director used it as a hammer to beat in his audiences' heads in. It was harsh, hard and distracting from the movie, which profited by it only when you had long periods with a single color. When they shifted scenes more frequently it became an utter nusince.

Still, I liked it...For the most part I was pleased; it certainly was better than I was hoping, but it was so much so that I got my hopes up. It could have been great if it had discarded its gimmicky action sequences for deeper fighting scenes, toned down the over the top color transitions for a more nuanced approach, and played up the wonderful history of both the characters (what happened to Sky? What was his assassination attempt like? Why don't we see it in the film?) and the nations as a whole.

I suppose it's true that the flying deal rubs a lot of people the wrong way, but I for one think that Hero is at least a huge improvement on the old swordplay films, where the flying and such was done through slightly-cheesy (okay, maybe more-than-slightly) cuts and editing.

As for its validity, there is evidence and historical documentation of kung fu practitioners seemingly defying natural laws. One kung fu master, for example, was badly injured in some accident (I forget if it was automotive or not) and was told he would never see again in one eye and lose most of his vision in the other. By focusing his chi (yes, it is a real concept), he accelerated his healing until his vision was fully restored. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but it came from a reliable source: a book on martial arts at my library.

At the very least, the gravity-defying of the new generation of kung-fu movies is an audience dazzler. I find it interesting (still like Jackie Chan-style better, but that's a different story), but to each his/her own.

As for its validity, there is evidence and historical documentation of kung fu practitioners seemingly defying natural laws. One kung fu master, for example, was badly injured in some accident (I forget if it was automotive or not) and was told he would never see again in one eye and lose most of his vision in the other. By focusing his chi (yes, it is a real concept), he accelerated his healing until his vision was fully restored. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but it came from a reliable source: a book on martial arts at my library.

Well, I've read quite a number of such texts over the years, and I've seen everything from regeneration of eyesight, longevity, to flight and water walking attributed to martialists of the past. Schools often had rumors or texts of such hidden techniques in their possession. The reasons for this are many and intertwined with history, so I won't go into it. You probably know that during the Chinese Boxer rebellion, many of its leaders made claims that their kung fu training would resist bullets.

We all know how that turned out.

However, that is not to say that Chi is not a viable tool, acupuncture and other arts are now recieving seals of approval from western medicine for being effective in treating joint pain. Actually I can point to a Western source about the efficacy of Chi and purity of intent, a navy vet who had never undergone martial arts training moved to the Twin Lakes region of Alaska and lived as a kind of hermit for 30 years. The damage from some shrapenel that claimed his vision in one eye actually healed during his time there. Something that no one thought would happen, and because he recieved no treatment for it, it can be assumed that his living in such a pristine enviornment helped his body recover.

Really? That's pretty cool.

One of the things I find most interesting about the Shaolin Temple in China is that the floor has a regular pattern of deep bowl-like shapes in its floor. It is the result of centuries' of monks stomping their feet in unison. Now that is pretty darn cool.