Gustav loves martial arts movies. I saw The Protector not long ago and except for the martial arts part, that film was rather horrid. I'm glad I can say different about Fearless. It was pretty damn good. Right up there with Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon in Gustav's humble opinion. The only thing I didn't like was that it was too short. Of course it's Jet Li so the martial arts are top notch and there wasn't much help from special effects to make it so, which isn't the case with Crouching Tiger.
Jet Li's Fearless.
- Thread starter Gustav
- Start date
ClintonHammond
Guest
One can't go far wrong with a Jet Li film!
Jay R. Zay
New member
actually, you can go wrong as far with it, as you can go with a dilettante, cheap, humdrum movie that was shot for the sole purpose of mass entertainment. these movies starring him as as close to quality as a b-class chuck norris flick (which, at least, were done by rather experienced filmmakers). pretty much the asian equivalent, considering some aspects that are characteristic for the asian and the american cinema.
now you can like or dislike it but that's something one should not forget: that it took asian cinema in general (and jet li pictures in particular) some notable time to become experienced in the entertainment movie industry. and this early lack of experience can be found in the majority of productions of that era and still in many productions of today. for this reason, those asian movies allow for a very interesting approach to cinema: what if you had the right technology at your hand but no experience with the art of movies? would the technology itself guarantee a good movie? no, not at all.
if we see old, silent black and white movies, many of us (including myself) may wonder - why are so many movies of that time so outdated? because the technology was so old fashined back then? no. it's because people had to learn how to tell stories in moving pictures. it is a complicated way of seeing the storyline if you want to show it to the audience as a movie. and for this reason, there are many old black and white films that seem so incredibly ahead of their time - simply because the filmmakers knew how to shoot such a movie. and that's also the reason why there are movies, that can use any kind of modern special effects, and nevertheless appear dilettantish done: because the filmmakers didn't know how to do it.
now this was longer than i expected it to be. but it was necessary to explain that i don't just "dislike" these movies, i just consider them as a necessary but inglorious step in developing a popular art. the reason why american movies are, on the whole, along with the french probably the best in the world today, is a matter of experience in the first place, and audacity in the second place (while, altogether, the latter rather is a trademark of the french productions).
now you can like or dislike it but that's something one should not forget: that it took asian cinema in general (and jet li pictures in particular) some notable time to become experienced in the entertainment movie industry. and this early lack of experience can be found in the majority of productions of that era and still in many productions of today. for this reason, those asian movies allow for a very interesting approach to cinema: what if you had the right technology at your hand but no experience with the art of movies? would the technology itself guarantee a good movie? no, not at all.
if we see old, silent black and white movies, many of us (including myself) may wonder - why are so many movies of that time so outdated? because the technology was so old fashined back then? no. it's because people had to learn how to tell stories in moving pictures. it is a complicated way of seeing the storyline if you want to show it to the audience as a movie. and for this reason, there are many old black and white films that seem so incredibly ahead of their time - simply because the filmmakers knew how to shoot such a movie. and that's also the reason why there are movies, that can use any kind of modern special effects, and nevertheless appear dilettantish done: because the filmmakers didn't know how to do it.
now this was longer than i expected it to be. but it was necessary to explain that i don't just "dislike" these movies, i just consider them as a necessary but inglorious step in developing a popular art. the reason why american movies are, on the whole, along with the french probably the best in the world today, is a matter of experience in the first place, and audacity in the second place (while, altogether, the latter rather is a trademark of the french productions).
ClintonHammond
Guest
"shot for the sole purpose of mass entertainment"
You say that like it's a bad thing... get off your high frigg'n horse!
LOL
You say that like it's a bad thing... get off your high frigg'n horse!
LOL
Jay R. Zay
New member
ClintonHammond said:
when mass entertainment is the sole purpose, it indeed is a very bad thing. because it means that the movie is no product of something that somebody wants to express. it's simply shot to please the audience - to make money.
a movie should be entertaining, indeed. but i couldn't name a single movie that was shot as a plain entertainment movie, that i liked. the movies i named in my "favorite movies" list are heartfelt my favorites. movies i really like. not movies i feel obliged to like because they are "strange" or "non-mainstream". a movie that is made for the only purpose of entertaining the audience is a movie, where a director doesn't devote his love to the project but some produces consults an expert team that decides what the audience likes to see. and this means about everything i dislike about a movie. all i demand from a movie is that the director does his best and really is convinced of his project, with his heart and soul. might sound a little overly dramatic but that pretty well sums up my point. blair witch project was a cheap movie, not very complicated and not very professionally done (not because it was shot on video but because it was mostly an experimental movie whose staff wasn't experienced in professional filmmaking). despite this, it was a great and enjoyable movie. why?
movies should be truly interesting. a movie that doesn't even try to be imaginative doesn't interest me.
ClintonHammond
Guest
"i couldn't name a single movie that was shot as a plain entertainment movie, that i liked"
Sorry for your trouble... Personally there are lots of 'plain entertainment' movies that I enjoy... there are lots of 'message' movies that I enjoy as well.... The two are not mutually exclusive.
"might sound a little overly dramatic"
It is massively over dramatic and emo-kidish.... It's also wildly inaccurate, and baseless to try to claim that you can tell what directors 'invest their soul' into a project and which ones don't.... How do you think you can tell?
"blair witch project... it was a great and enjoyable movie. why?"
It was 20 minutes of mediocre, bookended by an hour and a half of total suck.
This would have helped it immensely
How It Should Have Ended. Com
I will see "Fearless".... and I'll probably have a bucket of fun
Sorry for your trouble... Personally there are lots of 'plain entertainment' movies that I enjoy... there are lots of 'message' movies that I enjoy as well.... The two are not mutually exclusive.
"might sound a little overly dramatic"
It is massively over dramatic and emo-kidish.... It's also wildly inaccurate, and baseless to try to claim that you can tell what directors 'invest their soul' into a project and which ones don't.... How do you think you can tell?
"blair witch project... it was a great and enjoyable movie. why?"
It was 20 minutes of mediocre, bookended by an hour and a half of total suck.
This would have helped it immensely
How It Should Have Ended. Com
I will see "Fearless".... and I'll probably have a bucket of fun
I can't agree that The Blair Witch Project was mediocre and total suck, though maybe not as original as everybody thought.
Jet Li's Fearless also wasn't just made for entertainment. The Protector definitely was. The soryline was not only incompetent, but it seemed like it was being used as a tool to get to the fighting the way a slapstick comedy will often use its plot to get to the jokes when it should be the opposite. These people just wanted to show their audiences some fighting. Abusing the storyling like this never bothers me when I go see a comedy. When I go in I can always tell what kind of comedy it's going to be; Austin Powers or When Harry Met Sally. If you go see Austin Powers you can sit back and either hang onto every word or not. It's up to you. When you see When Harry Met Sally you kind of have to pay attention. Both types of movies are good to watch at different times.
I'm glad some movies are made solely for entertainment value. It would be pretty monotonous if every movie you watched tried to enlighten you. I'm glad there are bad movies like The Fast and the Furious too. They give me something to compare the good movies to. And if those directors only want to entertain and not provoke thought, well it's their time. Besides, I'm convinced that most people who go to the moves, at least in the U.S., only go because they want to hear some funny jokes or see explosions and gun fights so those movies keep the industry wealthy.
Jaws. It may seem like an ordinary blockbuster and that's how most people view it so they pay little attention to dialogue until they hear the word "shark!". They know it's about a shark that eats people and that's all they care about. The film really has a lot more than that to offer though. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go watch Jaws.
The bottom line: Variety is good.
Jet Li's Fearless also wasn't just made for entertainment. The Protector definitely was. The soryline was not only incompetent, but it seemed like it was being used as a tool to get to the fighting the way a slapstick comedy will often use its plot to get to the jokes when it should be the opposite. These people just wanted to show their audiences some fighting. Abusing the storyling like this never bothers me when I go see a comedy. When I go in I can always tell what kind of comedy it's going to be; Austin Powers or When Harry Met Sally. If you go see Austin Powers you can sit back and either hang onto every word or not. It's up to you. When you see When Harry Met Sally you kind of have to pay attention. Both types of movies are good to watch at different times.
I'm glad some movies are made solely for entertainment value. It would be pretty monotonous if every movie you watched tried to enlighten you. I'm glad there are bad movies like The Fast and the Furious too. They give me something to compare the good movies to. And if those directors only want to entertain and not provoke thought, well it's their time. Besides, I'm convinced that most people who go to the moves, at least in the U.S., only go because they want to hear some funny jokes or see explosions and gun fights so those movies keep the industry wealthy.
Jaws. It may seem like an ordinary blockbuster and that's how most people view it so they pay little attention to dialogue until they hear the word "shark!". They know it's about a shark that eats people and that's all they care about. The film really has a lot more than that to offer though. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go watch Jaws.
The bottom line: Variety is good.
ClintonHammond
Guest
" The bottom line: Variety is good."
Abso-frigg'n-lootly!
Abso-frigg'n-lootly!
Jay R. Zay
New member
excuse my late reply.
yes they are. because a movie that is made for the sole purpose of entertainment can't also have the purpose of delivering an important message to the audience. to prove this, all i need to do is demonstrate that 1≠2. do i have to?
i thought i had explained how i usually can. there may be shades of grey but i'd say this doesn't mean that you can't tell a car from a plane, does it?
you are welcome to explain. or are you afraid that any explanation would be massively over dramatic and emo-kidish?
if you don't want to explain your opinion instead of puking it into this forum, keep the rest of this stupid vomit to yourself, too. we aren't here to watch in awe and veneration how your magic opinions appear out of the blue like "poof! here it is!".
as for gustav, yes, variety is good. but this doesn't mean that bad movies are good, just because it's nice to have some bad examples vs. the good movies. actually, if i could erase about 80% of the movies i've seen from history, i wouldn't miss a thing.
if the creators of a movie devote their whole dedication to the project, the result will almost invariably be significant in some respect. or, in other words, a movie that isn't significant in any way, simply suggest that the creators didn't try hard enough. and on the other hand, most significance can't be achieved without dedication.
and clinton, if you feel like replying to this, "you are wrong, and you suck" won't be a very convincing reply.
ClintonHammond said:
yes they are. because a movie that is made for the sole purpose of entertainment can't also have the purpose of delivering an important message to the audience. to prove this, all i need to do is demonstrate that 1≠2. do i have to?
ClintonHammond said:
i thought i had explained how i usually can. there may be shades of grey but i'd say this doesn't mean that you can't tell a car from a plane, does it?
ClintonHammond said:
you are welcome to explain. or are you afraid that any explanation would be massively over dramatic and emo-kidish?
if you don't want to explain your opinion instead of puking it into this forum, keep the rest of this stupid vomit to yourself, too. we aren't here to watch in awe and veneration how your magic opinions appear out of the blue like "poof! here it is!".as for gustav, yes, variety is good. but this doesn't mean that bad movies are good, just because it's nice to have some bad examples vs. the good movies. actually, if i could erase about 80% of the movies i've seen from history, i wouldn't miss a thing.
if the creators of a movie devote their whole dedication to the project, the result will almost invariably be significant in some respect. or, in other words, a movie that isn't significant in any way, simply suggest that the creators didn't try hard enough. and on the other hand, most significance can't be achieved without dedication.
and clinton, if you feel like replying to this, "you are wrong, and you suck" won't be a very convincing reply.
ClintonHammond
Guest
What makes you think youre qualified to be able to tell a good movie from a bad movie?
Don't confuse "good and bad" with "like and dislike"
Don't confuse "good and bad" with "like and dislike"
Indy Benson
New member
Didn't Blair Witch borrow heavily from the movie The Last Broadcast? Anyways, I felt that Blair Witch was a good movie to watch once (due to the concept) but it didn't hold up well on a second viewing.
Indy Benson
New member
I havent seen TLB, just heard about it.
Is Fearless out on DVD yet?
Is Fearless out on DVD yet?
I found it on Amazon.com for $9.75 new and that's a region 1 DVD. It also says that the movie is 138 minutes long. If that's right, then the DVD is about 30 minutes longer than the version I saw at the cinema. That could be good or bad. Sometimes people edit out good stuff to make the film shorter and easier for an audience to sit through, but sometimes they really do just cut the crap. These days they like to put the "deleted" scenes back in when they release it on DVD and call it the UNRATED COLLECTOR'S EDITION. I noticed that the DVD on Amazon is unrated so maybe that's what they did.
I don't think you can buy this at any stores yet.
I don't think you can buy this at any stores yet.
HovitosKing
Well-known member
Just saw Jet Li's Fearless for the first time--great film. Nice to see a beautiful martial arts piece that gets the blood pumping, makes you cringe at times, and yet still sends a shockwave of depth into your psyche. This is now one of my all-time favorite martial arts works. Excellent film.