Fantastic movie. My brother brought me back a copy from China a year ago. A great movie to see on the big screen, I would guess. Visually very stunning both for the composition and for the scale of some of the scenes. I don't understand the complaints about the story or it being ill-paced. I thought what they did with the narrative was a bit unconventional and interesting. The comparison to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon are appropriate, but Hero has done a much better job with the genre. And, knowing all the fight scenes in that movie, I can tell from the 2 that DHB picked out that his taste is terrible and no one should listen to him. Actually, I thought the first fight of the movie was the best. Maybe I'll watch that scene again when I get home. One complaint that I expect people to make (though I would not myself), is that the message is pro-government and I'd expect it to be criticized as a propaganda tool for the Chinese government. By Americans, at least. Anyway, if you couldn't tell yet, I'm giving this movie a big thumbs up. Go see it.
yes. you know what you are talking about. those two he pointed out were not close to being the best. the first one was great. the spear... the water droplets. copied by the wachowskis in Matrix Revolutions. or maybe they just both came up with it. i also really like the one with the woman (don't remember the actresses's name but she's hugely famous) and jet li inside a circle of shields. the fight itself not the most spectacular, but there is one spectacular move. do you know what i'm talking about?
I too saw the HERO trial w/ Kill Bill V2 and would really like some recommendations: give me some ideas of films(Hong Kong, Japanese, etc) to watch, w/ great artistic style, combat & effects...
Give me a break. "Authentic" Eastern values my ass; "Hero" was propaganda. If you think an apology for imperialism or justification for authoritarianism represents authentic Chinese values, there's something very wrong with you. The First Emperor is an historical figure, mind you: a tyrant, a despot, someone who murdered countless men, women, and children in his conquests, and later infamously "burned books and buried scholars" (the four-word Chinese phrase) during his reign. Yet this film makes him out to be the titular "hero"? Pissed me off to no end. Imagine someone in the distant future making a movie that portrays Hitler, Stalin, or Mao as a hero, and you'll have a good analogy to this movie. It's obvious why the Chinese Communist government, after years of censoring the director Zhang Yimou, was delighted by this film, and even submitted it as China's entry in the Oscars for best foreign film of 2002. Bottom line: you go ahead and call submitting to totalitarianism your authentic Chinese value; it sure as hell ain't my Chinese value.
I saw this sometime last year. My friend has a copy. It was ok, not great, but still good. There's one fight with this guy who has a pike or a spear or something, and it's raining during this fight. It was bad ass.
The movie had great fight scenes, but the pacing was deliberately slow. If it was to enhance the cinematography, then I could understand, but it was still slow... I think what this movie reminds people of Crouching Tiger was the soundtrack. Pearlman makes a great Yo Yo Ma impersonation. Seriously. The message is so blatant, and people should buy it because they like the movie? Hogwash....
what about movies that glorify american wars. do you think other countries sees that as being propaganda?
Sure they do, and Hollywood has churned out more than its fair share of propaganda. A little more on the First Emperor: he was indeed a "hero" to some people, one of whom was none other than Mao himself. Mao has cited the First Emperor as one of his role models, and he certainly lived up to it: what was the Cultural Revolution if not "burning books and burying scholars" on an even grander, lengthier, and more tragic scale?
you give me a break. i just don't reject my past, my heritage. i also interpreted this movie differently. there were many heroes in this movie, and the first emperor was certainly not, at least singularly, the titular hero. i have to question your ability to comprehend this movie, that's a ridiculous claim. some people will read into anything if it can be seen to fit in line with their agenda. China nominated it because it represents a scope and scale of filmmaking that Chinese cinema had not ever reached. tell me how Chinese you are before making these judgements. it would be pretty arrogant to pass judgement like you have unless you were born in China and have lived there for an extended period of time. Jin Yong the author disliked Hero because he also feels that the first emperor was wrongfully depicted as a benevolent figure. but different people certainly interpret him different ways, he's a controversial figure. but it's certainly a stretch to say that a depiction of the first emperor has anything to do with support of communism. that is like comparing a fish to a doorknob, as someone as said. but... some people will interpret what they want, to fuel their agenda. i've seriously never heard of your ridiculous claim until today. the first emperor obviously killed a lot of people to obtain his power, but that does not diminish his place in history. as a student of history, alexander the great, Charlemagne, Caesar, these are people he should be compared to, not Hitler or Stalin. it wouldn't offend me if you weren't Chinese and thought that, but if you were... well then, you would probably have been one of those guys who sold out to the Japanese during the occupation.
man i'm really pissed off now. a sad day when a great movie can't be enjoyed for what it is because of politics.
Did you even watch the movie? The whole "twist" at the end was that the First Emperor was THE hero the title referred to, were you paying the least bit of attention? The depiction of the First Emperor was undoubtedly IN SUPPORT of his historical actions of imperialism and despotism, and if you can't see how the Chinese Communist regime would embrace that depiction, then you're naive or ignorant or both. And as for you calling me someone who would've sold out to the Japanese, for your information my grandfather fought in combat in that 8-year-defense so you can shove that accusation you know where.
It's a sad day when a movie is praised for its cinematography and action sequences when the hero it touts was a REAL person who murdered countless other REAL people, and some viewers of the movie say "Who cares? It was a great movie with beautiful cinematography and kick-ass fight scenes."
I'm glad you brought up Jin Yong. In the epilogue of "The Eagle-shooting Heroes" Jin Yong specifically addressed this same issue, although of course that book was published decades before the movie "Hero" was made. Anyhow, Jin Yong goes out of his way to say that the "hero" of his book is NOT the nation-conquering warrior Genghis Khan who left mountains of corpses in his wake, but is the peasant-child Guo Jin instead. No wonder Jin Yong would be offended by "Hero" as deeply as I was.
i wonder what your grandfather would have thought of the movie. and what he would think of you. again... were you born or raised in China? if you were not, then it's very very ignorant and egotistical to make the assumptions and judgements that you have made. it's pretty easy to impose your set of values onto another culture isn't it? a real person who've killed real people eh? tell me that alexander the great didn't commit a massacre on the same scale during his seige of tyre. the first emperor's unification of China eventually caused a flowering of culture, i don't think that we can use the values of today to pass moral judgement upon any historical figure so long ago. the Western culture's ideal of Hero is one of rebellion and eventual apotheosis. the Chinese culture's ideal of Hero is one of struggle and eventual self-sacrafice. if you have read any of the classics you will realize this theme. so basically then, everything's proganda for despotism right?
I'm not sure how much you know about the 'Spring-Autumn Warring-Nations' period of Chinese history. But it was a very chaotic time filled with constant fighting. Emperor Qin did bring all of China under one rule, as well as unified writing, which provided the basis for continous Chinese unity of the future. Emperor Qin the person might be horrible. Many people suffered under his rule, which is why a peasant rebellion eventually overthrew his dynasty. But what he did for Chinese history is unparalleled. He created the country "China" that we know of today. Instead of perhaps 10 smaller countries occupying the same area constantly at odds with each other. And that was the whole point of the story. Sure, it depicts the emperor as a better person than historians, but that wasn't the main point. The main point was that he was the unifier. That's what Tony Leung and later Jet Li's character saw in him. And it seemed to me that the actual hero of the movie was obviously Tony Leung's character.
yes! good... i'm glad there are people out there that actually took the film for what it was supposed to be, and actually know about history too instead of just pretending to know about it. there were many heroes. there's no single hero. yes the first emperor was portrayed as a hero. but to say that the entire film glories only him as the hero is just ridiculous. more heroic are the sacrafices Tony Leung and Jet Li's character makes.
It been a while since in have seen it but I think your comments are pretty close to my impression from the film. I also agree with you that Li's charactor recognized that a stern ruler was necessary to prevent a caotic situation. Him yeilding to the emperor was what made him the hero.
Whether I'm even Chinese makes zero difference. Is Jin Yong Chinese? Was he born and raised in China? Is he imposing his set of values onto another culture? Your argument falls apart. No amount of "flowering of culture" can justify the murder of innocent people, and that holds true for anyone, regardless if it's in the name of the Chin, the Greek, or the Holy Roman Empire. If we follow your perverse logic, then let's say hypothetically the Japanese had succeeded in their invasion of China in the mid-20th century, and two millennia later there exists a grand new assimilated culture forged from that invasion--does that then make the Japanese actions in WWII "right"? According to your ridiculous reasoning, it does. So, clearly, you would've sold out to the Japanese during that occupation.
