Excellent, but overrated

Rating: 7/10 (2 July 2001)

Rating: 7/10
Sorry if this sounds at all snide... Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was a visually stunning movie, but so was Twister. So was Jurassic Park. So was (shudder) Armageddon. What actually made Crouching Tiger so much better than these other movies, and worthy of Academy notice? OK, so the fight scenes were incredible... better than I've seen before, certainly. But weren't the tornadoes in Twister equally impressive?
Plot? The plot of Crouching Tiger wasn't much deeper than these other films I've mentioned. I know many will disagree with that statement, and feel free to. Let's see... Sword stolen... wild teenager with incredible power... two seasoned warriors chasing after... this could be the plot of a Conan The Barbarian movie, couldn't it?
Was it the acting, then? Forgive me for sounding like a typical American, but it is hard to judge acting in a language you do not understand. It seemed excellent to me (and, yes, far better than the "acting" in Armageddon) but nothing that really made anyone's hair stand on end.
Directing/Cinematography/Sound? OK, so this was clearly one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen. It was truly masterfully done. But is that enough? Again, this comes back to the whole comparison with other "pure" visual movies.
Actually, the movie this seems most fitting to compare to, for me, would be "A Thin Red Line", another visually stunning, well acted (but not TOO well acted) essentially plotless art film. Enjoyable, but not deserving of an excellent rating.