The definition of "style over substance"

Rating: 3/10 (11 May 2008)

I wanted to like this film, I really did, but after seeing the rave reviews I had an ominous feeling of what I was going to see and unfortunately I was right.
Much like "Crouching Tiger..." and "House of Flying Daggers" this is yet another example of a very simple martial arts tale, the kind that was already tired and clichéd in Hong Kong cinema 40 years ago, but done on a larger scale and with a bigger budget. Yet once again this gets rave reviews here in the West when countless similar tales from the last 50 years get put on television at 1am and get given 1 star in the TV guides.
And why is that? Because it had a massive budget thrown at it and much more time and effort spent on the cinematography. In short it looks polished and pretty and, visually speaking, is more of the standard we expect from Western films as opposed to the usual cheap-looking Hong Kong cinema.
In essence that's the bottom line here. A typical low-budget Hong Kong film will sink with out a trace or receive poor reviews because it "looks" amateur to the Western reviewer. One that looks nice and has obviously had so much time spent on the cinematography, no matter how basic and clichéd the actual narrative content, will get great reviews simply because the director is showing off his skill. That speaks volumes about the snobby attitudes to cinema in the West really.
This film looks very pretty and is full of great imagery. But you'll find better martial arts action in any bog-standard kung fu flick with a 50th of the budget, and you'll get a deeper and more involved storyline in most soap operas. If you value style over content, you'll love it.
(I should point out that this review is based on the first 60% or so of the film. Maybe it suddenly gets deep and involved and fantastic after that, but I decided life was too short to find out.)