Ludicrous

Rating: 4/10 (16 December 2004)

There is one word that flawlessly summarises every facet of this film: LUDICROUS. Ludicrous cost; ludicrous length (at least, it felt that way); ludicrous storyline; ludicrous physics; and combat scenes so unbelievably ludicrous, they were, in many cases, humorous.
Physically impossible combat is, of course, a trademark of far-eastern art cinema, and there have been many truly brilliant films based on this (CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON for instance). HERO, however, is far off the mark of success that movies such as this strive to hit. It is not the sheer surreality of the film that is its downfall - it is the fact that there is no artistic content to justify it. The dialogue and drama that would have saved this movie are extremely sparse, meaning that much of the film's playing time is devoted to the aforementioned inane fighting scenes. And no, the plot cannot save this movie - while it attempts to be, at the most fundamental level, deep and moving, it is so poorly explored and justified that it sadly comes across as idiotic.
Still, all these faults might have been forgivable if HERO had been marketed to the public in the appropriate fashion. All the commercial advertising, however, seemed to be hyping it up as the latest, action-packed martial arts blockbuster, rather than the cultural art film it truly is (the fact that Quentin Tarantino had his name on it didn't help). The concept may have proved brilliant - but the presentation let this film down like a missile bringing down a dirigible.
Are you passionately into far-eastern cinema? You may love this film. Do you love protracted combat scenes? You might like this film. Failing that, do you have a hell of a lot of patience? You might be able to stand this film. Everybody who does not possess one or any of the above three attributes, however, should steer clear - you're better off seeing ZATOICHI instead. 4/10.