Q: OK, it's not a perfect movie by any means but I disagree with the overall IMDb opinion that it's really really bad. I watched a lot of Hong Kong flix in the 1990's and loved the era dearly. I never saw 'Black Mask' at the time and only saw it last week for the first time. Apart from the embarrassingly poor dubbing which my DVD copy didn't give me the option to turn off, the movie contains the raw energy and bravado that permeated Hong Kong movies during this time. I still stick to my guns in the opinion that, when it comes to action, these guys, no matter what their budget, add an element of magic to the screen no Bourne Supremacy, Casino Royale or Mission Impossible (I'm not knocking these movies - I just reckon they lack the spontaneity of this one and feel too regulated) will ever achieve. What is it? It's the feeling that the film-makers were experimenting as they shot and edited, not afraid to leave in some blemishes so as to learn lessons for the next time. For me, this makes watching movies, all the more fun and dangerous.
A: positive
Q: I must say that, looking at Hamlet from the perspective of a student, Brannagh's version of Hamlet is by far the best. His dedication to stay true to the original text should be applauded. It helps the play come to life on screen, and makes it easier for people holding the text while watching, as we did while studying it, to follow and analyze the text.

One of the things I have heard criticized many times is the casting of major Hollywood names in the play. I find that this helps viewers recognize the characters easier, as opposed to having actors that all look and sound the same that aid in the confusion normally associated with Shakespeare.

Also, his flashbacks help to clear up many ambiguities in the text. Such as how far the relationship between Hamlet and Ophelia really went and why Fortinbras just happened to be at the castle at the end. All in all, not only does this version contain some brilliant performances by actors both familiar and not familiar with Shakespeare. It is presented in a way that one does not have to be an English Literature Ph.D to understand and enjoy it.
A: positive
Q: i don't care if you'd like my comment or no but i think that you who write that the movie isn't good..you're so obsessed by the films of Hollywood that you can't see how good is this movie i'm not a fan of Jay Chou but i like his play and not only his... and may be you think that there is not a big sense in the idea and may be you think it's not so interesting but look deeply there is more than action in the movies more than love and passion and tears there is more than USA in the world and it's good :) really good. And it cost a lot to do it so please don't criticize the actors the directors cause you don't know how hard they work for you to be happy in this hour and a half watching them thank you :)
A: positive
Q: Cypher is a movie well worth seeing because it's not the run-of-the-mill Sci-Fi flick. The artistic approach is painted with dark scenes and a kind of macro view of what's going on. The close-up camera view is how the director keeps the plot illusive. The sci-fi aspect of the movie is secondary to the plot of the movie. The technology used in the movie isn't overly impressive, however, the director makes good use of the props.

The character development is intentionally shallow. The main character, Jeremy Northam, decides to immerse himself into the world of espionage. It's up to the audience to figure out his enigmatic character and it's the enigma that keeps the audience interested right to the very end.
A: positive