MovieChat Forums > Lung foo fung wan (1987) Discussion > City on Fire or Reservoir Dogs?

City on Fire or Reservoir Dogs?

posted 19 years ago by suckerdwsp316
18 replies | jump to latest

Personally, I'll take RD, but its a close race. COF was a different movie in many aspects even though qt obviously ripped off a few scenes and the plot for his RD. COF was more emotional, and less violent while telling a pretty good story. however, RD was an american movie and is more enjoyable because its highly stylized and told differently (out of sequence as opposed to in sequence). COF had such a sad ending, but it was a good one. overall COF was great, and i enjoyed it alot, and i would also say its a better movie than RD, but i didnt like it more simply because its a japanese movie, the voice overs were annoying, and while the soundtrack was okay, nothing compares to madsen dancing to "stuck in the middle with you".

which one do you like better?

[–] suckerdwsp316 19 years ago

well, anyone??

[–] hawkeyeandtrapperreside 18 years ago

I say Reservoir Dogs.

see my art at:http: //www.fanart-central.net/user-usedusername.php

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] suckerdwsp316 18 years ago

first off, there are many things QT obviously used in RD that was used in COF. the plot of the undercover cop inflitrating a gang of jewel thieves. the close friendship formed between one of the thieves and the cop. the 3-way gun fight at the end. and the fact that everyone dies at the end including the cop. tarantino covered it all up with excessive violence, language and a lot more action. not to mention the amount of stylized characters and scenes with witty dialogue that cover up everything tarantino took away from city on fire. im not bashing him. hes my 2nd favorite filmmaker of all time, and i think RD is a teriffic film, however the fact reminas tarantino definitely took more than just an overused "subplot" as you say from COF. by the way, who said QT would be nothing without COF?? i never said that. tarantino is a cinematic genius and anything he touches turns to gold, so even without city on fire, he still had a few scripts in the works (true romance, natural born killers) that would of jet-started his career (techhnically, because true romance was his first ever script sold which payment for financed part of RD, true romance really jet-started his career) anyway, thats pretty much all i have to say.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] suckerdwsp316 18 years ago

CITY ON FIRE is a great movie. however, it has flaws. one of them are the annoying voice-overs. its just funny to look at when chow-yun fat says something but the voice-over comes on 2 seconds later when someone else has already started talking. but if you're an RD fan, this film is a must-see.

[–] Shueln 18 years ago

I'm sure that if it wasnt dubbed the movie would have been better. I think that you cant compare the two. They were both very good in extremly diffrent ways.

Was That As Good For You As It Was For Me?

[–] stephen_chow79 18 years ago

"but i didnt like it more simply because its a japanese movie"

Its a hong kong movie and you should see the non dubbed version with subtitles seeing as the voice over is the only think youre complaining about. Its much better.

[–] green_peach 18 years ago

I like City on Fire better, but Reservoir Dogs is a close second.

[–] epb2102 18 years ago

You are indeed correct to point out that all directors borrow things from one another. Usually, though, it is a theme or a shot or some other technical procedure which is borrowed. Entire stories are rarely lifted without the director coming under heavy scrutiny.

http://www.ymdb.com/epb2102/l35368_ukuk.html

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nakrophile 17 years ago

City On Fire without a doubt.

[–] heelmaster2000 14 years ago

Though I enjoyed both films. I would have to say this is better, because of its character development, and better plot.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] franzkabuki 7 years ago

Tarantino certainly did a fine job chopping off all the elements that didn't work in City On Fire - the stupid humor, the pointless romance subplot, the tedious and overwrought infighting between the cops. The Hong Kong flick had some visual flare, but it's rather cheesy and not particularly outstanding. Res Dogs on the other hand still works as a lean, mean piece of crackling entertainment. COF 6,5/10, RD 9/10.

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

[–] Stratego (29246) 5 years ago

Japanese??? Did you really see this movie???

Reservoir Dogs and not even close. Tarantino may have been impressed with City on Fire, but I was not. It's pretty standard Hong Kong action movie fare.

There's no denying Tarantino took the basic plotline of a cop going undercover and forming a close friendship with one of the criminals and a jewelry heist going horribly wrong. I'm not sure that 's so exceptional and innovative that nothing similar has been done before, though. And having the some plotline doesn't mean RD is a total rip off of CoF. Put the two movies next to each other and you'll see they are very different for the most part. As far as I remember only three short scenes from the last 20 minutes or so were "lifted". White shooting the cops in the car (which was very similar), the Mexican stand off and the confession by Orange. The last two scenes, however, were used very differently by Tarantino in RD with different end results.

Anyway, despite RD drawing a lot of inspiration from CoF, I do not find the two movies comparable. Everything I enjoyed about RD, is missing from CoF.

[–] filmgeek99 (592) 3 years ago

Definitely Reservoir Dogs. City on Fire is a good movie, but it's also one that ticks most of the tropes and cliches of 80's Hong Kong cinema. It's a movie made with clear commercial intent in mind, and one that ultimately suffers for it. Had if it was made in the late 90's or early 00's, perhaps it could've alleviated itself from some of the more standard HK elements (needless romantic subplots, overly broad humor, overdone parallels between cops and robbers etc). As is, it's just a good movie that suffers by being a product of its time and place. Reservoir Dogs is a much sharper, wittier, more sophisticated film, despite having borrowed some elements from this.