style over substance again

I quite enjoy "House of Flying Daggers". But the US release is atrociously dubbed. Worse, not only is the dubbing atrocious -- and appears to be "dumbed down" in order to aim it at teens -- but the subtitles are different than the dialogue; and in some instances of greater substance.

It's a minor film, not a masterpiece, especially when one sees what the same director did in "The Road Home". I suppose, though, he had to do his "martial arts" film, even though it's not his metier.

Leo's reaction is not cheap.

He despised Jin, the peanut-eater (or at least looked down on him), because of his easy-going attitude and aloofness towards the abuses and corruption in society, not interested much in doing something to change it, but rather playing along.

When Leo realized Mei - the girl he loved and longed for, with whom he had a special connection (the famous "echo" game) and whom he admired for her skills and determination to serve the cause - loved that low-life, he was deeply hurt but also disappointed, and considered that she chose a dishonorable path, that would bring her shame ...actually, towards the end, Jin tried to persuade her to run away and live happily together, since they were nothing but pawns in the big picture - and she was rushing after Jin when she got hit by that dagger, ironically her lover was on his way back to her, deciding to give up his selfish & careless life and to stand by Mei in her fight, together with the rebels... as such, in Leo's case there was a deadly mix of mistrust , resentfulness and jealousy that made him to pretend throwing the dagger, instead of just, well, giving up - of course, in a zen-like manner, since he was so masterful in all stuff martial. The blizzard in the background was quite appropriate to mirror his crumbled soul, though.

"CrazyToaster

"Film is about storytelling."

I'm a published writer -- and author.

Film, unlike written storytelling, is also about the visual.

"No matter how pretty the film looks, the substance under the visuals are always going to be what determine its overall quality."

Actually not: one wants a balance of form and content, without either overwhelming the other.

"Style is really only skin deep."

Actually not: one could legitimately assert that style is the essence of poetry. In other words, there is no legitimate opposition to good or even superior writing, regardless the story. And that writing can be made to "perfectly" suit the substance.

"The heavy stylization of this film"

This is one of the least stylized films of the genre; in fact, I wonder at the critics who praise it for its "lush visuals". Want lush visuals? go with Zhang Yimou. Want a film in which the visuals suit the story in terms of realism, and don't overwhelm or distract from the story? Go with Ang Lee.

"couldn't make up for its weak plot, boring characters and formulaic script."

And that is a perfectly formulaic cliché. In other words, it says absolutely nothing. How, for example, is the plot "weak"? In what ways are the characters "boring"*?
_____

*Reality is neutral; boredom is an individual choice. As example, there are individuals who have orgasms over mathematics, whereas I am bored stiff by mathematics. Reality is neutral; boredom is an individual choice.

1. "Weak plot". All you are saying behind those words is, "I don't like it." And we know why: it shows you that you've been praising the inferior, and you hate being shown to yourself to have been a sucker. Instead of fending off that reality by blaming that which didn't sucker you -- that which showed you that fact -- blame that which suckered you; and yourself for allowing yourself to be suckered.

2. "Boring characters". The characters are complex and three-dimensional. Jen, as example, isn't a sympathetic character through most of the film; but when she is off in the desert with the bandit, we come to learn that she has a likable side. Li Mu Bai is a sympathetic character -- but he is also sexist. Shu Lien is a sympathetic character, but she tends to jealousy. The bandit is a sympathetic character -- but he is a bandit who steals.

What you are saying behind that is, "All I want is kick-ass action. Leave out the intelligence."

3. "Formulaic script". The script is drawn from the fourth novel in a series of five. No one complains that those novels are "formulaic" -- even though they are: that's one of the limitations of "genre": each has its own conventions, its own narrowing limitations. By analogy, blues music is a limited form; there's nothing "original" in it: it's always the same few "tried-and-true" forms.

On the other hand, the "martial arts" genre is formulaic -- and there's no escaping that fact; so conversely to your pretense, it is the formula that legitimizes it.

In sum, you're pissed off because you've been sucked in by mindless juvenile junk, and this film shows you that. Instead of blaming this film -- which isn't mindless -- blame those who sucked you in with mindless junk, and yourself for allowing yourself to be sucked in.

Otherwise, your objection is to a convention -- "flying" -- which reveals the fact that you falsely consider yourself an expert on martial arts film. To the contrary: see "The Art of Action," narrated by Samuel L. Jackson. It is a documentary about the history of martial arts, from its origins in Peking Opera (which means DANCE); and martial farts films, from its origins in 1920s silent films. In those 1920s silent films, one sees -- guess what? -- "flying".

So the "Flying" to which you object, Mr. Know-It-All/Closed Minded, has been a martial arts film convention SINCE THE FIRST MARTIAL ARTS FILMS.