6.9? How?


I really can't understand how this movie gets an average of 6.9 with 12000 votes.
Yes, part of the martial arts is very good, especially when they show off different styles, but not everything is good. Some is also ridiculous. The end fight with the whip lady, the big guys is just average. And fighting with fluoresent tubes? Come on.
The bone breaking before was also overdone.
And everything else apart from the fights is just plainly awful:
- ridiculous car chases
- Disney elephants, later thrown across the room just for a laugh
- wooden acting and dialogue, full of stereotypes
- camera work gets worse towards the end, overuse of slomos for no apparent reason
- very bad props, especially towards the end, looks like they ran out of money

Cut the whole movie down to a fight demo consisting of the 3 or 4 good, "real" fights and this might be a 6.9. But the movie as a whole? No way.

And i am not even hard to impress. Show me a decent action movie and i like it. Action movies have really a hard time getting good ratings, because they are simply not artsy enough for most people. So everything around 7 is very good for an action movie. But this one is just bad.

reply


I agree. It was like zombieland. Lets make a action film, with bad acting and throw in a half assed plot with few details and scene transition so we can show off ways to kill or beat up. But make them overdone and cheesy. Its like they made the fight scenes and *beep* a plot.


zombieland v shaun of the dead.

strawberry cornettos win it.

reply

Because this movie deliver what it should deliver, KICK ASS FIGHT SCENES.

I just watched it and i was like "WOW" , of course its over the top, no guy could beat so much people at the same time, but its fun to watch, its like a bare hand version of Commando where Arny gunned down an army by himself...

It will be one of my favorite action movie ever, even if the story is dull and i was in laught everytime he said "wheres my elephant" but the action sequence are just amazing. And there is tone of them.

I just saw City of Violence yesterday. Way better plot even if not the greatest ever, and similar style of action, 2 main hero kicking the ass of 100 guys at the same time. Was fun, but there was not enought fight sequences to make me hook all movie long. Exept at the beginning before the elephants are stolen, Protector is full of action.

reply

and you are the kind of person who makes crap films accepted as good ones. there is no substance in this film. all brawn no brains and thats the issue at hand.

hi, my name is Crowded, and im a Linux.

reply

AWWW. Over 12,000+ people liked the movie and i didnt...

...let me cry about it some more.

reply

Crowdedelevator, if you wish to watch a film with substance and brains, then why pick a low budget, thai martial arts movie???

..go figure!!!



"piss ya pants.. I said piss ya pants!!"

reply

No. He's the kind of person that goes into a comedy movie expecting laughter. If it delivers that, it's good as a comedy. It's obviously not a bad thing if it happens to deliver more than that, but if that's what it set out to do, then it's really hard to argue.

---
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

reply

lol. What you are doing is like going to a metal concert and complaining about the lack of flutes. These movies are not about story. They aren't about characters either. They really are all brawn and no brains. The only wit you will find is in the conception and execution of the fight scenes. Everything else is just an excuse to get to the next scene and to put in some pacing. It is so by design. A great story is a big bonus, yes, but it does not make or break these films.

reply

Now the rating has grown to a 7.1, muahahaha. If only Twin Dragons (1992/99) could get a descent rating :)



The War has only begun, will you defend your destiny?

reply

As an martial arts film it is worth a 7.

Cool YouTube Videos
http://tiny.cc/0opphw

reply

This movie is a rare gem. To the casual observer, a raw diamond just looks like a piece of quartz, and some people laugh at the simplicity of Opera plots. They are missing the point. Opera is about the music, not the acting. The same is true of martial arts films.

The Athleticism of Tony Jaa's martial arts choreography is astounding. I find it difficult to believe that there were a lot of digital and mechanical special effects to simulate the aerial ballet (for lack of a better term) which Tony Jaa demonstrates. Surely there were a few editing tricks to enhance the dazzle, but this is real, hard core, down to earth, muscle-and-discipline, stunt work of the first order. The multi-level battle scene in the restaurant, on the other hand is not about editing, but the stupefyingly creative absence of it. Watching that sequence is like watching Hitchcock's "Rope", or a micro-budget version of Liz Taylor's triumphant arrival in Rome as "Cleopatra" These are extraordinary cinematic novelties, unlikely to be matched ever again.

A digital stunt is just another cartoon. In the Rodriquez/Tarentino throwdown, "Grindhouse", Tarentino proves elegantly how the simplicity of a real stunt will always be engagingly superior to any technical simulation of one.

"The Protector" is one movie that should be included NOW in any martial arts collection, because it is the preamble to what promises to be a Monumental career. It will always represent the raw artist, unadorned by big flashy production effects, digital illusions, slick Hollywood sleight of hand.

reply

The last three posts bring some really good points.
I loved this movie. But not because of plot or acting.
My Movies:http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=27163862

reply

This movie is a rare gem. To the casual observer, a raw diamond just looks like a piece of quartz, and some people laugh at the simplicity of Opera plots. They are missing the point. Opera is about the music, not the acting. The same is true of martial arts films.

The Athleticism of Tony Jaa's martial arts choreography is astounding. I find it difficult to believe that there were a lot of digital and mechanical special effects to simulate the aerial ballet (for lack of a better term) which Tony Jaa demonstrates. Surely there were a few editing tricks to enhance the dazzle, but this is real, hard core, down to earth, muscle-and-discipline, stunt work of the first order. The multi-level battle scene in the restaurant, on the other hand is not about editing, but the stupefyingly creative absence of it. Watching that sequence is like watching Hitchcock's "Rope", or a micro-budget version of Liz Taylor's triumphant arrival in Rome as "Cleopatra" These are extraordinary cinematic novelties, unlikely to be matched ever again.


Beautiful post and very true, that's how i see it too...

... HEY! Why don't you have a membership date under your name...? O_o


People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

reply

The movie was all about the fight scenes. People needed to know what this guy could do and it definitely did that. Yes the story was awkward for people not familiar with the Thailand tradition. When I watched it i was like Oooook,Elephants?! WTF but the fight scenes were awesome!

reply

Like i said: fluorescent tubes? Nothing awesome about them.

Anyway, a film is rated as a whole. Sure, action movies have different criteria than dramas, but you can still vote for editing, props, acting etc. And here the movie fails big time.

reply

Yup, people commending it purely based on the stunts and not detracting points for the rest of the movie being CRAP should consider if this same gauge were applied to other films...

Star Wars episode 1, 2 & 3 were all fantastic because of their CGI cityscapes. There is no other reason someone might go to see these films except their cityscapes that is why you see them and they were all AWESOME CGI cityscapes even if the acting, story, pacing and action were basement level they still deserve a 10/10 for their cityscapes...

Or:

2012 was a fantastic movie because the scenes where some rediculous bloody disaster struck were awesome. Partonising and moralising script, John Cusack, bad acting, John Cusack trying to act, derivative plot lines, heaping helpings of Judeo-Christian bs, John Cusack - none of these things detract from what was some great scenes of disaster! 10/10 for having great disaster scenes.

reply

2012 was a fantastic movie because the scenes where some rediculous bloody disaster struck were awesome. Partonising and moralising script, John Cusack, bad acting, John Cusack trying to act, derivative plot lines, heaping helpings of Judeo-Christian bs, John Cusack - none of these things detract from what was some great scenes of disaster! 10/10 for having great disaster scenes.




Agreed. I'm one of the few who also really enjoyed 2012, but i don't feel as strongly about Cusack... Liked him in High Fidelity for instance, no? Anyway.


People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

reply

Like most of the guys here say "Forget the Flawed Story and Enjoy the Choreography". People just see it as a way of entertainment to kill time.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/shutterbug_iconium/

reply

Why do you watch Jackie Chan movies? Sure he's pretty charismatic and a decent actor, but i wanna see him in his awesome fight scenes with props and humour.

reply

[deleted]

Cite from users profile: "I like trolling, so don't take me too seriously."

Worst troll ever.

reply

Wow, my first post that has been deleted ever, and I've said way worse. That wasn't even meant as a troll. Hell, I no longer do that. I really need to change my profile. You're still an idiot, Magros. I bet you did give it a 1. That's why you're so miffed. I caught you, didn't I? Who cares what a rating is for a movie? Only film Nazi snobs care. I bet you were one of the a'holes who went nuts when "Dark Knight" was number 1 for awhile. Good times, the film snobs went berserk.

I run around in circles, it is my metaphor

reply

I agree with the OP. This film was BAD!

Onk Bak was 10x better and I was expecting more. Story was horrid - I liked the first 2 min intro explaining the significance of the elephant but then it just got worst and worst.

Fights were average to poor at best. The only good part was when he was running away from the bikes

reply

"6.9? How?" Tony Jaa has a big family.

reply

IMO, the people saying "it's just a martial arts film, it doesn't need to be well made as long as the fight scenes are good" are holding the genre back. Tom Yum Goong did have some awesome fight scenes and stunts from Tony Jaa in it, but the set up for some the scenes are just absurd! Things like him getting stabbed before going into "Rage Mode" and then just taking out the endless waves of guys, with them never changing tactics (not to mention how he would be dying from that wound no matter how much adrenaline he had going, the movie established him as tough, but never superhuman, there was no reason within the story he shouldn't have bled to death) brought it down a bit.

There were some awesome moves in that final scene, but it really does go on for too long and become a demo-reel of what he can do, there's no movement or change in level or progress in that scene. It's almost like a video game with the player in a challenge room constantly receiving more enemies.

The warehouse scene with the gangs coming from nowhere, the bad English dialouge/acting, the poor editing and overall shoddy directing, it's overall not that well made of a movie.

There are a lot of scenes in this that happen at random, with little to no lead up or motivation. It doesn't have to be Oscar worthy, but it shouldn't feel random and disjointed either.

If you look at the first Ong Bak, it's a much more well made movie with a simple, non-complex story that drives all of the action. Every scene and every situation makes sense in the narrative, again, it's not Shakespeare and wouldn't win any awards, but it was much more coherent and enjoyable than Tom Yum Goong because scenes felt like they were occurring naturally within the movie.

"Bulls**t MR.Han Man!!"--Jim Kelly in Enter the Dragon

reply

People have their own personal rating system. 6.9 from the people, suggests to me that 69% of the movie was good. 31% not so good.

reply

"IMO, the people saying "it's just a martial arts film, it doesn't need to be well made as long as the fight scenes are good" are holding the genre back."
-So if a comedy did nothing right but make you laugh it's also holding the genre back? I think we need more movies like this, all about the action. Otherwise we get crap like taken 2 or die hard 5, where the action AND everything else sucks...


"What? Do you wanna just sit around and be wrong?" - Liz Lemon

reply

[deleted]

It is very easy to get 6.9 with 12,000 votes. In fact, a lot of movies got more than 8 with less than 20,000 votes. I actually think 6.9 is pretty poor as this is released to US and Europe market.

I agree with you. Other than martial arts, there is nothing good about the movie and all the martial arts moves are more flashy than brutal. This kind of movie should be simple and straight to the point. No non-sense story and try to make the issue bigger than it is. This movie made that mistake.

reply

[deleted]