I agree, RotD definitely should rank above Red cliff as a solid 7. Redcliff seemed like all cheese (yes yes, the turtle formation) that didn't take itself too seriously (a minus in the "epic" genre). Fearless doesn't fall under the same epic genre as it was more about a personal quest/journey without the higher stakes. Warlords may be better (due to a more indepth characterization and a more intricate plot).
However, I think people are having gripes over the historic inaccuracies and/or deviations from the novel, more so than it deserves. Resurrection of the Dragon is depicted as a "story being told", rather than a "story being played". In this vein, similar to movies such as Hero, we should appreciate RotD aesthetic qualities and stylization over the plot direction and historical values.
Warlords (also a story being told), did a good (better) job with setting up historic contexts (old Chinese politics [3 old men, military politics], late age Chinese culture [respect for the dead/dying, governorship/court]), adequately handled the art direction (gritty peasant life of the bandit land China... austere trenches of the siege ... to the ascension of imperial status in the court), and provided better characterization of the 3 leads (the ambitious Jet li and the inevitable clash and falling out with the brother) (the more lengthy run time also helped with this). When comparing the two movies, both had equally engaging battle/fight sequences, with RotD taking a more stylized (perhaps due to the south korean direction?) approach. Music wise, Warlords ripped its sounds from Hans Zimmer's gladiator and pirates. RotD had one of the best sound tracks I've heard in a long time. However, Warlord's victories in the lesser aforementioned areas [plot, pacing, and historical references/contexts] puts it above RotD overall.
reply
share