>>Peter Chen's explanation doesn't matter,
>> there are way too many parallels:
Yes, you'd know better than the director of this film.
>> 1. The character trying to hide belonged
>> to a gang (mafia in HoV, tanguts here.)
Wow, that's a novel idea! Must have ripped off the originator of that plot line, History of Violence.
>>2. The main character is related
>> to a gang member.
Another incredibly unique story device never before seen until History of Violence, and certainly not at all common in the genre.
>>3. The relative sends associates to
>> confront the main character about
>> their identity.
Until History of Violence, gangs left polite letters in the person's mail box. They also sent telegrams and smoke signals. When the idea of carrier pigeons became such a cliche, Cronenberg decided to inject some originality into the story by getting the gang to send actual lackies over to personally deliver the messages. Amazing!
>>4. Instead of the violent sex scene in
>>HoV, there's a reference to sex in Dragon.
Never seen a frustrated, stressed and violence prone man take it all out on a woman during sex before. Not until History of Violence, that is!
>>5. The most damning evidence, to me,
>>is Donnie Yen's preference in making
>>remakes of successful films. He remade
>>Dragon Gate Inn, Chinese Connection, and
>>even did a blatant copy of Kato from
>>the Green Hornet.
OH, that IS damning evidence indeed. Guilt by association. Many a fine lawyer by this logic has put witnesses and associates in jail for the crimes they didn't actually commit. Brilliant! Wait, didn't Cronenberg remake the Fly in 1996? And the author of that script wrote the remake of DOA as well!
>>Takeshi Kaneshiro, however, rescued this
>>film from Donnie Yen's usual mimicry and horrible acting
What was Donnie Yen mimicking? Was it verbal or physical? Did he do mime?
reply
share