MovieChat Forums > Wu xia (2011) Discussion > Rip Off from History of Violence

Rip Off from History of Violence


Just saw the movie, thought it's good. After the first sequence where he killed those 2 gangsters, I knew this is a rip off of the movie 'history of violence'. The story is exactly the same, just different settings.

History of violence also started out with 2 killers, and so the end, where the boss came look for him.

reply

[deleted]

Hmm, I haven't seen it yet, but just going from the description
Does it have flashbacks like HOV?
Does it describe the effect on his family, like HOV

And HOV didn't focus on the procedural of how the cop narrows down who he is.

If so, then it has has similarities but is not "exactly the same"

reply

It reminded me too of HoV right away, but I liked that more -- just for the impact on the family and development of the wife and the son. It's smarter in my opinion.

reply

OP's a moron.

reply

Not smarter. Just different.

What you get here is Mencius and Xunzi punching each other in the nose in a rather spectacularly multi-layered film. Wu xia is more abstract, more philosophical and a tad more collective minded. But definitely not less smart than HoV. It's just a very different film, albeit one following a superficially similar (OK, at point almost identical) plot.

And it's a very clever homage to wuxia genre, too.

reply

bit of a negative impression to call it a "rip off" wouldn't you say...
i agree it has a similar premise to AHOV and while watching i was definitely comparing the two films but a think rip off is a bit harsh

reply

I agree. Thread title bear negative sensitivity. While it may have similarities with history of violence, i find this movie is more worth it than HOV. I have watched History of Violence before watching this movie and yet I dont remember that this movie bear similarities with HOV. It may be because HOV is forgettable. In fact, I totally forgot HOV is about. I really dont understand why some people like HOV.

reply

I just came across an interview article with Peter Chan and he addressed what you are accusing him of

What was your earliest idea for this story like?

Peter Chan: "I started off the creative process by trying to make the simplest, simplest wu xia story. A man who’s very high in martial arts skill decided to leave his life behind and start a new life, and his past is coming back to haunt him. This is the oldest, most traditional martial arts story."

It’s exactly what happens in [Chang Cheh’s] One-Armed Swordsman.

Peter Chan: "It’s exactly what happens in One-Armed Swordsman, and it’s also exactly what happens in the new One-Armed Swordsman with David Chiang and Ti Lung, and it’s also exactly what happens in John Woo’s – the biggest disciple of Chang Cheh’s – The Killer. It’s the same story! I mean, people say my film is [a reference to David Cronenberg’s 2005 film] A History of Violence, but I think A History of Violence is the fifth or the sixth or the tenth reincarnation of the stuff that we’ve done for the last 40 years."

http://www.timeout.com.hk/film/features/44135/peter-chan.html

It's a homage to the One-Armed Swordsman and it was effective in it's simplistic form. A fresh approach to a tired genre. There's absolutely no need to call it a rip off or other derogatory terms

reply

Peter Chen's explanation doesn't matter, there are way too many parallels:

1. The character trying to hide belonged to a gang (mafia in HoV, tanguts here.)
2. The main character is related to a gang member.
3. The relative sends associates to confront the main character about their identity.
4. Instead of the violent sex scene in HoV, there's a reference to sex in Dragon.
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.

Takeshi Kaneshiro, however, rescued this film from Donnie Yen's usual mimicry and horrible acting, and it's well worth watching. I watched it like 3 times in a row when I first got it.

reply

>>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

[deleted]

Why is it that when the Americans do it, it's a "remake", and when anybody else does it, it's a "rip off"? :-)

reply

Interesting like American Hollywood movies have never ever done this before.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

dont stray from the OP's topic. nobody is saying that Americans dont rip off asian movies. this director's explanation is retarded. he is being defensive because he got BUSTED completely copying AHOV and he turns it around by saying that AHOV is the rip off. what a doosh

reply

Interesting comment. When did the Original Poster comment that no other film, American or otherwise, was a rip-off? He was talking about this film. How someone could bring in some kind of anti-American sentiment from the poster's comment is beyond hilarious.

If the poster had said "Some Italian food is too heavy for me." Would you have then responded, "Why is it when the Americans make heavy food it's called tasy, but when anybody else does it it's called heavy :-)"

Half or more of Hollywood films borrow aspects from each other or foreign films. Nobody is denying that. Why you bring it up as if the poster was making a comment on the entire film industry is juvenile.

reply

Rip-off or not, admit that you liked it :) Some of the best movies are remakes of films that took ideas from other films and added or modified it to it's own unique style.

The greatest products throughout history are improved copies of other products. Research it.

reply

I haven't watched the movie yet, but your post made me think twice about it. I absolutely hated history of violence - i thought it was most overrated piece of crap ever. I doubt anyone would ever rip it off. It would be oxymoron to say the least.

reply

No it's not. A rip-off is something different. This movie has a similar opening, explores similar themes, yes. But the perspective and plot of exploring these themes are different.

reply