This looked a good prospect on paper but the plot is so terrible, nothing can save it. Yes, Jay Chou and Nicholas Tse look the part as action heroes and the action sequences are impressive (although most go on too long). . . It's completely brain-dead (not unlike Jon Wan Fei after the bullet hits).
http://opionator.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/the-viral-factor-2012/
Agree; but our IMDB regular reviewers praised it. I begin to suspect these people are doing a paid job to promote the movies.
shareThe majority of the people who post positive reviews or make positive posts about movies in this forum are paid marketers. This has always been the case and, no doubt, it will remain so unless this gaming of the site stops being n effective marketing tool.
shareI would disagree about the plot ruining the entire movie. Yes it is preposterous but I thought it served its purpose which was to propel the action scenes. And I couldn't get enough of the action in this movie. I can't remember the last time a movie was this action packed and not having one of the scenes be a let down.
I happened to also like the family plot as I felt that was just as much the main plot as the virus one. It helped keep everything grounded just a bit in reality and I thought all the actors were great. I do understand why some people might be turned off though. Melodrama isn't exactly for everyone and I will concede that they just kept piling on story after story. Still, this is truly one of the most entertaining movies I've watched in a long time.
This is reputed to be one of the most expensive films produced in Hong Kong and it has gone out of its way to prepare for international distribution through the casting and shooting some of the scenes in English and Malay. It's therefore a shame this money has been spent on a film that makes no sense except as a vehicle for showing random fights, shootings and explosions. This is not to deny good elements but to suggest this film will struggle to earn back the money invested. It could have been so much better.
shareIt's not reputed, it is one of the most expensive with a budget in the $17-25 US million range.
I also wouldn't say all the action scenes are random. There was a natural flow and progression to each one rather than just sticking them in for the sake of action. This movie was crafted to rival Hollywood action movies and on that front, this movie not only achieved that for me, it completely surpassed the best that Hollywood has to offer.
I think this movie is really just going to be divisive depending on what a person seeks going into it. I don't believe it will have much trouble with its budget though, the box office from China alone should be more than enough.
In a sense, we are talking about a difference in storytelling styles. The narrative approach preferred by the West usually depends on a more rigorously logical plot to drive the action. The action in Chinese and many Asian films is allowed to flow without worrying too much about whether there's any natural cause and effect between one scene and the next. Hence, you are probably correct that this film will earn its money back in the Chinese market. But just think how much more profit it would have earned in foreign markets had it pandered to the Western notion that whatever happens on screen should have some reasonably credible explanation. The choice of Jay Chou as the joint lead shows a clear intention to build on the success of The Secret That Cannot Be Told (http://opionator.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/secret-or-the-secret-that-ca nnot-be-told-or-bu-neng-shuo-de-mi-mi/) and Kung Fu Dunk (http://opionator.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/kung-fu-dunk-or-gong-fu-guan -lan/) — we can pass on his Kato in the Green Hornet because that was made in the US and so managed some self-discipline in the narrative style. Jay Chou has a following in the West but this film will not enhance it. The producers have just thrown away a wonderful chance to break into Western markets.
share I'm a regular user and no one paid me to praise this movie except I had to pay to watch the movie... First of all I saw this movie back to back with Haywire and Haywire sucked compared to Viral Factor.. Maybe you guys saw a different movie because this movie had action from start to finish... The story is expected from a movie like this Viral Factor reminded me of the 80's cannon action movie and I laughed unintentionally at some of the dramatic scenes involving the dad of the twins, it was so funny..
So yeah, Dante Lam is going to be the next John Woo...
I also paid to see the film. I refused to pay to see Haywire after all the poor reviews (Ebert only giving it 3/4 is a real deterrent and all those A-/B+). We seem to have different world views. I saw nothing amusing in a helpless addict who had lost his leg when debt collectors forced him and his son to jump off a bridge. He's a tragic figure who struggles to be better than he is. I'm glad you enjoyed the film. It's always good to feel you got value for your money.
shareIf it conformed to a Western style of story telling any individuality that the movie might have had would probably be lost. I don't believe this movie would have succeeded, no matter what the filmmakers tried to do to appeal to the West. Subtitles are an automatic turnoff, even when placed in an action movie like this when there is so much happening on screen that you forget about them. I hope that Chinese filmmakers continue to make movies in their own inimitable style. There is already one Hollywood in the world and that's more than enough.
As for Jay Chou, are you saying he has a large following other than people of a Chinese background and those who just happen to know about Chinese pop culture in the West? I think visibility is rather low on him and he's already big enough in the East. He should just continue to cultivate his rather large image there rather than try and break into the very close minded market here.
The Western markets can continue to operate as they please and I hope the Eastern markets continue to innovate and entertain in their own way. Why try and appeal to somewhere that has a show a clear resistance without any signs of adapting rather than continue succeed with certainty somewhere else?
Perhaps I'm a bit cynical in my old age but I tend to see filmmaking as profit-oriented. There's a massive market for good films around the world. Even Hollywood realises this now and is starting to make more culturally universal films that will sell abroad. Indeed, if you look at the revenue figures for US films, we're almost at the point where all the "neutral" films are making more in the foreign than the home market. In this case, it just seems sad Dante Lam has conformed to the less attractive dictum of the Hong Kong's style: if in doubt, have someone start a fight. In European markets where more people do watch films with subtitles, this could have made a lot of money if it had been a better story to go with the action.
shareNo doubt filmmaking is a business, but I don't believe somewhat's vision should be compromised merely so a film can appeal to a wider audience that may not even appreciate what the main function of the movie is in the first place.
I've actually had discussions with people who do not like the more deliberate, but no less exciting, action scenes that take place in a lot of East Asian cinema. They prefer the the more grand scale Hollywood style. Now, for that to work, the action would need to be fundamentally changed which would not be what I think the Dante Lam had intended. This is not even touching the plot which people might just disregard after awhile anyways.
Now when it comes to Europe, sure, there is much less resistance to subtitles as opposed to North America, but how many films that operate in a genre other than drama truly succeeded in Europe? There are of course exceptions, but I don't see this type of big budget film taking off there.
I say, if a director wants their movie to appeal to a more global market a.k.a. Hollywood, then they need to go there and make their movie instead of hoping they will be able to gain exposure while making their films somewhere else. Just look at the top three Korean directors. Despite their large success in their homeland and all three of them turning out one masterpiece after another, the average moviegoer has no idea who they are. Talk to someone about John Woo and you hear Face/Off or MI 2. Not Red Cliff, Hard Boiled, or The Killer. Director's just need to make their movies for an audience that will appreciate what they are doing and pay to see their movies rather than alienate them to possibly succeed and probably fail making something for another audience.
We don't seem to be that far apart. There's just a slight disagreement on details. For the record, I think Overhead 2, directed by Alan Mak and Felix Chong, was one of the best films made last year. When Hong Kong is on form, it's the best in the world.
shareAgreed on Overheard 2, it was a thoroughly entertaining movie and managed to differentiate itself from the first so it didn't feel like a rehash.
If you happen to get a chance to see Wu Xia from Peter Chan and starring Donnie Yen, I don't think you'll be disappointed. It's a great movie where the action scenes purpose are to serve the story and not the other way around. Probably my favourite movie of last year.
I agree. http://opionator.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/dragon-or-wu-xia/
shareFor sure, this movie(I mean Viral Factor) will not be nominated for best film or best script unless it has a box office success like Titanic; then money works.
Obviously, it is made for the box office and I am sure this movie will be profit-making since majority of movie-goers are simple-minded or lower in mentality compared to those who really know how to differentiate good and bad movies.(I don't mean to offend anyone).
Compare Overheard 2 to Viral Factor. Throughout Overheard 2, I feel engaged as the whole movie is logic although I feel that there are too many subplots(but much less compared to the first Overheard movie). In Viral factor, I enjoy only the opening Jordan part; as soon as Jay's character start his journey into Malaysia, nearly every happenings and actions are so coincidental that I feel the movie is just to watch the actions, nothing else.
As long as there are audience for such movies, HK movies will not improve.
So what you're saying is that someone who appreciates The Viral Factor on a base entertainment level rather than evaluating it by some pre-defined rules that "good" movies must measure up to means they are simple-minded? I guess I shouldn't be watching movies like Raise the Red Lantern, Lust, Caution, Yi Yi, or Secret Sunshine then right? They're too "good" for my tastes.
Simply putting "I don't mean to offend anyone" doesn't absolve you of your ignorance when it comes to judging filmgoers. I enjoy films from all genres whether they be an action spectacle like this or a dramatic film like Yi Yi. It is possible for people to see the positives in all different kinds of cinema, not just ones that everyone else judges to be good.
Did you understand my message well ? Or don't try to misquote me.
I never wrote ALL movie-goers are simple-minded.
By the way, a good or bad movie can definitely be judged.
"Obviously, it is made for the box office and I am sure this movie will be profit-making since majority of movie-goers are simple-minded or lower in mentality compared to those who really know how to differentiate good and bad movies.(I don't mean to offend anyone)."
I'm not trying to misquote you, I'm trying to clarify just what exactly you're trying to say with this statement. When you say "those who really know how to differentiate good and bad movies", it looks as if you're saying even people who can separate movies from the good and the bad with more ease shouldn't like a movie such as this because it doesn't measure up to what a "good" movie would be under some pre-determined qualities. Thus, I concluded from your statement that you think those who enjoyed this movie are of the former category in your post rather than the latter.
If you wish to clarify with me, ask me first and not misquote as in your first reply to me. Judging from your last sentence, you have a wrong sense of reasoning or understanding opinions. I certainly conclude you are among the "simple-minded" ones for this simple reason. In case you still don't catch it, you missed out my word "majority of" that makes your understanding and interpretation of my message totally different. If that is not "misquoting", what do you call it ?
shareMy initial reply stated my interpretation of what your post meant to me and how I thought your views were a bit biased just because you think an action movie of this sort can't be enjoyed by different audiences. After believing you were "misquoted", I tried to reason and reply as to why my post was made in the manner that it was. Now, you have come back again, but this time you have to decided to insult me and still failed to provide any insight while stating I should ask for clarification. Fine, I called you ignorant, you said I have a "wrong sense of reasoning or understanding opinions" and I'm "simple-minded" (Didn't misquote you that time now did I?) I still fail to understand what your differentiation is between the majority and the minority? Can they both not enjoy movies that either offer a meaningful story or provide empty entertainment? Or does it have to be one or the other? If you wouldn't mind not insulting me in your reply, it would be much appreciated.
shareYou certainly have a problem in interpretating others messages and you like to misquote others but don't think it's an insult. When I highlight your mistake, you think I insulted. Look at your new message; when did I ever mention an action movie of this sort can't be enjoyed by difference audiences ? An idiot or a fool can enjoy most movies better than the more intelligent people, so my not simple-minded people ? I guess you will not understand or start to misquote me again. I call you "simple-minded" based on your wrong sense and simple sense of reasoning others and not based on the movie comments(yet) so don't misquote me again.
shareApparently you don't quite grasp of the concept of what calling someone "simple-minded" means. That's an INSULT. Nevertheless, you and I are at odds and there doesn't seem to be any resolution to this conflict of interests. I will "mis-quote" you no more and allow you to keep defending your words that no one else will probably ever read on the IMDB message boards. Stay proud and keep fighting!
shareExpected reply from someone when they are proven wrong and have nothing else to say.
shareYep, you're the king of IMDB.
shareBut the editing was absolutely atrocious.
After Stool Pigeon, this was a frigging disaster.
Stool Pigeon is far better. At least the script, plot and action details are acceptable. This one is totally absurd, no logic. As I mentioned earlier, more likely those with simple-minded brains will like it; not all though. I am sure some simple-minded people also find it too silly.
shareNot sure why people are bashing on the films plot. I did not see anyone bash The Raid, which was just a group of people climbing a stair case till they reached the top. Why bash this? It had a 90's Hong Kong action film feel to it with great special effects and action sequences. It reminded me of John Woo movies which are some of the most entertaining action movies you will see. The only shame is this threads existence, but everyone has a right to their own opinions.
shareYeah, if this had been the BOOK, "Viral," about the world and Africa "an international thriller" none of this would be happening. In fact the Chinese probably set this up to distract from the real situation. No, I haven't seen the movie.
shareYeah, if this had been the BOOK, "Viral," about the world and Africa "an international thriller" none of this would be happening. In fact the Chinese probably set this up to distract from the real situation. No, I haven't seen the movie.
shareI saw this film streaming on my Netflix subscription. I chose it after watching two Jay Chou films this weekend -- Secret (Piano time travel) and Rooftop (musical numbers and rescue the beauty). I have no quarrel with any of the posts here because expensive doomsday action scenarios are not my favorite genre. I enjoyed the scenery, the actors, and special effects. I don't think many of us casual viewers would pick apart and be so critical. If it didn't work for you, a fanatic for details, that's unfortunate. Maybe your criticisms will be taken to heart and next action movies will cater to your interests. I'm just here to say Jay Chou has an interesting portfolio of heroic roles. I attribute it to underplaying which allows us to insert ourselves in his shoes mentally. More power to Jay Chou films.
I miss Big Band music and talented singers. Leonard Cohen is my idol. Civility, harmony, unity!