When three close friends escape from Hong Kong to war-time Saigon to start a criminal's life, they all go through a harrowing experience which totally shatters their lives and their friendship forever.
Tony Chiu-Wai Leung,
A seasoned cop and his rookie partner are a pair of mismatched partners in this Hong Kong action-comedy in the style of 'Lethal Weapon'. The wacky twosome are up in arms as they try to solve the murder of a heroin trafficker.
Police Inspector Pao is trying to catch Mak Kwan, a gang member who is first arrested, but then escapes from the prison. By chance, Pao realizes that the target of Kwan's gang is the H.K. ... See full summary »
Ko Chow is about to resign from the police force when he is asked to take on one more case. He is to go undercover in a gang that is robbing jewellery stores. He accepts the task and successfully infiltrates the gang. It is a very dangerous mission, not just because the gang might discover his true identity but because many of the police suspect he may well be a criminal.Written by
The blood on Ko Chow's shirt disappears. See more »
[Fu talks about his family life]
You know, my father was a crook. I got it from him. I just hope my son doesn't turn out like me.
Is your old man still in jail?
He's been dead for ten years. My father was stupid. He got shot by the police.
So you despise them?
Not at all. They were just doing their job, so why should I?
See more »
I'm gonna try to keep my comments relatively brief, this is a huge point I'm trying to come across with) and direct them at the issue of Quentin Tarantino's (with Avary) Reservoir Dogs, not at my opinion that City on Fire stands as great film of noteable orginality.
This is about a relationship which exists, between two films by different directors from different backgrounds, solely because Tarantino 'borrowed' ideas from Ringo Lam.
After seeing Reservoir Dogs for the first time many years ago, I was blown away. You have to give it to Tarantino, he was in the right place at the right time and Reservoir Dogs blew everything that was going on in American cinema, at the time, out of the water. There is no denying that through film enthusiasts who saw Pulp Fiction and then later sought out Dogs, that a whole new generation of directors and writers came out of the wood work, inspired by his work and tried to imitate what they came to praise as an icon of cinematic originality in what would be come a pop culture of new wave gangster films.
However, that is where, in my opinion, praise of Tarantino should stop. Sometimes I think people get confused between two things. Those two things are being a obsessive film enthusiast and being an original artist. I think that one problem, in my opinion (although many may not agree), with the general film watching public and many producers, is that they have not been exposed to much of foreign cinema, let alone most of the independent films which gain huge followings but go unnoticed by the general public, and therefore someone who markets an idea properly, be it original or not, can get away with taking someone else's idea which was truly original, but not immensly popular, and turning that into success, or even in some cases, a cult film. The latter evokes some laughter on my part, because having a cult film being based on the original work of another cult film, really says something about the audience who follows such an unoriginal film without trying to truly discover its roots.
Now, does this take anything away from Reservoir Dogs or City on Fire for that matter? No. I believe that generally most who will see either film will, and should for that matter, go on to enjoy both films to the extent that they are impressioned by them for their originality and substance without caring about these 'minor details'.
However, after seeing both films and actually taking them for their worth, I believe that it is clear in what classes, either enthusiast or artist, to put Lam and Tarantino in.
16 of 34 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this