A young Chinese warrior steals a sword from a famed swordsman and then escapes into a world of romantic adventure with a mysterious man in the frontier of the nation.
During China's Tang dynasty the emperor has taken the princess of a neighboring province as wife. She has borne him two sons and raised his eldest. Now his control over his dominion is complete, including the royal family itself.
During the Japanese invasion of 1937, when a wealthy martial artist is forced to leave his home and work to support his family, he reluctantly agrees to train others in the art of Wing Chun for self-defense.
A rogue Multiverse agent goes on a manhunt for versions of himself, getting stronger with each kill. With only one version remaining, he races against the clock to finish him and become "The One."
In ancient China, before the reign of the first emperor, warring factions throughout the Six Kingdoms plot to assassinate the most powerful ruler, Qin. When a minor official defeats Qin's three principal enemies, he is summoned to the palace to tell Qin the story of his surprising victory.Written by
Yocke
Included among the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die", edited by Steven Schneider. See more »
Goofs
At the beginning of the movie, subtitles state that China was divided into seven warring states. At the end, the subtitles then state that "the King of Qin" unified China, without specifying which one. Historically, the king that was the one to unite all of the Chinese states was Ying Zheng (later changed name to Shi Huang Di) who inherited the throne from his deceased father at age 13 (as opposed to the age of the king in the movie). At the time, Ying Zheng began to rule China, the seven states were already reduced to two larger states (Qin and Chu) which was later dominated by Qin when Ying Zheng was 22 years old. It is therefore impossible for the same king shown in the movie to be the king that united all the Chinese states, although the end-note is semantically correct. See more »
Quotes
[first lines]
Nameless:
[voiceover]
I was orphaned at a young age and was never given a name. People simply called me Nameless. With no family name to live up to, I devoted myself to the sword. I spent ten years perfecting unique skills as a swordsman. The King of Qin has summoned me to court, for what I have accomplished has astonished the kingdom.
See more »
Alternate Versions
The Director's Cut was 107:15 minutes, compared to the theatrical version at 96:23 minutes. See more »
First, there are scenes of haunting beauty("Duel in the yellow forest" and "Turquoise autumn" to site a couple) that, like the best of impressionist paintings, are so affecting that you will forever see the world in a slightly different way having once beheld them.
Secondly, the overall message of the film is a provocative one. The claim is that a degree of human casualties and suffering may be the optimal path to a better world, especially when the alternative is equally brutal chaos. This is not a popular theme. It has become much more fashionable to be anti-war in all cases. And understandably so, since variations of this logic have often been used in the past to justify atrocities. But the film provides a crisp litmus test for avoiding delusion: action must be taken with a heart void of malice and an unwavering commitment to the broadest possible ultimate outcome of good for all. Can anyone live up to this standard? Several characters in the movie do, each in their own way. If the standard could be met, would the world be a better place? These are questions worth reflecting on that have not been dealt with, to this depth, in any film I'm aware of.
228 of 278 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this
Hero is noteworthy on at least two counts.
First, there are scenes of haunting beauty("Duel in the yellow forest" and "Turquoise autumn" to site a couple) that, like the best of impressionist paintings, are so affecting that you will forever see the world in a slightly different way having once beheld them.
Secondly, the overall message of the film is a provocative one. The claim is that a degree of human casualties and suffering may be the optimal path to a better world, especially when the alternative is equally brutal chaos. This is not a popular theme. It has become much more fashionable to be anti-war in all cases. And understandably so, since variations of this logic have often been used in the past to justify atrocities. But the film provides a crisp litmus test for avoiding delusion: action must be taken with a heart void of malice and an unwavering commitment to the broadest possible ultimate outcome of good for all. Can anyone live up to this standard? Several characters in the movie do, each in their own way. If the standard could be met, would the world be a better place? These are questions worth reflecting on that have not been dealt with, to this depth, in any film I'm aware of.