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.
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."
Set in China in the 1860's during the Taiping Rebellion, the story is based on the assassination of Ma Xinyi in 1870. Loyalist General Qingyun is the only survivor of a battle with ... See full summary »
Ancient China and the Qin Empire is out to conquer the six kingdoms. This makes its king a target for assassination. However, one man has single-handedly ensured the safety of the king, by killing the three most notorious assassins in the land. Treated as a hero, he is summoned for an audience with the king.Written by
grantss
Tony Chiu-Wai Leung tore a ligament while filming the lake scenes. The filming was delayed for just one day and then resumed. See more »
Goofs
(at around 3 mins) At the beginning when Nameless first walks into the courtyard and the camera pans back and forth you can clearly see the line of soldiers is only a couple of people deep. It is possible to see daylight between their legs, however when shot is shown from above the fact the entire scene is filled with soldiers would have made this impossible. 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.
247 of 299 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.