City on Fire

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.

I saw Reservoir dogs and thought that it is one the best films I had ever seen. And it is a good film but, then I saw City On Fire and could not believe the likeness between the two films. Now even though they Reservoir Dogs ends different the bulk of the film is what Ringo Lam did with City on Fire except since City on Fire is longer Lam gave the characters more of a story and made the viewer feel for both sides of the law he also put the notion to the viewer what would you do you were a criminal and your best friend who you thought was on your side turned out to be a policeman or to put that in a more everyday circumstance what would you do if you thought someone was your best friend and they turned out to be using you.

I have seen this movie and it really shows Chow Yun Fat's acting ability. The story is great and director Ringo Lam really shows how life is between opposite sides of the law.

This movie is the predecessor of many American movie storylines in which an undercover cop, in his effort to assimilate to the world of crime, loses himself. "Donnie Brasco" and "Rush" are such movies with a similar theme.

Tarantino very obviously lifted the plot for his "Reservoir Dogs," even though Tarantino's movie is more notable for its snappy dialogues and unbearable torture sequences. "City on Fire" develops the characters more, and gives them a background.

But other than that, the major difference between the 2 movies is that, ultimately, there's a very different take on the notions of honor, loyalty, and brotherhood - I was surprised by both endings, in very different ways.

This movie is also a good companion piece to "The Killer" by John Woo. Chow Yun-Fat and Danny Lee star in both movies, but in reversed roles of cop and thief.

When an undercover officer is killed after being found out by a brutal gang, his inspector approaches ex-police officer Chow to renew his links and get himself into the gang. Chow supplies the gang with guns to prove he is `one of them', however as the job approaches, a special unit of the police begins to close in on the gang and put Chow at risk.

I didn't watch this film because it was the inspiration for Reservoir Dogs. No, I watched it because I'm a big Chow Yun Fat fan and I'm watching some of his films to get me in the mood for Bullet-Proof Monk. This film is a really good introduction to Hong Kong style, the focus is very much on the style without too much in the way of underlying currents and such. For information, Reservoir Dogs really only focuses on the final part of the film, whereas Longhu Fengyun covers longer story where we always know who the cop is. This takes away a little bit from the thrills but the film makes it up with style.

Everyone has cool sunglasses, the direction is slick and the action moves quite well. The final standoff is good but generally the film is quite exciting and moves along smoothly. Chow Yun Fat is a great star and here he shows why he is such a big star. He has emotional depth yet is comical and likeable, he is tough and an action star but yet he is not some distant muscle-bound hunk that is outside of reality. The rest of the cast are all good but it is difficult to judge performances when it is all subtitled (I find it hard anyway), however there are no weak links.

Overall this is a stylish thriller from Hong Kong. It is stylish but doesn't fall into the HK formula with slow-mo and such. Don't watch it because you're a Tarantino fan – watch it because it's a solid crime thriller in it's own right.