Change Your Image
awdracer
Reviews
Bo chi tung wah (2008)
Original was better, IMO, but the remake is not bad.
Reading the reviews on here where they are bashing the original leads me to think there's some Asian biasness. I've seen both and I can honestly say that the original is better but that's not to say that the other film is "bad and stupid", unlike all the other reviewers' style of commentary.
Some reviews critique Chris Evans' character and compare and contrast with that of Louis Koo's character, which is totally fine but they also fail to illustrate the diverging choices made by two different directors in the two movies. They are not identical even if their story for the most part remains unchanged. Since there are far too many differences to list them all here, I have decided to narrow down some particulars.
Both Chris Evans and Louis Koo's characters face intense pressure in their respective movies. In the original, there is humour, there is danger and there is fun. Connected, on the other hand, is much more serious and I don't really remember a whole lot of humour in it. Both films do have their moments of adrenaline rushes which is what these movies should do.
There are some changes with regards to character. Louis Koo, unlike Chris Evans, is a father, with a son that he rarely gets to see, due to work. This movie also has a supporting character but she is actually blood-related to the main character, unlike the original "Cellular" movie.
While both movies have corrupt cops, the main character in "Cellular" does not actually meet the corrupt cop until the very end and even then he had good instincts to know who he was dealing with. Louis Koo's character on the other hand actually makes a near-fatal mistake in the washroom. The "Connected" director at the beginning of the movie questions the "plausibility" of some of the original film's scenes, yet he seems to be okay that the good guy is totally allowed to live after being surrounded by dirty cops in an enclosed washroom. Because that will truly happen in real life too - especially if you are holding evidence against them.
To me, it seems like the director of Connected has a bit of a hate-on for the original movie and wanted to one-up it, when in reality, they should be looked as if they are two different films with a similar type of script. If you like a fun flick with a decent story and a "feel good" movie, go with "Cellular". If you like a more serious story with character development, watch "Connected".
But to me, I think both movies deserve to be watched at least once.
Chum chun gei (2001)
Great series!
If you want to learn a little bit of history and get laughs at the same time (the series does a good job of trying to make things as accurate as possible), you definitely should take a look at this. The series is offered in both Mandarin and Cantonese languages, with English subtitles.
The main character, Xiang Shao Long (or aka. Hong Siu Long) is offered an opportunity to go back to the past via time machine. This is what the series calls a "step into the past". He lives through some of the historical events, including the coronation of Ying Zheng (or aka. Ying Jing). Since he has background knowledge of history, he is able to "predict" things that are going to happen. In addition to living in the past, he is able to bring back many of the things he has gained from the future, which gives things a certain twist. Xiang Shao Long, the main character is extremely charismatic with his knowledge of a great deal of things. And while he knows a lot about common things (since he came from the future, and he brought back things to the past), the joke is that he cannot read the special characters, which sort of highlights the idea of lost history and language.
Without giving too much information away, this is the series in a nutshell. You can perhaps look at some "preview clips" of this series by looking up "A step into the past" in Youtube before deciding to buy the series, which is, in my opinion, a good way to use money.
Question of Privilege (1999)
I don't understand how the two attorneys play a role in this movie...
This was a movie I had high expectations for. It was a late-night movie, and I had just watched this last night, and I was given the information that they would "face-off in the courtroom", yet I saw nothing about a courtroom. I'm thinking of going to Law school in the future, and I was greatly disappointed by the movie's plot, for it was a misleading description and used methods of trickery to make me watch this. To the people who would consider watching this, AVOID.
The movie has two characters (mainly), who happen to be husband-and-wife attorneys. They have a child named Sarah, who plays almost no role in this movie, which is surprising because they didn't have to include her at all. The police detective, who don't seem a tiny bit intelligent while investigating the crimes. He doesn't ever seem to use his brain to find people, instead he points fingers at people based on very little evidence. This detective is not only terrible as a character, but terrible as a detective on all levels. Normal police detectives would go through evidence gathered from crime scenes (at least 3 people died in this movie), however the detective(s) from the movie FAIL to show that he/they are doing ANY work. (It really seems like this detective never does his homework).
Joel, the tallest and the oldest, of the young boys, is charged with the crime of killing a girl named Mary Wells, and sure enough, the police get a prosecutor (Carter) to argue that they were criminally responsible. Carter's wife, who is the other attorney, conflicts with him for the first 30 minutes of the movie, then she changes sides (she ultimately cost him his job because of some "evidence" she found and felt guilty throughout the movie). Later, she begins to doubt the innocence of Joel and the young boys, and maybe perhaps foul play was involved. (What kind of lawyer is this? She's hired as a defense attorney and then she doubts their innocence? What is she getting paid for then?) The husband got over his job predicament, and later he gets his job back. By the time, the movie was almost over, and later more people die, and the two lawyers (not the detective) are near the crime scene because they wanted to "talk" to Joel. Sure enough, they find the body of Joel, and if I'm not mistaken, the wife even touches Joel.
Overall, this movie had NOTHING to do with the courtroom. These attorneys didn't actually seem like attorneys because it does not correctly simulate what their job is really like. Who in the right mind would have husband and wife NOT in the same firm? The boss in the movie says of Carter's wife "You're a damn fine lawyer" (or something to that effect), yet we see no evidence of this. The acting was OK i guess, but the movie script and the plot is DEFINITELY lacking with information. The lawyers do nothing in court, which raises the question why they are placed in this movie in the first place. They play almost no role in determining crimes, that's for the police to deal with and they go to court about it, where the lawyers would investigate holes during the investigation. The opposing lawyers would then build up a case for their appropriate clients and go to court to battle it out. This movie contained nothing about it.
Avoid at all costs.