Very best movie i ever watch

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

For those who have seen the likes of Braveheart, 300 and Gladiator can go into this movie expecting a Chinese version of all three films. Criticized for bland and scatter-shot characterization by many while screening in Asia, I for one loved it.This is an ancient story known to most children in the Far East: in the Three Kingdoms period, numerous warlords partition China and the eventual result boils down to three major ones: Liu Bei, Sun Quan and Cao Cao, who was also the Prime Minister, and de facto ruler of the country. When Cao Cao was on the verge of conquering all of China, a joint force of Liu Bei and Sun Quan engaged him in a naval battle at Red Cliff and defeated him by burning his entire fleet with the aid of the wind.So famous, and so quoted is this story in the Far East, that one would be surprised that this film adaptation is nothing but formulaic. It is almost a twist, a turnabout, on the formula of the "Big Man History" format that has dogged Hollywood epics, the whole idea that one man can inspire thousands to affect a series of triumphs. In this movie, that is entirely changed. Like Milton in "Paradise Lost", this film seems to be "of the devil's party", and it may jolly well know it, even if slyly.The Devil here refers to the villain of the piece, Cao Cao, who also happens to be the most well-drawn character in the movie. Historically known as one of the wisest and most beneficent rulers of the day, his Machiavellian hardball politics at odds with China's Confucian orthodoxy ("holding the Emperor hostage, commanding the nobles.") have however tarnished his reputation among Confucian scholars, and here both sides of his nature are acknowledged. Power-hungry, passionate and cunning, but not without a sense of humor. This is a man who composes classic poems as he leads his troops into battle, laughs as he sends diseased corpses into enemy camps as germ warfare, and kills anyone that he so much as suspects of disloyalty. As the movie proceeds on through a series of maneuvers and counter-maneuvers by both sides, what falls Cao Cao and results in his eventual defeat (an ending known to most children in the Pacific Rim) is precisely that monstrous ego. He commands front and centre among his troops to the extent that all those around him never get a chance to shine. His monstrous ego and overwhelming power cause him to ignore or steamroll over good advice, and is key to his downfall, down to very last decisive second. In spite of his intelligence and charisma, because no one enforces checks on his power, no one is there to correct his mistakes.Far from the case in the armies of Liu Bei or Sun Quan, Cao Cao's rivals. Within their groups, there is a division of labor, and both Sun Quan and Liu Bei are intelligent, charismatic but not egotistical. In such a situation power is at least checked within the group and tempered by a sense of mutual respect and honor, in contrast to the unwavering loyalty and obedience that Cao Cao demands of his troops. Loyalty towards the group in this case is not co-existing with loyalty to the leader. It is this mutual respect and this ability to pool good ideas and listen to good advice, that ultimate leads Sun Quan and Liu Bei to victory.What do you know! Chinese cinema has just produced in the form of a historical epic, an impassioned allegory for the advantages of democracy. This movie is at the same time a great showing-up of the oddly undemocratic nature of the Hollywood historical epic, with its "Big Man"-centred heroic narratives.This may be John Woo's cleverest and most understatedly subversive film yet.

I was so disgusted with Part 1, I didn't even bother going to the cinema to catch Part 2, and I have just watched Part 2 on DVD. I wish I'd done the reverse instead! although Part 2 is still marred with some of the irritatingly dumb dialogue, completely gratuitous, made up stories and "cute" characters and unnecessary "art" touches (John Woo calling Oscars...), it contains less fillers and the lavish production is amply showcased.Perhaps the fact that I sat through Part 1 inoculated me from the effects in Part 2, or maybe Woo heeded the audience's complaints and cut out more of the cr*p.Two outstanding elements that made the film worth watching - the actor who plays Cao Cao and the set with all the grand battle scenes. It got too pyrotechnical for me, but it screams money.There are plot lines that are quite unbelievable - as I'm not that familiar with the true historical context, I cannot ascertain if they actually took place, but a brilliant tactician like Cao Cao surely would not be as gullible as the film portrayed?In the end, there were far more interesting secondary characters with their subplots in the original history, not to mention the novel itself, without John Woo having to fabricate and invent paper thin ones with their equally shallow "stories". It also leads to an uneven script - alternating between brilliant prose from the novel and other classics and "dumbed down" meaningless drivel and "jokes" thought up by less refined modern minds. These "touches" irritate any audience who has a good knowledge of the original - they would feel insulted. I saw partial episodes of those made for TV series produced in China, very much less glamorous and low budget, but ultimately intelligent and engaging.For an audience with no inkling of the original, Red Cliff 2 - with less of those "Meng Meng" moments and more scenes from the tactical battles - is probably entertaining and satisfying enough. This I gathered from the feedback of others. Thus, I'm giving it 7 stars in my attempt to stay objective to the best of my ability.

Picking up immediately after the end of the first film (There is a brief recap during the opening credits but don't think its going to get you up to speed if you haven't seen the first film.) the two opposing armies still sit across the river from each other. The "evil" prime minister with his vast army and navy waits across the water waiting for the right time to strike the assembled warlords from the South. The Warlords on the other hand are drawing up their final plans. They are waiting for more weapons to arrive and for one of their own to return from the enemy camp with vital intelligence. As the film get under way alliances are tested, the dire need of weapons is made clear and typhoid begins to get a foot hold in both camps. As the first 90 or so minutes of the film unfolds the stage is set and things are amped up for a battle that last the better part of an hour and is utterly exhausting.As a stand alone film, (one that stands alone but is connected to the first film, but not one that you can come upon on its own and hope to understand fully) this is awesome. Its takes a while to get reacquainted to all of the characters and plot lines but once you get a grasp again on every one and everything the film is truly compelling. This is a spectacle and an epic film that puts most Hollywood films to shame. The size of this film is massive. Its clear that most of what you are seeing is real, the people, the places are all real. Yes there is CGI, particularly in the final battle, but then there would have to be simply because you couldn't have done it any other way. I honestly don't have words to describe this film.To be honest I was a bit disappointed at the start because the film takes a while to get to the battle.Its not that there is anything wrong with the timing, except that when the first film ended I would have thought the battle was going to quickly come. As I said earlier it takes 90 minutes for the battle to actually start, but the time isn't wasted. Characters that were not as well drawn in the first film are fleshed out here. Plot is revealed, twists exposed. and we as the audience is made to connect more. Its all for a reason. I was a bit fidgety in my seat for a while until I realized that it was simply wanting to get to the final show down not because of what was on the screen. I mean how can one quibble where you have sequences like the burning of the bodies, the hospital speech, the scarecrows, or the return of the spy all of which are perfectly constructed set pieces. On top of that you have the wonderful interplay between the characters that makes the final sequence all that more emotional. Once I realized I was being stupid the film fell into place.This is simply put a great film. It needs to be seen on a big screen close to the first part.---------- Red Cliff as a whole (both parts) is I think one of the best films I've ever seen. Its an awesome experience. I know I keep saying that but I don't know what else to say. Its a nicely paced five hour film that has fully rounded characters (something it may take the full run time to see happen), fantastic action, deep emotion and almost anything you could want. I don't know how deep the film is but as a "romance" film, in the classical sense, its truly amazing. John Woo has made a masterpiece, though on some level even that is too small a word. Its a film that is only really comparable to films like War and Peace, Lord of the Rings and a handful of others where film becomes an immersion tank. You are dropped in this place and time and for many hours the world passes before your eyes. Its one of those films where you can't even really talk about the flaws because they are so inconsequential (and to be fair some of the things that bothered me about the first film, lack of character for example, are corrected in the large canvas). Even if one were to quibble with some of the visual effects, its kind of pointless because there is no way to have filmed a navy on fire on the scale its seen here with anything other then computer effects.How in the world are they going to cut this in half? I don't know if its possible. There will be holes in the plot and way too many unrealized characters. In releasing this as a sort film they are going to make a lesser film. Certainly all of the emotion will be drained.John Woo has made his best film, a film that transcends most other films.See it- preferably in its full glory.ADDENDUM:The International (all in one version) If you can see the full two part film. The all in on version loses about 75 or 80 minutes from the first film and a little less from this one. Everything is reduced from the scope and amount of action, to character development and some plot. Characters are missing and things are often confused. The short version rates between 6 and 7 out of 10. Trust me its worth it to see the full version.

Red Cliff, the film by John Woo based on the epic battle of Romance of the Three Kingdoms is divided into two parts. While the first was engaging in its depiction of such historical characters in Cao Cao, Zhuge Liang and Zhou Yu, the second is all about war itself, which can be a little daunting to some. But that is just how war is.You see, war is not about a spontaneous fight between two opposing parties. It has nothing to do with sword wielding 'cling clang' or battle cries and fistfights. The distinction has to be made since war is by far a larger context than a battle, although war itself consists many. In Red Cliff II we will see what is at play when war is raged. It cannot be pretty can it? But it can as this is the romanticized version of history and on screen John Woo made it even prettier.The cast is strong with Tony Leung Chiu-wai as viceroy Zhou Yu, Takeshi Kaneshiro as adviser Zhuge Liang and Zhang Fengyi as Cao Cao, to name just a few. The list is long. A good cast will more often than not up the aesthetical appeal to a movie. For the female audience, Tony Leung charms with his manly portrayal of Zhou Yu, and Takeshi Kaneshiro is always a pleasure to watch as he liven every scene with wit and humor. For the male audience, it is the childlike yet seriousness of Zhao Wei as Sun Shangxiang, and Lin Chi-ling's poise and compassion as Xiao Qiao that allures.But can war really be pretty? If you think that killing each other is a good way to express beauty then perhaps you can be on the same page as the tyranny Cao Cao. In part 1, where the emphasis of battle was on land with a very elaborate tactic devised by Zhuge Liang, here in part 2 we witness the battle at sea, physically and psychologically.Back to the main topic of war, it is crucial that victory must be sorted as numerous lives are heavily at stake, whether or not these lives are valued or not, be they as added numbers or as friends. In war the emphasis is on strategies and tactics to win. And on strategies and tactics, I guess we no doubt have to consult Sun Tzu's The Art of War and also take reference to The 36 Stratagems.I can refer that the epic battle of Red Cliff has two points that stood out when referenced to The Art of War and that is The Attack By Fire and The Use Of Spies.Recorded in the 36 stratagems is the use of the enemy's own spy to sow discord in the enemy's camp by Zhou Yu. This famous move is of correlation to The Art of War where it is stated as having converted spies, getting hold of the enemy's spies and using them for our own purposes. In war all can be done, there can be no holds barred because any weakness can be exploited by the enemy. Zhou Yu can be said to have brilliantly disposed off of Cao Cao's main strategic threat because Cao Cao slain both his most dependable generals who are most versed in sea battles.When 50,000 has to fight 200,000, who could blame Zhou Yu for such tactics, especially when Cao Cao first provoked by sending dead soldiers across to Zhou Yu's side on wooden rafts, knowing that disease spread through this mean can greatly weaken his enemy.The other account decisive of the battle of Red Cliff is the Chain Strategem, although modified by John Woo in its depiction, with the key in Lin Chi-ling's character, Xiao Qiao.It is interesting to sit through 141 minutes witnessing a romanticized version of John Woo's Red Cliff. Personally I didn't feel that it was long, however to some who wanted to see a Lord of the Ring's type battle on screen could be disappointed.Sun Tzu's The Art of War states that the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple before the war is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but a few calculations before hand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.The point of war however is that in war everybody loses. This should be what John Woo's Red Cliff is trying to tell us. I agree wholeheartedly with water in my eyes.