The Violence
How's the violence in this movie? I'm not a wuss or anything, I just dig movie violence!
shareit's no bloodbath. it's measured and used only when needed. the film is mostly story driven with plenty of dialog.
share[deleted]
The violence is unusual for a gangster film in that the killings are performed in the most awkward and time consuming ways possible - no guns. It doesn't make killing look easy, and doesn't glamorize it either. There are a few scenes that might be hard to take but nothing like Casino, for example.
share[deleted]
no body in HK own a gun, this is not america. most gun fight in film is not realistic
share. . . in that the killings are performed in the most awkward and time consuming ways possibleFor example (many times) repeatedly smashing a rock on someone's head, which, however, miraculously left the victim's head in tact, although he was dead of course. share
Actually he wasn't dead...surprisingly.
**SPOILERS**
when Lok was dragging D's body to the grave, he was still moving. Even when he was burying him you could see him move around a little. He was buried alive.
Brian, there's a message in my AlphaBits. It says "OOOOOO".
Peter, those are Cheerios.
Actually he wasn't dead...surprisingly.Looks like I will have to re-watch this then . . . share
it's not prominent. I thought at first that Tony Leung just moved by accident and they left it in, but once he reached the grave you can see his arm move more then "accidentally" and when Lok starts shoveling the dirt on his face he blows a little out of his mouth. (enough to warrant a cut from the director I would think.)
Brian, there's a message in my AlphaBits. It says "OOOOOO".
Peter, those are Cheerios.
I watched this a few days ago and when he was dragged to the grave I watched intently as I was sure he was going to move but he doesn't. Also take a look at the color of his face, its drained white. If he moves its an accident.
Lok wouldn't have left behind a non-dead man while he went to kill his wife.
He was definitely moving. I agree with Death. First I thought it was an accident, but I'm convinced the guy was buried alive.
Lok wouldn't have left behind a non-dead man while he went to kill his wife.
Lok hit him about a half a dozen times in the head with a huge rock... I doubt he was going to go anywhere, dead or alive. share
As someone else said in another thread
...In the original shot (not in the film), he tried to "act" dead, but the dirt kept entering his ear and nose holes and mouth, which made his body reacted involuntarily.
In the script, it was supposed to be just a long-distance shot of Yam dragging Tony's body up the slope only (this scene is in the film), but director Johnny To decided to film an unscripted close-up of Tony showing--slowly and barely--signs of life. You could see him blinking groggily in this part.
So that when he was in the grave (for a new shot), he was allowed to react naturally--moving his head and (as Leung demonstrated in the interview) his hand twitching--to show that although he was clearly severely injured, he was still alive. This was supposed to show the horror of him being buried alive.
I'm no forensic pathologist, but I feel like the last two scenes of violence, the stabbing of the upstart gang leader and the bludgeoning of Big D (not so much his wife, however) were a bit dragged out. I can't help but feel they took a remarkable amount of damage before finally going into shock or just plain dying. Though the bludgeoning scene wouldnt have been nearly as powerful in half as many blows, and I definitely am not craving blood for such a dignified film, I couldn't help but feel "Wouldn't there be at least a smudge of blood on the rock?" I'll forgive the fact that it probably would have crashed in his skull with that many blows, but the no blood whatsoever was definitely strange, especially with the force and momentum Lok appeared to have.
"You are the Duke of New York! You are A # 1!"