Lung foo fung wan

City On Fire is a fine HongKong-actionmovie about a cop, who goes undercover to arrest a bunch of criminals. Chow Yun-Fat plays the cop with his usual style and class. Director Ringo Lam has created an explosive actionmovie that inspired Tarantino to make "Reservoir Dogs". Good story, good action and good actors! 8,5/10

It took me a long time to finally get a hold of this film. it was worth the wait. Ringo lam is one of the most original directors out of hong kong. this is the finest work of his that i've seen. chow yun-fat worked very hard for the best actor award he got for this film. and danny lee ain't bad either. Ringo Lam's handling of the action is where this movie really shines. it is brutal in the fashion of an old Walter Hill or Peckenpah film, realistic and frightening. hong kong is displayed more accurately than i have ever seen in a movie, with its streets crowded till they appear ready to burst. in the final robbery sequence, the streets appear to be impenetrably thick. it is just a reminder that hong kong has more than four times the population density of new york city. many people have accused tarantino of ripping off this movie, and claim that reservior dogs is an exact copy. first of all tarantino gives credit to chow yun-fat as an influence at the start of the screenplay for reservior dogs. second of all the entire movie of reservior dogs is a expansion of a ten minute sequence near the end of the movie. and over here it is done totally different. so lay off of him mkay.

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 sought out this film once I learned it was a major inspiration Reservoir Dogs, which I already loved. After seeing City on Fire, I have to say I have even more respect for Tarantino now than I did before. City on Fire is a very good film with its own merits, which many people have already mentioned; however, to call Reservoir Dogs a rip-off of City on Fire insults both films. They are two separate films, telling different stories in different ways. Tarantino took the few most compelling elements of City on Fire, and then built an entirely different film around them. This is certainly an inspiration that deserves credit, but it is Tarantino's skill as a writer and director, as well as the amazing actors, that made Reservoir Dogs as great as it is. Even the most directly lifted scene, the Mexican stand-off, is an entirely different experience in each film. The way it is framed, the dialogue, and the resolutions are unique to each. Both films have their own strengths and weaknesses, and deserve to be judged independently. Don't lump them together by criticizing one great film for being inspired by another.