PTU

I don't agree with Philay Chan at all. I mean, are you digging at the acting and minor stuff like score (score's not important in this movie. There isn't even a score in most of the scenes) just because everyone love this movie and applauded that night and you want to sound A LITTLE DIFFERENT?

I am not asking you to like this film when you don't, but the basis of your analysis is rather weak. I mean, I won't say the acting is brilliant, but it's definitely not spoiling the film.

Apparently, "P.T.U." is about the plot, the visuals, the humor, and most important of all, the minimalistic approach Johnnie To used to tell his story.

I will give it 4 out of 5 stars. Yes, it's not a masterpiece, but I was surprised to see that the only comment we have here is a negative one. This film is a great witty popcorn flick.

We meet the PTU on one of their worse nights. Chasing a suspect, a police sergeant loses his gun, and streets away, the son of a crime lord is stabbed to death in a small restaurant. We follow the PTU in their attempts to both find the policeman's weapon and prevent the fallout from the murder escalating. While it sounds an intriguing premise, PTU is not the pacey action-thriller you might expect, but is instead a slow, dark, and tense journey through the HK underworld.

Some scenes are brilliant, the use of harsh light and almost omnipresent shadow works well, effectively capturing the mood of the underworld. There's some real artistry here, and it's for that reason that the pacing frequently seems to be a little slow; the scenes look so good that the camera lingers on them for perhaps too long, causing pacing issues in some sections. However, it does work well in terms of suspense as the film builds towards its inevitably violent conclusion.

On a negative note, the music is terrible, and significantly dates a film that's only four years old. You have to wonder if they ran out of action movie ambiance sounds and just hit the classic cheese guitar button instead, but I guess that's just an Eastern film meets Western audience convention clash. It does however, in my opinion, completely undermine the final scene, which comes across as faintly ridiculous instead of as a dramatic release.

While it suffers from pacing and score issues, PTU's style and sense of tragic irony are enough to make it enjoyable if not quite essential viewing.

I saw a screening of PTU at UCLA tonight, with the director (and his translator) in attendance. I found the film to be a bit slow in spots, but I was willing to go along with the deliberate pace and slow burn of the film. I think in this country we're way too spoiled on visual chaos, with most studio films thrusting a car chase or a slapstick joke in our face every two minutes or so. It doesn't have to be that way. The film was shot beautifully and there is a quiet cool about the whole thing, very reminiscent of a Lee Marvin vibe as someone else here pointed out.

To did stay to answer questions after the movie, and although this did not alter my opinion of the film it did make me appreciate it even more. It was shot over the course of two years, while he would stop to make other commercial films; some actors gain or lose weight on screen! The budget only came out to $400k U.S. Several of the actors were actually crew people from his other films. One person asked him how he made his cinematography choices (i.e. the constant pools of light) and he laughed and said it was strictly budgetary; they couldn't afford to dress every set and they only had a few overhead lights, so voila! I think the limitations of what they had to work with only make the film stronger, much like Jaws is a better movie because the shark always broke down.

This Hong Kong policier is a classic of its kind, a technically updated version of what America has not produced in fifty years. Lloyd Nolan or Lee Marvin could walk on at any time. Tough cops and tough criminals beat each other up without whining. It is ultra cool and thoroughly enjoyable without asking any earth-shattering questions. The only way to not like it is to not like the genre.

I'm convinced that much of film is reverberation from the phenomenon of noir. The key element of noir was a capricious fate that both played arbitrary havoc with lives and flavored the eye of the camera.

I am not thoroughly steeped in Hong Kong work, but there seem to be three main communities: the deeply cinematic experimentalists led by Kar-wai, the stylistic ballet of Woo and company and the neo-noirists. Unfortunately, these can superficially appear similar in many respects. But I think here we have a clear case of the third.

The game is dark. Everyone seems to think they are in charge, but no one is. Luck plays the key role and many coincidences appear. The camera eye is based on the long lens.

I'm beginning to appreciate cinematographers who exploit either the long or short lens. I think it is impossible to do noir with a short lens because it is so obvious that the eye is within the space of action. But few noir films go so far, so long as this one.

Forget the story, which is only to convey the accidents and lack of control (except for the central scene where one character tries to get another to rub a tattoo off his neck). And forget the characters; they are just tokens borrowed from other movies. Just revel in the philosophy here: why does a world exist where everything is a matter of chance, but you as the viewer always, always happen to be in the right place to see everything?

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.