Hong tan xian sheng

So much of this film reminds me of Fellini's work. One could almost say it's sort of a tribute to his theme and style of existentialism. Could it have been too on the nose? No I would say as it sure does have its own original strokes to it where the story unfolds culturally within its own unique way. It's hard for one to empathize with Andy Lau's character unless one has been through an acceptable level of understanding of what it takes to make a film. It's tough walking a fine line trying to achieve something great while still being able to keep all parties satisfied without having to sacrifice the true integrity of an epic art piece. A balancing act that few people could ever comprehend. Some films are ahead of their time, this might just be one of those, just like Wong Kar-Wai's films, this piece might not find its true value and recognition within the audience until a future date.

I respectfully agree with the other reviewer who gave it 3 stars, but I chose to gave a 5 for some (but very few) highlights/funny bits in this movie. I understand that Ning was trying to be innovative and creating something new however this is not a fun or compelling story at all. The whole script is boring and dreadful and we very much indeed agree that we couldn't wait for this movie to end. Ning is one of my favorite director but this is just not a good piece of him.

My partner said it's a total waste of time and it feels like Ning merged lots of different story lines into one movie however he can't even tell one story right and just didn't finish any of them properly.

Andy Lau is great actor, as always, although this character isn't too difficult for him to play I guess.

This film attempts to convey grand ideas but ultimately remains confined within its own limitations. It appears as though an inexperienced director was granted a substantial budget to create a movie without adequately refining the final product.

Director Hao Ning, with the assistance of Andy Lau, places excessive emphasis on personal expression, thereby undermining the overall structural coherence of the film.

In comparison to its peers, the movie poses several pertinent questions regarding the film industry that merit consideration. Observers have pointed out that the primary theme revolves around satirizing our society's obsession with celebrity culture, which in turn fosters a pervasive sense of narcissism among public figures. This observation may indeed hold a significant degree of truth.

This was a bad movie in short, saw it at TIFF and it was painfully slow. It felt like it went on for hours. My friends who also came along also thought it was awful. It had some nice visuals at times but nothing to make the movie worth watching.

It has some scenes which are supposed to be funny, but they weren't funny at all...maybe it's an acquired taste but it was like a throwback to old slapstick comedy wxpcept not done well...the acting was OK but the storyline was really not worthy. It didn't flow and the characters you felt no attachment too whatsoever.

We couldn't wait for it to be over.

A wickedly funny and very meta portrayal of the modern HK film industry. I deeply appreciate it when films try to be detailed and have their own voice and a sense of place - and this one is VERY deeply positioned in the present moment, many elements of which wouldn't have made sense even 5 years ago.

After all, it is the kind of film which has the main characters practically pray the director of Parasite will find something else to do when they discuss their own film's chances at the international film festivals. The kind of film where the leads get confused for health inspectors when surreptitiously showing up on an unsanitary pig farm uninvited - with everything about the scene evoking what we have learned about the wet markets since 2020. They are there because they want to be inspired to properly depict "rural grit" - which is rightly called out by the local official as an indulgence in poverty porn, their disappointment that the countryside around HK refused to stand in place in "pristine" deprivation nothing but perverse.

Meanwhile, their film's chief sponsor is a vaporware electric car company led by a supremely arrogant techbro - again, something that would have been difficult to imagine even in mid-2010s, yet now a reality both in the U. S. (brand names such as Nicola and Faraday have truly notorious tales to tell) and moreso in the PRC, which invested deeply and profusely into the sector. The protagonist is occasionally interrupted by his smart watch telling him to get up and start moving, since "Movement is life". Last but not least, multiple conversations are held while TV screens display footage from the Ukraine War in the background.

And as a story, this tale of an actor truly in love with his craft and looking to secure his legacy, yet also struggling against his arrogance and other character flaws is very, very thorny and ambiguous. The main character is often in the wrong, yet even his good intentions can backfire - and sometimes vice versa, while the outsiders cannot really tell the difference. The dramatic parallel between their historical film's script and the events outside it may be a little too cute at times in terms of ignored epiphanies, but then again, that is generally the purpose of such (consider the pirate comic in Watchmen.)

Here, Andy Lau may not be LITERALLY playing himself in the script, but he does compete against the literal Jackie Chan (even as it had become an "I don't think about you at all" situation for Jackie.) And the leitmotif here is taken from "In the Mood for Love", Lau's best-known work, ironically recalling the past glory he is struggling to reach again.

I don't know if I can keep going any further without crossing into the spoiler territory. Suffice it to say - there is a reason why, in a year where I saw some 70 films, this was one of my handful of perfect scores.