Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Updates:

Red Cliff (2008)

Director: John Woo

Time Out rating

Average user rating

17 reviews

Synopsis

Hollywood action maestro John Woo heads home for this historical epic.

Movie review

From Time Out London

The Battle of Red Cliff occupies a similar place in Chinese folklore to the Arthurian legends in our own: a sprawling epic narrative with roots in historical fact, retold so many times that any resemblance to reality has been lost. Drawing on myriad sources – from ancient myths to modern archaeological studies – John Woo’s grandiose take on the material aims for the middle ground between action fantasy and gritty historical war epic.

Buoyed by a string of military victories, power-hungry prime minister Cao Cao (Fengyi Zhang) sets his sights on the lush, fragile kingdom of Wu. But he’s reckoned without the strategic brilliance of Zhou Yu (Tony Leung) and Zhuge Liang (Takeshi Kaneshiro), who lure Cao Cao’s army into the titular gorge, setting the stage for a desperate last-ditch battle.
In Asia, ‘Red Cliff’ was released in two parts, totalling almost five hours. At half that length, this international cut ditches personal interplay and political intrigue in favour of battles and bloodshed. Not that Woo dumps character altogether: aided by a fine cast, he ensures that the central figures are distinct and memorable.

But the film’s focus is on spectacle, and here Woo delivers, if not in quite the majestic fashion one might have anticipated. Grand set-pieces abound, from a stunning hilltop battle to the climactic fire-and-brimstone bloodbath, but there’s little we’ve not seen before. Nevertheless, as old-fashioned mythic entertainment, ‘Red Cliff’ succeeds in solid, sometimes magnificent fashion.

Author: Tom Huddleston 2009-06-09 10:47:13

Time Out London Issue 2025, June 11 - 17, 2009

Bookmark

User reviews of this film

usman khawaja said...

Posted on Jul 01 2009 05:15 visually dazzling and extremely well acted though the ending is rather a let down but it was rivetting to watch despite the subtitles and the mediocre finale .
the earlier part evolves to a tremendous middle act where the marital tension ,royal intrigues ,rebellion and marauding armies provide immensely entertaining and emotionally stimulating sequences that are profoundly impressive and the spectacle is intelligent and logical too when compared to other similar efforts but john woo loses his nerve and settles for a spielberg style ending which is rather annoying but still it does raise some provoking queries about human freedom and struggle for justice in a grand period epic from the middle kingdom .

Report as inappropriate
debbie chapman said...

Posted on Jun 21 2009 19:35 What a fantastic film! it had everything-history of tactics used, excitemnet, dishy looking main characters, agreat storyline that kept you gripped, humour and a little bit of romance between a couple who are married--all three of us who went loved it.
I will be buying this film when it comes out on dvd.

Report as inappropriate
Andy Simpson said...

Posted on Jun 20 2009 15:44 Just commenting on the film: The film it's self is a great example of what tactics the army's of those days used to use, which was great to see, as well as the great leaders talking to each other about battle tactics and the older ways in which people "predicted" events such as the weather.
overall this is a great film, gripping storylines with plenty of action.

Report as inappropriate
bridget said...

Posted on Jun 20 2009 12:56 A very stylish film which you expect of John Woo. Enjoyed this film immensely, beautiful scenery and the scale of the fight scenes were quite amazing. Definitely worth going to see much just take a cushion as my behind was numb come the end!!

Report as inappropriate
YPei said...

Posted on Jun 16 2009 16:37 In China, the movie's split into parts 1 and 2, with lots more scenes, compressing the movie into one is a bit too much.
If they do a Blu-ray, then I would want the whole uncut version on it.

Report as inappropriate
erskinegal said...

Posted on Jun 16 2009 15:49 Is it possible to review the revievers?? None of the reviews were helpful at all regarding an honest opinion of the movie. The reviewers were caught up in their own pedantic and facile personal attacks on each other. What does that have to do with Red Cliff as a movie?

Report as inappropriate
dave calhoun said...

Posted on Jun 16 2009 09:40 And, I must say, I appreciate Meticulous's comments - it's important that everyone has their say and raises debate about the site. Not least because it helps us to develop.
Dave, Film Editor

Report as inappropriate
meticulous said...

Posted on Jun 16 2009 08:58 There's no "conspiracy" here and I brought the issue up purely because I genuinely regard Time Out as one of the finest resources of film reviews available anywhere online.

Report as inappropriate
Paul said...

Posted on Jun 15 2009 10:06 I will stick to just giving my assessment of this film and ask others take their rants elsewhere as I just want to read about films and not net-flames. I enjoyed this film once I took it to give me a concatenation of illustrated examples of Sun Tzu's The Art Of War, the book getting a mention in the film. Given the size of the cast and armies of extras, some of the scenes and the effects appear too low budget, whereas other simpler ones worked really well. Reminiscent of Bodrov's Mongol, if you enjoyed that film, you will enjoy this one too. I hope we get the chance to see the full length version of Red Cliff one day as the Brits do have the attention span if others don't. One could critique this film for all sorts of reasons, but it is a wonderful story of military tactics and strategy in action, Sun Tzu style.

Report as inappropriate
Jon said...

Posted on Jun 12 2009 21:01 I don't think meticulous understands how advertising operates on the internet. It attempts to be targeted and relevant, and often in an automated way. There's always a conspiracy theorist waiting to post! Boring.

Report as inappropriate
dave calhoun said...

Posted on Jun 11 2009 15:48 Meticulous - The point you make below about reviews and very visible advertising sitting so near to each other and the possible perception of that proximity is a far more sensible comment than your last post which did, despite your protests, suggest that our reviews are 'untrustworthy', which I'm bound to dispute. I accept your point about the reviews-ad alignment and assure you that we'll discuss it internally.
Thanks
Dave

Report as inappropriate
meticulous said...

Posted on Jun 11 2009 15:42 If you take offence because someone chooses to review the context of your reviews I can only assume you have far thinner skin than many of the artists you critique. No-one is accusing you, or anyone else, of "wrongdoing". I fully accept your explanation and used the word "ostensibly" advisedly, but I can't understand for the life of me why it's so difficult for you to see that the incredibly overwrought background advertising here is undermining the credibility of your reviews. Just as you wouldn't likely trust an "impartial" review of a restaurant sponsored by that restaurant itself, I see no reason why Time Out readers should be asked to think any differently.

Report as inappropriate
dave calhoun said...

Posted on Jun 11 2009 14:49 Meticulous - I'm glad that you pay such close attention to our film site. But saddened that you think our reviews and advertising are in any way linked. To shine some light on the process for your benefit: I commission reviews from independent reviewers (in this case from Tom, a staffer) and I print them unaltered (apart from editing, subbing etc). Not only do I commission them from independent minds, but I never, ever suggest a reviewer should swing one way or the other. Nor do I know who is or isn't going to be advertising in the mag or on the website - very often until, as in this case, the ad itself appears. We run many ads, both in the mag and on the site. Take a closer look over the longer term and you'll notice that there's no link between reviews and advertising. I take offence at the suggestion of any wrongdoing and I can assure that our reviews are 100% unswayed by any commercial considerations. If that wasn't the case, I wouldn't do the job.
Dave Calhoun
Film Editor

Report as inappropriate
meticulous said...

Posted on Jun 11 2009 14:41 This is getting ridiculous. First an ostensibly sponsored four star review with mediocre wordage, now an ostensibly sponsored three star review without a critical word to say about the film. This site is becoming outrageously untrustworthy.

Report as inappropriate
sam khan said...

Posted on May 03 2009 14:44 hi! danny how r u .............i love u r all movies u r the best actor .i can use 1 word 4 u perfect

Report as inappropriate