I don't know why, but people on imdb and elsewhere have been very critical of this film. Personally, as someone living in Hong Kong, I think it is both a well made and important film. At the end, the analogy of Gong Li's character starting again, as Hong Kong is starting again, worked well. I think perhaps the only drawback is Maggie Cheung's character, as it seems a little pointless. However, I like nearly everything Jeremy Irons is in - he is really one of the world's best actors. His characters are always people that I can somehow empathise with - they're always very believable and he really carries the film's themes. The idea of setting the film in the six months leading up to Hong Kong's July 1, 1997 handover works well. As Irons' character dies, so does British sovereignty - the Union Jack goes down, the last Governor cries, Gong Li shakes off her long-time sugar daddy. It's a captivating and well-told story of which the Director should be proud, although I read an interview with him a while ago, and he didn't want to talk about the film, since it's upset some people in Hong Kong, I think. This film is certainly better than most rubbish that's made in Hong Kong. I urge you to find a copy and see it.
Add a Review
-
daodao10 July 2002
-
TheLittleSongbird26 June 2019The story structure when looking it up sounded really interesting, well the whole concept did, and am a fan of Jeremy Irons (seeing that it was one of not many films of his not seen yet), so they were my two main reasons for seeing 'Chinese Box'. Was very intrigued too by the subject of the political change in the handover of the British rule of Hong Kong returning to China, and was impressed by the couple of clips found of it to give a taster of what to expect.
It is a shame that 'Chinese Box' is so overlooked and not very well known. It may not be one of Wayne Wang's best films or his most accessible, one of those divisive films that will test the patience of some if not familiar with what the film is trying to say and do and fascinate others. It was the latter with me, but it's not hard to see why 'Chinese Box' won't be for everyone. It is though to me one of his most intriguing films, in terms of the subject and the symbolism, and a contender for his most underrated (try not to throw that word around now but do feel it's apt here). With its subject too, it should be treated more importantly in my view as it does in some way strike me as an important film, being the first film to depict the changeover.
'Chinese Box' isn't perfect. The pace does meander in spots, with parts feeling a bit aimless. The brief wordless flashback voiced over came over as rather vague and could have done with being longer.
Did think too that some of Gong Li's dialogue was pretty weak and the love backstory could have been explored more.
All that said, 'Chinese Box' was very well done and fascinating. Hong Kong looks wonderful, but one wouldn't expect any less because it's a place so beautiful that ruining it on film would be difficult. Some may not like the camera work, actually liked the documentary-like improvisatory look, with it mirroring John creating his documentary. The music is hauntingly hypnotic, capturing the sounds of Hong Kong/China in a way that makes one feel that they're there taking in the atmosphere, and Wang's direction complements the atmosphere of the period beautifully.
Some of Li's dialogue aside, the dialogue is thought-provoking, very honest and at times remarkably nuanced. John's reaction to being told by Vivian that she wants to leave Hong Kong really sears. The story may alienate people and leave them cold, for me the odd problems with pacing aside a lot of it worked. Structurally it's unconventional and episodic, but not in a bad way, never feeling too random or hard to follow. Wasn't left cold by 'Chinese Box' either, its portrayal of Hong Kong during the period depicted and the cultural differences and barriers is an accurate and painfully honest one done so authentically in a way that one can feel and smell it that would have hit home with people then with feelings still raw.
Was also moved by 'Chinese Box', although there could have been more development to it the love story did touch and charm me, feeling genuine, and the final scenes brought a lump to my throat. A few memorable scenes here that have since seeing the film stayed with me, such as John trying to persuade Jean to give an interview, that aforementioned scene and the scene with John and Vivian in the bar with Vivian mimicking Marlene Dietrich. It is a film that truly excels when it comes to mood and atmosphere, both done to perfection, and the human condition aspect is done with a lot of truth and liked that the film didn't seem to take sides. The narration was sincere and nuanced, and Irons could not have been a better choice to voice it (one only has to read the 'Lolita' audio-book or any other films that he does voice overs for to hear how amazing he is at it).
Characters are allegorical and symbolic, and not in a way that's black and white, John representing the dying colonial past for instance, and he and Jean are written in a compellingly real fashion. Vivian was a touch underwritten but was far from a cipher. Irons is just terrific and it is there in the list of performances of his that are among the best that are sadly overlooked, not just the expressive line delivery but also the way he uses his face and eyes, subtle but layered. A prime example is that previously mentioned reaction, starting off in a wordless mix of hurt, shock and anger told just throughout the face and eyes (he was always one of the best at this) and all those things increase intensely and movingly when he speaks, reminding one fondly of the tortured type of characters he plays so well. Li is alluring and touching with great chemistry with Irons, and Cheung even more so. Rueben Blades is similarly memorable, his music, which is truly beautiful with lyric writing that has a lot of power, symbolic of John's despair and emotions.
In conclusion, very interesting and well done. 7/10 -
bunch-55 October 2001Much has already been said about the film itself. Here are some comments regarding the portrayal of Hong Kong. An early comment was saying that this film makes Hong Kong look dirty and cramped.
Well, having lived in Hong Kong (in several different areas) I have to say that what the film shows is reality. I was paying about US$1,000 per month for a small room about 10 x 15 feet in Hong Kong (Tin Hau area) in 1996. It was not even a really nice place. Hong Kong is very expensive to live in.
It is also a very dirty and polluted place compared to cities in the West. The director of the film was not making this up.
By reading this you may think I hated it there, well it rates as one of my favorite cities in the world. It has a lot of charm.
By the way, the movie isn't bad and worth a look. -
sim-510 December 1998I was unprepared for the wonderful experience this film affords. The metaphor is striking and acceptable. Wang catches the bittersweet essence of the changeover, both at the specific and the generic level.
Li, Irons, and Cheung are superb. The movie is a cornucopia of visual delights. In fact, it probably requires repeat viewing to fully absorb the totality of its impact.
Thank you, Mr.Wang, for a truly unusual piece of work.
sasmd2@pol.net -
YakSmurf5 August 1999I understand what they were going for with this, but somehow it failed to move me very much. The artfulness is enjoyable, but for some reason, perhaps the acting or the perennially bouncing camera, I never was released into flowing with the movie. Instead, it felt like acting, and thus I couldn't help but feel a manipulated instead of moved.
It's a nice try, however. Irons is fun to watch, if not as well done as in others. Gong Li is more enjoyable on her deeper roles (such as Temptress Moon and Raise the Red Lantern), as opposed to the shallow one turned in here, due to playing a shallow character (as with Shanghai Triad), or one which does not seem to break out into the foreground, perhaps compounded by being clumsily mashed into an English-speaking role. She didn't look comfortable the entire film. No one did, ever. Perhaps that itself is a facet of Hong Kong, and an effect that I failed to catch.
Then again, truly moving art films are hard to make. While it didn't score anywhere near off the charts with me, like the far more graceful Temptress Moon, it was still much enjoyed over the usual local (Hollywood) fare. -
IrisNo1122 April 1999I liked this movie, but I thought it was a little confusing in some parts. What I liked was the night time scene of the city of Hong Kong! As a journalist, John has seen and heard a lot of really wild and crazy things, but also interesting! There were a few parts I hated watching, which makes me never want to watch this film again (that's why I rated this 7), but apart from that, I liked this movie!
-
aj_barros2 September 2000I liked the "Chinese Box" and found this movie rather interesting and enjoyable, but what I really think is worth mentioning is Vivan's (Gong Li) attitude, so typical of an eastern woman. Splendid performance! This "insight" of the eastern woman is rare in a western movie and deserves due note.
-
I remember how excited I was when I first viewed "The Year of Living Dangerously" and watching the main characters in Indonesia just before the Vietnam War broke out. This is nowhere near that but I did come away thinking that this is a very personal film about the change in Hong Kong. Story does take place in Hong Kong during the last 6 months of British colonialism and the central character is John (Jeremy Irons) who is a writer and roams the city with his video camera capturing different things that go on but he is madly in love with Vivian (Gong Li) who owns a bar but has a sordid past that looms over them. John has been feeling ill and gets checked out and learns that he has leukemia and has 3 to 6 months to live.
*****SPOILER ALERT*****
John continues to wander the streets and he meets Jean (Maggie Cheung) who has a bad scar on her face and she sells knick knacks on the street and John becomes fascinated by her. As time dwindles down John must face the fact that changes are inevitable and the people of Hong Kong will go on without him.
This film is directed by Wayne Wang who has made a good career out of making films about Asians and the way they live despite cultural differences. But while I think there are some interesting things in this film it's clearly not one of Wang's best. Film tries very hard to be thought provoking in it's overall message with the characters but it just seems to come off as ponderous. As talented as Iron's and Li are they seem a bit uninspired and the rare bursts of energy just lack any conviction. The most interesting character in the film is Jean played by Cheung and she easily steals every scene she's in and her character shows obvious layers of pain that she hides well despite the scar on her face. Cheung is a Hong Kong action star but she shows she can easily handle drama and I hope someone writes her a good script to be in. The story meanders and doesn't really have any focus in it's message and even though Wang is a good director it just comes across as lacking emotional depth. -
SKG-24 February 1999I don't know if Wayne Wang is into photography or painting as a hobby, but just like his last two films, SMOKE and BLUE IN THE FACE, this movie reminded me of a mosaic or a photo album. I can see how some people had problems with it, since it's not a plot-driven film, but rather one of mood and atmosphere. I was moved by the images I saw, not just of the city and the changes it went through, but also of the actors. Irons is so often celebrated for the way that he uses his voice (justly, I might add) that you forget how well he's able to act with his face, and he does a terrific job here, communicating his sadness, his will to live even as disease ravages him, his agony over his unrequited love for Gong Li, and his curiosity and attraction to Maggie Cheung.
I haven't seen much of Cheung that I remember, but I've seen a few of Li's films. Both of them are excellent, Li especially in a role that's a lot more complicated than it might first appear. You really do feel that deep down, if circumstances allowed, she'd love Irons back. Cheung's role is mostly a symbolic one, but she handles it well. Not an easy film to watch, but moving. -
rimsey-226 February 1999I can't remember a movie in which I found the lead characters less engaging than I found Gong Li and Jeremy Irons in this film. Li has almost nothing to say and I was perplexed as to what Irons (himself a rather mopish and unappealing person in this film) would see in her. The minor characters played by Maggie Cheung and Ruben Blades seemed much more human and interesting. As for the story - I sat there for the first half of the movie wondering when the plot was going to begin. I'd have had as much fun if I'd gone to a stranger's house and watched 2 hours of video footage of his holiday in Hong Kong. ("This was the street where I bought my t-shirt", "Here's a shot of the traffic in the street" etc -you get my drift) In a word -boring.
-
M'lady20 March 1999This is the first time I watched a movie and thought that it had all the perfect subtleties and symbolism of a book. The characters were both real and yet surreal enough that you can see that every character interaction was both meant to represent individual struggles and the struggles of whole cultures. Like literature... sometimes you must learn to read between the lines to appreciate what the author/creator of the book/movie is trying to say. No this isn't just the type of movie you just sit there and watch and expect to do all the work. If you want low-maintenance movies then look elsewhere. Just like not all books are for light reading which just have gratuitous violence and smut... not all movies are made for the sole purpose of entertaining the viewer with the same type of stuff. Look at the name of the movie! It starts there. So many things are going on at once but I did not find it difficult at all to feel the emotions that were intended. So much suppressed emotions... very much like the people of Hong Kong worried about suppression of their freedoms. Each shot of the movie included something symbolic. I think that no matter how many times I watch it I will see one more thing that was meant to be said. Social, political, and individual... I truly admired this movie and the captivating web it has weaved.
-
JJN13 October 1998I sat through this movie and found myself constantly expecting something to happen. Imagine my surprise when nothing ever did! This movie is a waste of an excellent setting and an excellent actor (Jeremy Irons). You would thing that with an intriguing setting like Hong Kong and a wonderful actor like Irons, SOME sort of decent story could have been put together. However, the movie falls totally flat. It is pointless, boring, and a true disappointment.
-
mo-299 November 1998I don't know what's wrong with you people, or where stupid Hong Kong nationalism comes into this. I see movies that show lousy parts of Boston, and I don't go whining about it on web sites. The story is extremely moving, Hong Kong seemed fascinating, there was amazing imagery and chemistry between Irons and Li. I was blown away both times I saw it. I highly recommend Chinese Box.
-
moviesleuth217 January 2010Multi-layered stories can be very interesting films, provided that the viewer can actually understand everything. Unfortunately, Wayne Wang's "Chinese Box" does not make clear all of the pieces of this film.
The film centers around John (Jeremy Irons), a dying British journalist, at the time of the British turnover of Hong Kong to the Chinese. He's in love with Vivian (Gong Li), a Hong Kong resident, who in turn is in love with a powerful businessman. Then there is also Jean (Maggie Cheung), a woman who captures John's interest, and is willing to give him an interview for a price. But is she telling the truth? "Chinese Box" is an enigma, and one could argue that that is the point. But unlike other movies where remaining elusive to the viewer is the goal (like "Donnie Darko"), "Chinese Box" eventually grows boring.
The acting is solid. Jeremy Irons is terrific as John. We want him to make it with Vivian because we like him so much. Irons does not go for the tear ducts, nor does he spend the time he has left moping around or spouting philosophical nonsense. John knows he doesn't have much time left, and he spends it doing the two things he really wants: win Vivian's heart back and figure out Jean. There is a reason why Gong Li is considered the Asian Meryl Streep. Li is a amazing actress, but unfortunately, like the film, she remains an enigma. She doesn't have much dialogue, but Li uses her face to express herself. Cheung is also interesting as the feisty Jean. She's actually the polar opposite of Vivian: vocal, emotive, and independent. This is probably why John finds her so interesting.
Director Wayne Wang made the hit film "The Joy Luck Club" based on the best-selling novel by Amy Tan, neither of which I have experienced. Whatever rights he did there are not present here. He keeps the characters at an arm's distance, which may be the point, but what we do understand, isn't especially interesting. There are some isolated scenes that work, but over all it's a pretty dull film. The best parts are when we get a peek into the culture of Hong Kong, or what we can gather of it.
This isn't an especially interesting film, and not really worth it. -
For starters, it would be fair to say that I have seen this movie at least ten times. I was never bored... In fact, the magical atmosphere of the movie makes it beautiful to watch, and makes you enjoy every minute of it, even with the story aside. The cast is excellent, and the way that the actors 'ignore' the camera really makes you believe the story. The story has many layers, all of them viewed from an aspect of a dying man, packed with emotion, all masks down. The handover of Hong Kong and a love story, with all the cultural differences and barriers, is captured from a very close range. It's done almost like a documentary and strongly effects any spectator. The characters are complete, the story also, and everything else in the movie (from the photography and the music to the actual footage of HK and its people) only makes it more powerful. A beautiful movie.
-
rdm9114 June 1999It is akin to watching the ponderous antics of amateur actors who think they are doing "intellectual" stuff just because they are pausing in all the "right" places as they struggle through the bare script down at the local y. Poor showing Wang, his previous sucess at making intelligent films hinges on not being so self aware...and Jeremy Irons has done this before just better and in more substantial movies. It is almost as though the non event of the actual handover stunted the artistic juices when they were creating the virtual handover - if that is the case I would prefer to not see art imitate life quite so closely...it just leaves me bored and in drastic need of reinspiration from other sources. Wang himself must have needed to eat a bowl of tea after this impotent showing.
-
dromasca28 April 2007The world is changing around the characters in 'Chinese Box'. The screen time focuses on the six months between the New Year 1997 and the end of the British rule in Hong Kong. It's also the time that is left for John, the principal character of the film, a freelance journalist trying to store on film and in words the transition and dying of leukemia. It is the time when not only the world is changing in an unknown direction, but also when John may or may not find the fulfilling of his great love to Vivian, a beautiful Chinese bartender with a dubious past, herself in love with a third, Chinese man.
The story is a combination between culture clash movies intertwined with love stories a la 'Shogun' with love stories in the shade of a crumbling world as in 'Casablanca'. It is to the credit of the director that despite a little too simplistic and explicit romantic intrigue he succeeds to bring to screen and combine a little of the charm of both genres in the right dosage. One may wonder where did Wayne Wang's career go lately and why he rather picked to do trashy films as 'Maid in Manhattan'.
The strength of the film and what makes it survive well the decade since its realization resides however in the rendition of the city, of its infinite colors and smells, of the crowd and the noise, of its hopes, fears and dreams in the wake of the falling under Communist rule. Jeremy Irons is perfect as he will ever be, Li Gong is an enigmatic Chinese Hepburn, and Ruben Blades and Maggie Chang fill in two memorable supporting roles and another lateral story that fits well in the mosaic. 'Chinese Box' catches both a moment to remember in history and a beautiful love story to remember as well, on the background of a world in transition to an unknown destination. -
joker-428 December 1998I consider myself a fan of Wayne Wang's spontaneous-style work. With that said, I was really looking forward to his latest with Jeremy Irons & Maggie Cheung. What a disappointment. This was a typical "star-crossed lovers set during an important historical event" that has been done before and has been done better. None of the characters are alluring except Maggie and she totally disappears by the movie's end. Wang is known for character-rich stories. What happened here? Chinese Box, like Chinese food, hardly satisfied me making search elsewhere for something with content.
-
bellorri1 October 2003I love this film as a case study into the depths of man's self examination paralleled with the struggle of a country doing the same.I came away with a better understanding of this country's heady excitement and worries as well as a connection to Jeremy Irons character watching and making a difficult transition and acceptance of responsibilities for both. Great film,superb acting.
-
Jeremy mistakenly thinks he's going to die, and he becomes obsessed with this Asian high-class call girl, and all this takes place with the Hong Kong switchover imminent in the background. Clearly, someone thought that this shopworn premise alone was worthy of a movie, so why spend money on a script? Jeremy Irons power and fire are trivialized in this complete time-waster.
-
rover-729 July 1999I have seen this film three times now and it just seems to get better. Gong Li and Jeremy Irons were fabulous along with Maggie Cheung who played a fascinating character. The street scenes I thought really enhanced the ambience of the film and plot. Congrats to all who were involved in this film.
-
sibelius10 September 1998The story of Chinese Box happens within the six months before the reunification of Hong Kong to China. The whole movie was filmed in the city of Hong Kong which is known as "The Pearl of the Orient", but Mr. Wang, what have you shown our beautiful Hong Kong to the viewers? ....dirty streets, noise pollution everywhere, tiny, ugly and crowded flats, people with ugly faces and with disgusting behaviours, etc. People who watched this movie and who have never visited Hong Kong before would get a very very very wrong impression that Hong Kong is a mess. But in fact, this is absolutely incorrect and does not make sense at all. Tell me, why does the journalist (Jeremy Irons) who has worked in Hong Kong for 15 years need to rent a flat that is the worst and oldest kind that you can find in the dirtiest street here. These flats are just for people who got no job or drug addicts! Moreover, Mr. Wang's chief objective to make this film, as a matter of fact, is to tell the viewers that China is bad and Hong Kong would be ruined in her hands. He symbolizes China's takeover of Hong Kong on 1st July, 1997 by showing us tanks and People's Liberation Army marching horribly into Hong Kong when the Chinese anthem is playing. Also, he shows us a university student who objects Chinese's takeover by sacrificing himself in fire (actually, this happens many years ago and the student killed himself for other reasons). All these gives a very false impression on viewers' minds that Hong Kong must be good under British rule but be bad under Chinese rule. But these can all be answered by looking at Hong Kong today, nothing changes and we are as prosperous as before. Mr. Wang, what do you think?
-
This is, without a doubt, one of the most hauntingly beautiful works of cinematography ever made. The story is sublime - yet powerful. This is one of the only films I have ever viewed that left me in tears... the emotional impact was immense.
The beautiful cinematographic experience this film imparted is something that I will never forget. The characters were incredibly real, and like all humans - imperfect. The final scenes that this movie builds up to are nothing less than genius - I would say that the director of this film has been able to pull off a near perfect piece of storytelling. Even if this movie is (as another reviewer states) historically and culturally inaccurate, the fact remains that the story it tells contains incredible truths about human nature. This is, in my opinion, one of the best statements on the human condition that has ever been encoded in film. In short, this movie was a bitter-sweet nostalgic vision of the handover of Hong Kong - containing one of the most "humanly" accurate stories ever put to film. -
Very short, very sweet: I was disappointed.
If you have read my reviews about Mr. Irons, you can understand why I felt that his character was a bit weak. For a person who watches a film at least 3 times in one sitting (for technical, dialogue and story evaluation), I felt that I was not fulfilled with the message of this film. I saw Li Gong in "Raise the Red Lantern" and she was wonderful. In this film, she had very little dialogue, probably because her English is limited. I believe she should get more American roles in order to develop her second language. I felt that her character was weak also. The only person that had any "flavor" or depth, was the woman who portrayed "Jean", the woman with the scar. I felt that her character was the best and was very colorful. I am sorry that the main characters had very little to offer. I also like Ruben Blades, but I felt he was in the wrong movie. You know, displaced. -
endlessrain15 May 2005The players in this film, Ironsd, Li and Cheung, all have symbolic roles.
Gong Li represents Hong Kong. She is a whore that every man wants.
As someone even says in the film; "Hong Kong is a whore and now it has a new pimp".
Irons represents, of course, Britain, and doesn't have long left, symbolized by his having cancer. Irons tries to win over Li, but to no avail. The handover is happening and nothing can stop it.
Maggie Cheung (in a great and convincing performance) is the jilted lover, the part of Hong Kong that has been tricked by Britain's promises of democracy and a western way of life.
When Maggie meets her former lover, the Brit doesn't even remember her... it is a poignant and believable moment.
Irons is a bit flat but Gong Li is a simmering sex goddess. Perfect for her allegorical role.