MovieChat Forums > Fa yeung nin wah (2001) Discussion > Did anyone else fall asleep during this ...

Did anyone else fall asleep during this film?

posted 16 years ago by owen_t_robinson
79 replies | jump to latest

For me, this film started really well and I was drawn in. However it let itself down badly in the last 40 minutes or so. It became painfully and unwatchably slow. So much so that I fell asleep in parts.

Towards the end I just wanted it to be over. I know someone may reply to this and say something along the lines of "you just don't appreciate art house cinema" but there are slow-moving, engaging films and there are films that are just boring. This was the latter.

[–] ruderabbit 16 years ago

Owen -

Don't worry, I'm right there with you.

I'm a very patient film lover who likes a good slow-paced film if it keeps you intriqued, and you're right this movie starts out promisingly, but it becomes so pointless and anti-climactic in the last section.

I found it completely unsatisfying. Not profound, just bad storytelling.

I'm amazed how many people love this film, think it's a masterpiece.

[–] somepersons 16 years ago

MASTERPIECE!

[–] hajj628 16 years ago

Don't go into any movie with expectations, or you'll always be left dissatisfied. This is especially true of film at the opposite ends of the spectrum – B-films and art house films. If you go into a B movie expecting a polished masterpiece, you'll be disappointed. If you watch an art house film, by a good director, and have these same expectations, your mind won't be open to learning and experiencing new things.

[–] whitepaint 16 years ago

I didn't find this film boring at all. To me it was full of well-disguised tension and lovelorn anguish. There is a lot of unspoken poetry in it, which is quite a rare thing in modern movies. And i wouldn't categorize it strictly as an art-house movie either, because it is not very sophisticated and leans more toward retro, reminding me of, well, some Soviet films of the 60's and 70's about love, that were characterized by the same slow-paced and understated way of storytelling

[–] smeehan-2 16 years ago

MASTERPIECE

yes! If anything, I found the film hard to follow upon first viewing (something remedied by future viewings). I still loved it and it has since solidified itself in my top 5. Briliant, touching, subtle love story.

[–] phoebee81 16 years ago

i went to the toilet once when they showed tony´s "thinking-face".
when i came back, it was STILL that scene!!! incredible....

[–] polysicsarebest 16 years ago

No. Didn't find it slow or boring in the least, as wong kar wai's style is unbelievably engaging.

[–] thesiouxfallskid 16 years ago

I just saw the film without having read anyone's thoughts beforehand, and I then read these comments. People vary. I finished after midnight and was kept wide wide awake throughout the entire film. My eyes were glued to the screen. Beautiful ending. Surprised me. Captivating music. There are films others find exciting that put me to sleep. So people vary.

[–] DanceInMoonlight 16 years ago

Not at all. The movie was completely captivating from start to finish.

[–] das-d 15 years ago

Yes, the movie has a lot of tension all through. I think the problem is coming from the mindset of some viewers. I have never been to the geography this film belongs to, and maybe I never will. But, the mindset to the two main characters I could feel and relate to very well: maybe because I am an Indian. And maybe because I share some of the do-s and don't-s, some of the inhibitions, some of of the senses of good and bad. It is a kind of a movie that lingers in your mind for quite a long time after you have seen it. I saw it some months back and still this movie comes back to my mind when I want to describe to myself some of my tender moments. This is really a very touching movie.

[–] TermlnatriX 15 years ago

I'm a patient film watcher myself, and I have to align my sentiments with the original poster. It started out well, but during the last chunk it just became tedious. To me this is an example of style over substance.

I just didn't get drawn into it fully. No emotional connection to the characters.

[–] srinath_r_htanirs 10 years ago

Had to chuckle at that. It's ironic that you have a user name representing The Terminator and The Matrix, both are epitomes of having style over substance.

This film is however, not that. It has both.

[–] rainbird131162 16 years ago

After the positive reviews I was severely underwhelmed by ITMFL. It's a plotless, pretentious, downright solipsistic enterprise. Like watching a teenager moon over a romance he believes he'll never get over. And, gawd, that ending!

Mai Yamane! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD83P-vn5JI&feature=related

[–] chinesebean 11 years ago

Tell it to my hole.

Your secret, that is.

I have a secret. It's that I hate this dreadful piece of crap movie.

They should re-title it "Staring."

*SPOILERS*

Pecking at noodles. Staring out a window. Staring at the wall. Drinking tea, while staring at the wall. Smoking while staring. More staring. Talking in a hallway. Talking on a street. Talking while pecking at more food. Smoking and staring and drinking and pecking. Standing in the rain. Waiting. Waiting. Waiting.

Standing by curtains staring. Sitting at a table staring. Audience staring at a static shot of Maggie’s face for sixty seconds while a single tear falls.

Sitting on a bed. Staring at a picture. Striking a match. Staring at it. Lighting a cigarette. Staring at that. Sitting in a chair and staring at the ceiling.

[–] MTulliver 10 years ago

I think I love you.

[–] chinesebean 10 years ago

Love me all you want, just don't stare.

[–] eatmorecoffee 10 years ago

Interesting analysis chinesebean. Staring and pecking - well that made me laugh. After waiting years to see this I was underwhelmed. I thought it was set in 1960s hong kong. Some of the costumes are good, but these characters seemed to live in crumbly suburbs. She just annoyed me in the end. And it took 18 months to shoot - it jumps around like it was shot in 3 weeks

[–] chinesebean 10 years ago

18 months? You have to be kidding me. For THIS??

Also, I would add that I like all of Wong Kar Wai's other films (that I have seen). I especially like 2046 which is a sequel of sorts to this. Far less staring in 2046. A lot more robots.

[–] eatmorecoffee 10 years ago

I can't find that article again, but other sources say 15 months, which is still pretty lengthy for a film that spends a lot of time in a hallway. The actors found all that staring and pecking rather draining by the way. I didn't realise till it was over that Tony Leung was supposed to be a newspaper editor. He must be the most boring journalist that ever lived, and the most useless, seeing as he had to go to Angkor Wat to find a tree.

Yes, 2046 is more lively. Obviously the robots help.

[–] imsanskarsharma 10 years ago

Described just as it was!