http://hkmdb.com/db/movies/view.mhtml?i ... ay_set=eng

Queries/alterations about some of the roles.

Donnie Yen plays Inspector Ma.
Not sure if "Jun" should be a family name or personal name.
I did not hear him being called Jun.

Ray Lui plays Archer Sin.

Fan Bing Bing plays Judy.

Ha Ping plays Tony's mother.

One of the baddies is called Sam - not sure which actor played role.
Same for policewoman Cindy.

When it comes out on DVD, please can someone capture the end credits - they include roles in Chinese and English.

When it comes out on DVD, please can someone capture the end credits - they include roles in Chinese and English.

I'd imagine that won't take long. I thought of jotting down some names during the closing credits at the TIFF, but I was just too jazzed after that phenomenal ending, plus the outtakes were kinda interesting!

STSH wrote:http://hkmdb.com/db/movies/view.mhtml?id=11945&display_set=eng

One of the baddies is called Sam - not sure which actor played role.
Same for policewoman Cindy.

Sam is played by veteran Jackie Chan stuntman Ben Lam Kwok Bun.

Brian Thibodeau wrote:

When it comes out on DVD, please can someone capture the end credits - they include roles in Chinese and English.

I'd imagine that won't take long...

Nope, it'll be out on DVD in just over a week in HK: September 28th is the street date for the (double) disc.

I'll probably pick one up...but more for, as my friend Brian is wont to say, for "completeness sake" than necessity. I find Donnie Yen a self-absorbed buffoon with an over-inflated ego that exudes a screen presence of sheer unabashed arrogance -- but I'm willing to give the film a go for Louis Koo, Ray Lui and Fan Bing Bing's sake. After all, I was the guy who thought SPL was largely a load of retro-eighties tripe!

If someone doesn't get the disc first...I'll post screenshots of the credits on receipt.

Mike Thomason wrote:I find Donnie Yen a self-absorbed buffoon with an over-inflated ego that exudes a screen presence of sheer unabashed arrogance -- but I'm willing to give the film a go for Louis Koo, Ray Lui and Fan Bing Bing's sake. After all, I was the guy who thought SPL was largely a load of retro-eighties tripe!

Hey, what's so bad about retro-80's tripe? Half the movies made in Hong Kong back then were some of the most enjoyable tripe to be found anywhere! Surely it's OK to enjoy these flicks for what they are, so long as we acknowledge what they are?

But, lowered expectations, I guess? Fingers crossed that the movie can be judged on it's own merits in due time, rather than the real-life attitude of its star. And by the way, you're 100% right about Yen, and possibly even in the majority: he consistently comes across in interviews, and subsequently on screen, as extremely self-absorbed, and if I gotta hear Bey Logan name-check him one more time I might very well self-induce an aneurism!

I still admire his devotion to evolving his craft (fight design, not acting), and he's one of the few guys left out there with the relative youth, clout and skills to put it into play in films with something approaching actual budgets and solid talent surrounding him on both sides of the camera (as mentioned elsewhere, Ray Lui could really capitalize on his role here if he was so inclined). If the price I have to pay to see that evolution in practice is yet another performance where Donnie Yen essentially plays himself—something he's been doing for, what, decades now?—I really don't mind. And trust me, his performance in FLASH POINT should really irk you, so I'm dying to see your review; he even does a little in-character "interview" at the beginning (against a black background, presumably talking to an off-screen reporter or someone like that) that never recurs elsewhere in the film and doesn't fit in the movie's timeline at all. Looks completely like it belongs in a behind-the-scene documentary . Got a big laugh at the film fest, too—I dare say for exactly the same reasons you'll probably laugh at it, too! It's almost like he knows people would expect him to do something like that.

I must confess I don't quite understand the fascination with Fan Bing-bing's performance in this film that seems to infuse almost every review that I've read so far . She's a beautiful woman and an obviously capable performer, but this is a role even a modestly talented Hong Kong (or mainland Chinese) actress could have played. Five or six years ago, flavour-of-the-moment Zhang Ziyi probably would've been given the role. Let's face it, this is a Donnie Yen movie (despite the other names behind the camera), so award-bait melodrama cannot logically be expected and thus, just about any attractive actress would have fit the bill here.

Incidentally, I prefer SPL to this movie by a thin margin, but judging from many of the reviews here and (especially) elsewhere, people are well aware of what both these films really are beneath all the gloss.

Donnie's ego is event but you gotta give him credit for being honest and confident at the same time. it's not too often actors talk in depth about stuff like Donnie does (he might go overboard at times, which i don't mind at all).

as for Flash Point, it's has nothing against SPL plot-wise but as far as action goes, I thought it was more satisfying and superior.

Beat TG wrote:as for Flash Point, it's has nothing against SPL plot-wise but as far as action goes, I thought it was more satisfying and superior.

I think the action scenes in both of these are immensely satisfying and high examples of the ever-evolving art of screen choreography (regardless of what one might think of the films themselves, which have their flaws), and that's to take nothing away from what has gone before in this arena. But these two films do provide an excellent example of he "evolution" I spoke of before; you woundn't have one without the other, and that counts for a lot. The extended sequence featuring a big-time arrogant Donnie and Collin Chou at the end of FLASH POINT really is in a league all it's own, and while it certainly pushes its combatants' bodies well past the breaking point of most human beings (as has been noted in some reviews; and particularly in the use of cinderblocks ), that's the larger-and-more-resilient-than-life joy of big-screen martial arts. If I wanted to see abject realism, I'd watch the Ultimate Fighting-type programs that are an obvious influence on Yen these days, but I can't, because they lack serious artistry and, from what I've seen, too often devolve into mindless pummeling.

Brian Thibodeau wrote:Hey, what's so bad about retro-80's tripe? Half the movies made in Hong Kong back then were some of the most enjoyable tripe to be found anywhere! Surely it's OK to enjoy these flicks for what they are, so long as we acknowledge what they are?

Before we run tooooo far OT and all get accused of thread-highjacking...take the "tripe" comment with a pinch of salt, y'all! If you've been watching my blog you'll see that I've been steadily reviewing a stream of seventies-retro Shaw "tripe" (sexploitation and horror/genre titles), and will continue to do so into the on-coming months. Just another one of my many throwaway remarks...

added. "Jun Ma" is the name that appears in the official site.

STSH wrote:http://hkmdb.com/db/movies/view.mhtml?id=11945&display_set=eng

One of the baddies is called Sam - not sure which actor played role.
Same for policewoman Cindy.

Cindy is played by Irene Wang, who is Donnie's wife's younger sister in real-life.

Beat TG wrote:

STSH wrote:Same for policewoman Cindy.

Cindy is played by Irene Wang, who is Donnie's wife's younger sister in real-life.

Cheers. Updated.

that's Xing Yu, not Yu Kang.

Fixed, thanks

data addressed

Should all the stuntmen be credited in the cast?
I thought that was reserved for the people who where shown on the screen, as far as I know not all stuntmen are used in front of the camera, but is often helping setting up the stunts. Which is why you will find such entries as Yu Kang which is both credited to be part of the stuntman team, and also among the actors cast. In my eyes they should not be listed among the cast unless it is certain that they appeared in front of the camera, and should rather be treated as crew.

I think stuntmen should be credited (as actors) when you can ID them.

Added more F/X and 1 gaffer.

as do I, but in the capacity as a member of the crew and not the cast, unless they can be IDed in the movie in front of the camera so to speak
As far as I can see here someone has just entered them to the cast instead of the crew where they belong in my eyes unless they can be IDed in the movie, probably since there seems to be missing a proper job description for them in the DB.


So in my eyes they should be removed and placed under a more proper job description.

I prefer in the cast because they can be seen (as part of the cast) although you cannot ID them. But this is only personal preference...

But then you are assuming that they all appear on screen and that is not the case, not all of them will appear on screen, but will just be in a supporting role where they help set up the stunts, and you can't ID someone who does not even star in the movie.
Cast is and should be reserved for those that appear in the movie, should we follow what you're saying then we should also post car stunts and motorbike stunts among the cast, where they in my opinion should not be
There is a distinct difference between cast and crew, and that difference should be kept.
I'm also for having them in the cast if they indeed does appear on screen, but that should only be when the stuntman can be IDed.

Bearserk wrote:But then you are assuming that they all appear on screen and that is not the case, not all of them will appear on screen, but will just be in a supporting role where they help set up the stunts, and you can't ID someone who does not even star in the movie.

Sometimes they appear and sometimes they do not appear. I have not seen the movie. Who appears and who does not appear?
"Car stunts" usually (but not always) means "director of car sequences" which is not necessarily the stunt who performs the dangerous car sequence. It is not the same thing.

calros wrote:Sometimes they appear and sometimes they do not appear. I have not seen the movie. Who appears and who does not appear?

Which is my point exactly, if we can't be sure if the stuntman appear in the movie, then he shouldn't be added to the cast, instead he should be added to the crew along with the other crew, director, producers, etc, which we at the moment seems to be missing a job description for, but for which I would like to see added to the DB, and in addition the stuntmen who are IDed in the movie should be added to the cast as well with their appropriate role.

This database would really benefit from a category for stuntmen (among a few others that are currently unavailable! ). I realize that creating one will lead to more work in the months/years ahead separating stuntmen already in the DB cast lists into their own category, and adding all the ones from the credits posted in the forums, but in the long run it would be a useful feature. Considering how much of the Hong Kong cinema identity is tied to it's stuntmen, this can only be a boon to the site. As would the inclusion of song credits, but that's a story for another thread.

I'm fairly certain I've seen the occasional HK movie that tacks the stuntmen onto the cast list in its credits, so in fairness, the fact that it happened here isn't a complete surprise, although the lack of a stuntperson "tag" in the DB probably never helped the situation. Otherwise, most of the movies that I've seen over the past few years—and indeed the majority of the older ones I've watched where stuntmen were credited—have them listed in their own section in the credits.

It would be nice to see a stuntperson/bit-player's bio divided properly by this change to the architecture of the site. Instead of one long list of titles for a particular stuntperson/bit-player having "stuntman" treated like a character ID, no differently than "cop" or "thug who falls off bike", we'd have the character parts (small though they may be), separate from the stunt credits, meaning the same film might occasionally appear in both sections of a that person's filmography. A good current example of this structure might be someone like Wong Jing, who has all his "writer" credits, "director" credits, "actor" credits and "producer" credits in separate blocks in his filmography, even though many films appear in all four segments.

The current system also works nicely for cinematographers who also edit, musicians who also act, actors who also present and so on. Could it not also work for stuntpeople? Those who are largely unseen would just have a big list of "stunt performer" titles in their filmographies. Those who appear on screen in definable bit parts (thug, gangster, cop) would, someday, have the "stunt performer" list AND a list of identifiable costumed roles. Might even help us ID some of the thousands of "unknown" portraits that now reside in the database.

Just thinkin...



.

Sometimes stunt, extra and bit part can be the same thing. If we separate some stunts from others because they can be identified, or because they can be called "cop", "thug" or "villager", this can be a mess.

My personal rule is:
-they are in front of the camera: cast.
-they are behind the camera: crew.

calros wrote:Sometimes stunt, extra and bit part can be the same thing. If we separate some stunts from others because they can be identified, or because they can be called "cop", "thug" or "villager", this can be a mess.

My personal rule is:
-they are in front of the camera: cast.
-they are behind the camera: crew.

Which is what I've been saying all along, not all those credited as stuntmen are working in front of the camera, the only way we can make sure of that is to ID them, for all other cases we should consider them part of the crew.
And if they are IDed on the screen give them a second credit among the cast for their role in the movie, and giving them a second credit if they are IDed in the movie is not a mess, we already do that

Almost all standard stunts (not cars, bikes, etc.) appear in front of the camera. So they are cast. In my humble opinion of course.

Yes, but not all the stuntmen perform the stunts, some of them will only help set up the stunt, and as we can't be sure who is doing the actual stunt and appear on screen, stuntmen should be treated as crew until we can confirm that they are indeed shown in front of the camera.
Take a short movie a saw a while back, they had 3 stuntmen listed in their credits for just one stunt, which I can't really understand why they needed stuntmen for, it was just a woman falling over on a floor, but anyway, as I'm trying to point out, in that case not all the 3 stuntmen should be listed in the cast, only the one who actually performed the stunt, the two others should be listed as crew, as they did not appear in the movie.

But if you feel confident that all the stuntmen performed a stunt on screen, than by all means just let it stay as it is, although I would much rather see them all listed as crew, and then added as cast as well if we ID them.

calros wrote:Almost all standard stunts (not cars, bikes, etc.) appear in front of the camera. So they are cast. In my humble opinion of course.

Even when they're listed as stuntpeople in the closing credits? Surely giving them their own category wouldn't be too harmful?

Sometimes stuntmen appear apart in the credits, sometimes they appear in the cast.

Sometimes stuntmen do "easy" jobs and the public is not aware of their performance. It is not necessary to be a really risk scene like a woman falling over a floor or a mortal combat to do a stunt performance.