 |  |  | | | Another typical work by Jeff Lau, but, compared to 92 La Rose Noire , naturally comes up short. To begin with, the breakthrough creativity of the previous film is lacking. Also, the new cast's performances cannot match those of the old. The film, however, has a unique style, operating on an alternative logic of its own and an absurd humour that finds no peer. As usual, Lau uses old Cantonese films to play a mad game that has nothing to do with nostalgia. | | LOG IN TO COMMENT ON THIS REVIEW! |
| |  | |  |
| | | | | Jeff Lau uses the same formula he employed in 92 La Rose Noire , substituting Sit Ka-yin, Jan Lamb, Lam Sheung-yee and Sandra Ng for the original cast and putting them through situations and scenes virtually identical to the previous film. Once again, other films are plagiarised. It was Delicatessen the last time; this time out, it is Shall We Dance? Looks like Lau has not changed his ways and being able to deliver the film in the cans is satisfaction enough for his boss. Regardless, the comedic talent of Sit Ka-yin does not measure up to Fung Bo-bo's crazed energy and Jan Lamb is no Tony Leung Kar-fai. | | LOG IN TO COMMENT ON THIS REVIEW! |
| | | | |
| | | | | The surprise success of 92 La Rose Noire is a result of Jeff Lau's expression of personal sensibilities using the plots, characters and feel of old Cantonese films. The exaggerated directing, scripting and acting recreate the primitive allure of Cantonese cinema, paying homage to a faded era. Five years later, Black Rose goes for the same trick but no improvement is offered. From the devising of plots to the quality of the acting to the continuation of sentiments, the film is still locked in the same gear. Nothing is done to enhance the unique campy feeling of the original. This is best illustrated by the scene in which the flying bell is pitted against the flying sword; Lau's brilliance in imagination is nowhere to be found. | | LOG IN TO COMMENT ON THIS REVIEW! |
| | | | |
|
