Triangle

Very good effort from the three directors. The story were made so compact that the movie appeared too short to me. Because I am not a fan for either of them, I could not really tell which part was made by whom. However, the movie has kept quite a consistency in style, to me it is already an achievement for the three.

Great layout of stages and clues were provided to the audience. Some particular points may looked chance-medley, but there were also inevitability alongside (e.g. the crazy guy kept shaking his head seems odd, but he is the man who gives convincing enough reason to bring the wanted police, the three ghouls and the police officer together.).

The blackout section was the most exciting and breath taking part of the movie. When all the forces came meet together with interaction and conflict of interests. Very dramatic and humorous, with a touch of personal loyalty for covering each other.

There were also many choices available to characters, obvious one was when the antiquary guy throwing the treasure in the reed bush, when he had kill-or-not-to-kill option the moment before. Another example is when all 4 of them got out of the bush and looked back to the surrounded cop, they kept looking till confirming the cop is really good at shooting, and passed the option on to him.

Overall, with the discussion of the human nature against survival, the movie made itself outstanding.

The much awaited Hong Kong movie Triangle has finally hit our shores. It's an interesting project, given that 3 HK directors - Tsui Hark, Ringo Lam and Johnnie To - are combining forces to tell a story in the "exquisite corpse" style, where each one takes over from where the other left off, each injecting their own narrative style and spin to the characters and story. It's friendly one-upmanship between the directors in their bout to demonstrate their innovativeness, spontaneity and resourcefulness, but what comes through is clearly a mixed bag, expectedly so since you have three distinct creative inputs.

Does it come across as confusing? You bet, at least for the first third when Tsui creates the characters and the premise. I thought Tsui had tried to bite off more than he can chew. Then again, being the one off the starting blocks, he might be trying to provide as many possibilities and directions that the narrative can choose to adopt and examine in depth or drop altogether. And he doesn't get involved in the chewing anyway, as that's left to Ringo Lam to digest, and Johnnie To to wrap up. Tsui creates a trio who are hard pressed for cash. In Mok's (Chinese actor Sun Hong Lei) antique shop, Fai (Louis Koo) proposes to Sam (Simon Yam) about a heist, which requires them to utilize the latter's driving skills. A stranger appears and provides them an ancient coin, and a puzzle on a website which directs them to treasure (which includes lingerie!) underneath a government legislative building.

Simple enough? Yes, until we also get thrown many other subplots, some of which involves the original heist gone awry because of Sam's backing out, Sam's wife Ling (Kelly Lin) having an affair with corrupt cop Wen (Lam Ka Tung), Fai being under Wen's payroll and their plot within a plot in the original heist to bump Sam off, so that the adulterous couple can lead a new life, gangland members screwball involvement in the whole scheme of things, and the list goes on. Ideas get thrown into the mix and tossed about, and you can almost hear Tsui's cheeky snickering at how Lam and To will be able to sieve through the mess.

But fret not, I believe Lam had managed to, given that he closed most of the open threads and decided quite cleverly, to focus on the individual motivations involving a love "Triangle", and examined some of the characters in depth. This created a much needed and deserved pause for your brain to filter through the noise Tsui had caused, and made the narrative henceforth more manageable, and it did have some rather creative scenes of violence. Fans of Ringo Lam will have known of his earlier movie City On Fire, which Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs was widely acknowledged to be inspired from. And in Lam's third of the movie, he provides a throwback to Reservoir Dogs, coming full circle with a scene within a warehouse, a character in bondage, everyone else coming over for their piece of the action, with music played over a turntable.

So what's left of Johnnie To to do? He cleared the mess, literally. I thought he provided the best possible last arc for what had transpired over the last hour, with shades from the Election movie (the hunt for an artifact) and a very, very complicated setup to Exiled styled Mexican stand-offs, together with themes of brotherhood, loyalty and honour all summed up beautifully. And I thought he just had to throw in Lam Suet for comedic purposes to provide one last, but short, complication to up the ante that he too can make things complex! To does what To does best, and by the time the credits roll, you'll be pondering over what had transpired, and no doubt, I believe the talking point will be its ending.

All in all, Triangle proved to be an enjoyable ride. Just endure the messy start to get to the meat, before lasting the final sprint to the finishing line where you'll get that rewarding yarn. I'm not sure if the three directors will collaborate again, maybe they should, but this time to rearrange the order for a different film, and if they're at it, why not make it a trilogy to complete the loop so that everyone has a chance to begin, sustain, and close.

My clockmaker friend was not pleased. His rating system is such: If you look at your watch once, its a good movie. Twice is pushing your luck and three times and you're out of luck. ( No clock being the perfect movie ). He took 3 looks. Though having some decent scenes you sort of get a mixed bag of plotting, double-crossing and old style Tsui Hark slapstick. Still we found it worth talking about afterward a bit, so maybe its worth a look... Side plots aren't concluded and motivations aren't all too clear, the segmentation isn't really clear, you don't really see the 3 parts differentiate from each other. Still, could have fared worse since for a change the action was not the consuming theme, instead the few fights being portrayed in what i'd imagine to be a realistic fashion, won't tell more.. Some good comedy , good milieu, gotta be fair it had some OK content to it too.

For a movie that has been put together by three of the heavyweight directors of Hong Kong cinema, you would expect nothing short of a masterpiece to be the end result. However, that was not really the case with "Triangle".

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that "Triangle" is a bad or boring movie, far from it actually. The storyline in the movie is good and well put together, although it just tended to drag on in long sequences. There are far better movies available from the Hong Kong cinema compared to this one.

Aside from the three directors, then "Triangle" does have some rather good and established Hong Kong actors to the cast list; Louis Koo and Simon Yam really did carry the movie quite nicely.

There is a lot of action in the movie, which works out quite well, however the last part of the movie that takes place in a small outdoors food vendor in the nature (I assume this is somewhere in the New Territories) tended to become a little too much, especially because there was some comedy and humor attended to throw into that scene, which just ended up making the scene worse.

"Triangle" is a solid enough movie with good performances, however, I had just initially expected something extraordinary to come from a collaboration between Tsui Hark, Ringo Lam and Johnnie To.

If a movie can't hold your interest in the first 25 minutes, it's over as far as I'm concerned. This concept that you have to simply deal with a slow first third of a movie and be rewarded later is nonsense. A good movie has to start and end strong. It all seem interesting and some decent shots and lots of promise, but ultimately muddled and irrelevant. There are so many other movies from Asia to watch, many of which I am sure most of you have not seen, that I would really skip this one and look elsewhere. Why exactly does IMDb require a 10 line minimum for reviews? I said my piece and I hope this helps a few of you move on to the next film.