Ong-Bak: The Thai Warrior, 2003

There is a purity and focus that sets this flick apart from the contrived and conventional baloney of Hong Kong. l,. m, .

What did you think about this review?

Thank you for voting.

Like Dislike

Abuse report sent

Report abuse

Ong-bak is worth seeing just for Tony Jaa. He?s as good as everyone claims he is, and maybe better. He does all of his own stunts, and they are simply amazing. Hollywood movies chock-full of computer imagery and wires try to be this stunt-laden, and fail. I?ve heard people compare Jaa to Jackie Chan and Jet Li. While both are good in their own styles, I enjoyed watching Jaa far more. He doesn?t have much on-screen personality, but I think it?s just a matter of time. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie was a miserable failure. If you watch Ong-bak, watch it for the action, the fighting, and the stunts, but not anything else. The story was so thin it was laughable. The supporting cast was ridiculous. The villains were anything but intimidating. The acting was bad. The scenery was very blah and the color palette was, well, brown. The direction looked like that of a first-timer (which it was) and was full of camera tricks and instant replays that got old fast. I think the most disappointing thing about Ong-bak was the sense of failed potential. The movie was so close to being a great, A+, 5-star, Muay Thai death-fest, but in the end it failed. You simply can?t make a movie based solely on action and fight scenes. They can be the centerpiece, but the cornerstones have to be a decent story with quality characters. With those, a movie can stand out and become a classic. Without, and it?s nothing more than the fad of the week.

What did you think about this review?

Thank you for voting.

Like Dislike

Abuse report sent

Report abuse