As another reviewer put it, this movie was very similar to Dune. Very interesting comparison, since Raffaella De Laurentiis produced them both. This was her first project right after Dune. Both were sweeping epic sagas with multiple intertwined plotlines. Both should have been six or eight hour mini series and not feature films. As with Dune, you will find that if you have not read the book, you will not understand the movie. However, if you have read the book, then the movie isn't all that bad. James Clavell's 'Asian Saga' is one of my favorite book series, so I bought this movie cheap just to see it. The characters are like old friends to me, so I didn't think that the movie was all that bad. I realized while watching it though, that someone who had not read the book would not be able to keep up with all of the plot points. My suggestion to you is to read the book, then watch the movie. You will discover two things; first it's a super good book. Second, this movie had everything going for it in cast and settings; it just had too much story to tell in too short a time. It definitely should have been a six-hour miniseries.
24 Reviews
Not bad!
rbischoff5 September 2005
I found this movie to follow the novel pretty closely, considering of course that the novel is about 900 pages and the movie is only two hours! While not of the same outstanding caliber of adaptation as the Shogun miniseries, it nevertheless manages to generate some excitement and give a flavor for the happenings of that period, during which the colony of Hong Kong was founded.
Joan Chen was especially good as Mai-Mai, and all the other parts were at least adequately cast. The locations, sets and production values were of uniformly good quality. The only thing lacking was enough time to tell a story this long and complex--in such a short production one only has time to hit the high points of the plot. But it was enjoyable nevertheless.
Joan Chen was especially good as Mai-Mai, and all the other parts were at least adequately cast. The locations, sets and production values were of uniformly good quality. The only thing lacking was enough time to tell a story this long and complex--in such a short production one only has time to hit the high points of the plot. But it was enjoyable nevertheless.
The Founding Of Hong Kong
bkoganbing3 May 2008
Tai-Pan was probably too ambitious an undertaking for a film as short as just over 2 hours. Maybe a mini-series would have been the answer, but Tai-Pan certainly had the potential to be an oriental Gone With The Wind.
Unrealized potential though it is. The screenplay made many references to previous events in the novel that are not shown here. We do know there's one nasty rivalry going on between Bryan Brown and John Stanton who both rose to wealth in the China trade like the protagonists in an Edna Ferber novel.
Bryan Brown is the Far East version of Rhett Butler. He's built the family fortune on legal trade and illegal trade in opium. Not that opium was unknown before the British and other European powers got there, but they did turn it into a thriving business. When the Chinese government objected, the European powers took nibbles out of a prostrate and weakened state.
One of those nibbles the British took was Hong Kong, spoils from the Opium War of 1841. Brown like Margaret Mitchell's Rhett Butler or the hero of many Edna Ferber books is the guy who builds what became one of the busiest trading centers on the globe.
Unlike his rival Stanton, Brown's wife left him and took their small son back to the United Kingdom. Brown didn't mourn he took up with some Chinese women, they were pawns in various business negotiations. He got a son, Russell Wong, from one of them.
Things get interesting when his other son arrives from Great Britain played by Tim Guinee. He's a rather uptight Victorian youth who is not pleased with the debauchery he finds and his father's part in it.
Tai-Pan is exquisitely photographed with the climatic typhoon scene very well done indeed. A better screenplay would have been needed to tell this epic story.
Unrealized potential though it is. The screenplay made many references to previous events in the novel that are not shown here. We do know there's one nasty rivalry going on between Bryan Brown and John Stanton who both rose to wealth in the China trade like the protagonists in an Edna Ferber novel.
Bryan Brown is the Far East version of Rhett Butler. He's built the family fortune on legal trade and illegal trade in opium. Not that opium was unknown before the British and other European powers got there, but they did turn it into a thriving business. When the Chinese government objected, the European powers took nibbles out of a prostrate and weakened state.
One of those nibbles the British took was Hong Kong, spoils from the Opium War of 1841. Brown like Margaret Mitchell's Rhett Butler or the hero of many Edna Ferber books is the guy who builds what became one of the busiest trading centers on the globe.
Unlike his rival Stanton, Brown's wife left him and took their small son back to the United Kingdom. Brown didn't mourn he took up with some Chinese women, they were pawns in various business negotiations. He got a son, Russell Wong, from one of them.
Things get interesting when his other son arrives from Great Britain played by Tim Guinee. He's a rather uptight Victorian youth who is not pleased with the debauchery he finds and his father's part in it.
Tai-Pan is exquisitely photographed with the climatic typhoon scene very well done indeed. A better screenplay would have been needed to tell this epic story.
If you love exotic melodramas, this one's for you!
Libretio19 February 2005
TAI-PAN
Aspect ratio: 2.39:1 (J-D-C Scope)
Sound format: Dolby Stereo
1840's China: Thrown off the mainland because of his opium dealings, a western merchant (Bryan Brown) sets up home on the island of Hong Kong where he faces conflict from friend and foe alike in the lead-up to colonization.
Hugely derided at the time of its release, this handsome production - based on the novel by James Clavell, and directed by TV specialist Daryl Duke (THE THORN BIRDS) - plays to the gallery at every turn, embracing the book's labyrinthine plot and outrageous melodrama with unashamed fervour, an approach which appears to have sealed its fate at the box-office. The movie opens a little too abruptly, indicating a troubled post-production, but John Briley's busy screenplay (co-written with Stanley Mann) unfolds against a colorful historical backdrop and includes just enough nudity and violence to keep boredom at bay. Brown's performance is compromised by an unconvincing Scottish accent, and he's upstaged by Joan Chen (THE LAST EMPEROR) as the Chinese girl who loves him regardless of his failings, while handsome Tim Guinee (HOW TO MAKE AN American QUILT) is achingly sincere as Brown's naive young son, led astray by villainous merchants plotting his family's downfall. Also starring John Stanton, Russell Wong, Norman Rodway, Kyra Sedgwick and Bert Remsen in supporting roles. Production values strive to capture an epic feel and are largely successful, though no one's ever going to mistake this for "Lawrence of Hong Kong"! Italian makeup maestro Giannetto de Rossi (a regular contributor to the films of Lucio Fulci) provides some occasional flashes of gore, including a brief - but realistic - decapitation near the beginning of the picture.
Aspect ratio: 2.39:1 (J-D-C Scope)
Sound format: Dolby Stereo
1840's China: Thrown off the mainland because of his opium dealings, a western merchant (Bryan Brown) sets up home on the island of Hong Kong where he faces conflict from friend and foe alike in the lead-up to colonization.
Hugely derided at the time of its release, this handsome production - based on the novel by James Clavell, and directed by TV specialist Daryl Duke (THE THORN BIRDS) - plays to the gallery at every turn, embracing the book's labyrinthine plot and outrageous melodrama with unashamed fervour, an approach which appears to have sealed its fate at the box-office. The movie opens a little too abruptly, indicating a troubled post-production, but John Briley's busy screenplay (co-written with Stanley Mann) unfolds against a colorful historical backdrop and includes just enough nudity and violence to keep boredom at bay. Brown's performance is compromised by an unconvincing Scottish accent, and he's upstaged by Joan Chen (THE LAST EMPEROR) as the Chinese girl who loves him regardless of his failings, while handsome Tim Guinee (HOW TO MAKE AN American QUILT) is achingly sincere as Brown's naive young son, led astray by villainous merchants plotting his family's downfall. Also starring John Stanton, Russell Wong, Norman Rodway, Kyra Sedgwick and Bert Remsen in supporting roles. Production values strive to capture an epic feel and are largely successful, though no one's ever going to mistake this for "Lawrence of Hong Kong"! Italian makeup maestro Giannetto de Rossi (a regular contributor to the films of Lucio Fulci) provides some occasional flashes of gore, including a brief - but realistic - decapitation near the beginning of the picture.
Might have been better received if called "Selected Scenes from Tai-Pan"
jainafel7 May 2004
Warning: Spoilers
At first I was sceptical - I've read and loved Tai-Pan, for one - but soon I was sucked in by the story and couldn't stop watching till I'd finished the show.
Admittedly, it's much less of a movie than Tai-Pan is of a book. But the book is a giant among books, and the show is still a good show. Those who have read the book, rather than savaging it for its divergence from the book (which, in any case, would require a mini-series to do its layering and complexity justice, not a 2-hour show) should treat it as a kind of visual accompaniment to the story - good casting, good handling of some powerful scenes. Alright, they were much more powerful in the book, but it's not all the time that readers of a splendid book get the opportunity to see a capable visual incarnation that does justice to the characters, at least, if not to the plot. Maybe if the show had been titled "Selected Scenes from Tai-Pan" rather than "Tai-Pan" it would have been better received by purists. As "Selected Scenes" it's really very good. As "Tai-Pan", maybe not so good - for some of the most vivid scenes from the book are never realised in the show - like the marvellous dim sum negotiations and the whole subplot about the malaria.
What I'm trying to say is it did treat the subject material well, although obviously it couldn't pack everything which makes us love the book into just two hours. In an adaptation of a book, when you can recognise each character instantly before the character's name is mentioned it's always a good sign - where there's good casting, it's a sign that it's a sensitive adaptation, and this was the case with Tai-Pan. I thought Bryan Brown was very good as Dirk Struan; I'm not Scottish, so I couldn't tell that his accent was as fake as many others seem to think it. Tyler and Gorth Brock (and Quance, Culum, Mary, etc) were exactly as I'd imagined them, and Joan Chen was not half bad as May-may.
I was genuinely moved by some scenes which proved Leonard Maltin's comment about 'sledgehammer subtlety' wrong. **MILD SPOILER HERE** And though I had my reservations initially about how they were going to pull off the episode where May-may makes the mistake of dressing incongrously in European fashion and all that follows, I thought it was handled very well.
I can see how those who haven't read the book would find it laughable, though, because due to the compression of the plot you don't really get to know the characters and understand their motivations from scratch. Some of Clavell's magnificent dialogue from the book might sound weird in the show, or lacking in punch, for those without a prior acquaintance of the book, because of this lack of emotional set-up. That's why I think it's best for those who have read the book, who already know the characters and can watch them fully-fledged, so to speak, as the show doesn't spend time introducing the audience to the characters.
Perhaps the reason that fans of James Clavell's books are so vociferous in their criticism of this show, sometimes, is because they are acclimatised to splendid, detailed and heartfelt adaptations of so many of his other books - the Shogun mini-series, the Noble House mini-series and the King Rat film. Why, Clavell fans are really so fortunate already when it comes to screen adaptations! :) If we lowered our expectations a little, we'd see that Tai-Pan, too, is not that bad a treatment of the book at all!
Admittedly, it's much less of a movie than Tai-Pan is of a book. But the book is a giant among books, and the show is still a good show. Those who have read the book, rather than savaging it for its divergence from the book (which, in any case, would require a mini-series to do its layering and complexity justice, not a 2-hour show) should treat it as a kind of visual accompaniment to the story - good casting, good handling of some powerful scenes. Alright, they were much more powerful in the book, but it's not all the time that readers of a splendid book get the opportunity to see a capable visual incarnation that does justice to the characters, at least, if not to the plot. Maybe if the show had been titled "Selected Scenes from Tai-Pan" rather than "Tai-Pan" it would have been better received by purists. As "Selected Scenes" it's really very good. As "Tai-Pan", maybe not so good - for some of the most vivid scenes from the book are never realised in the show - like the marvellous dim sum negotiations and the whole subplot about the malaria.
What I'm trying to say is it did treat the subject material well, although obviously it couldn't pack everything which makes us love the book into just two hours. In an adaptation of a book, when you can recognise each character instantly before the character's name is mentioned it's always a good sign - where there's good casting, it's a sign that it's a sensitive adaptation, and this was the case with Tai-Pan. I thought Bryan Brown was very good as Dirk Struan; I'm not Scottish, so I couldn't tell that his accent was as fake as many others seem to think it. Tyler and Gorth Brock (and Quance, Culum, Mary, etc) were exactly as I'd imagined them, and Joan Chen was not half bad as May-may.
I was genuinely moved by some scenes which proved Leonard Maltin's comment about 'sledgehammer subtlety' wrong. **MILD SPOILER HERE** And though I had my reservations initially about how they were going to pull off the episode where May-may makes the mistake of dressing incongrously in European fashion and all that follows, I thought it was handled very well.
I can see how those who haven't read the book would find it laughable, though, because due to the compression of the plot you don't really get to know the characters and understand their motivations from scratch. Some of Clavell's magnificent dialogue from the book might sound weird in the show, or lacking in punch, for those without a prior acquaintance of the book, because of this lack of emotional set-up. That's why I think it's best for those who have read the book, who already know the characters and can watch them fully-fledged, so to speak, as the show doesn't spend time introducing the audience to the characters.
Perhaps the reason that fans of James Clavell's books are so vociferous in their criticism of this show, sometimes, is because they are acclimatised to splendid, detailed and heartfelt adaptations of so many of his other books - the Shogun mini-series, the Noble House mini-series and the King Rat film. Why, Clavell fans are really so fortunate already when it comes to screen adaptations! :) If we lowered our expectations a little, we'd see that Tai-Pan, too, is not that bad a treatment of the book at all!
Mediocre rendition about James Clavell's novel, deemed to be first American production shot in China
ma-cortes29 January 2021
Very average epic about the birth of the Hong Kong colony , being and overerblown and lousily paced retelling . A disjointed mess set in 19th Century when a powerful lord has to escape from Canton due to "Opium War" and to go a coastal location to be founded the city of Hong Kong . The chief trader , Tai Pan: Bryan Brown , dreams of establishing a colony of commerce to be callled Hong Kong and , eventually , he gets it .
This in an inferior, pretentious epic , whose basis for the film is the James Clavell's novel of the same name, regarding some very free historic events about the origin of the Hong Kong colony, including some really ludricous characters . As a Scottish trader : Bryan Brown and his beautiful mistress : Joan Chen are the main roles in this confusing attempt to dramatize the story of Hong Kong's foundation and development into an important trading port . Along the way the principal plot is mingled with loving conflicts , personal vengeances and ambition for possession of Hong Kong port . It packs love stories , violent confrontation , fights , brief nudism and anything else . The film goes wrong due to too many subplots and roles are badly introduced in a short time to do justice to the much better novel ; Tai Pan . This mixed bag plays like a TV miniseries chopped from seven hours to two . Along with main starring : Bryan Brown, Joan Chen , appearing familiar faces as newcomers : Tim Guinee, Janine Turner , Kyra Sedgwick and veteran support cast as Bert Remsen and John Stanton .
Here stands out the moving and spectacular musical score by the great John Barry, as well as colorful cinematography by prestigious cameraman Jack Cardiff . Shot on location in Hong Kong and considred to be the first American production completely filmed in China . The motion picture was regularly directed by Daryl Duke and it failed totally in the world box office , in spite of the big budget financed by Raffaela de Laurentiis , Dino's daughter. Daryl Duke was a craftsman who usually directed episodes of notorious TV series and occassionally made some movies as "I heard the Owl call my name" , " Payday" , "President's plane is missing" , "Silent Partner" and " The Thornbirds", among others . Rating 4.5/10 , a middlingly made movie .
This in an inferior, pretentious epic , whose basis for the film is the James Clavell's novel of the same name, regarding some very free historic events about the origin of the Hong Kong colony, including some really ludricous characters . As a Scottish trader : Bryan Brown and his beautiful mistress : Joan Chen are the main roles in this confusing attempt to dramatize the story of Hong Kong's foundation and development into an important trading port . Along the way the principal plot is mingled with loving conflicts , personal vengeances and ambition for possession of Hong Kong port . It packs love stories , violent confrontation , fights , brief nudism and anything else . The film goes wrong due to too many subplots and roles are badly introduced in a short time to do justice to the much better novel ; Tai Pan . This mixed bag plays like a TV miniseries chopped from seven hours to two . Along with main starring : Bryan Brown, Joan Chen , appearing familiar faces as newcomers : Tim Guinee, Janine Turner , Kyra Sedgwick and veteran support cast as Bert Remsen and John Stanton .
Here stands out the moving and spectacular musical score by the great John Barry, as well as colorful cinematography by prestigious cameraman Jack Cardiff . Shot on location in Hong Kong and considred to be the first American production completely filmed in China . The motion picture was regularly directed by Daryl Duke and it failed totally in the world box office , in spite of the big budget financed by Raffaela de Laurentiis , Dino's daughter. Daryl Duke was a craftsman who usually directed episodes of notorious TV series and occassionally made some movies as "I heard the Owl call my name" , " Payday" , "President's plane is missing" , "Silent Partner" and " The Thornbirds", among others . Rating 4.5/10 , a middlingly made movie .
Too much in too short a time
RAY-13025 July 2005
I agree with other comments that this should have been a miniseries but on HBO not commercial TV. The scenes with the various women would have been destroyed with censorship. I believe that it did give an accurate "feel" to the times and events depicted.
Upon viewing this I immediately ordered the book ( I had ignored it due to some disappointment at Nobel House ). Also bit the bullet and ordered Shogun the miniseries. Mr. Clavell's work s are to be appreciated even in movies that fall short. I do wish Bryan Brown had a better accent but Joan Chen mimicked it perfectly.
The supporting cast both western and oriental were excellent. Also the "few" ships used were great. Now I want Noble House on DVD.
Upon viewing this I immediately ordered the book ( I had ignored it due to some disappointment at Nobel House ). Also bit the bullet and ordered Shogun the miniseries. Mr. Clavell's work s are to be appreciated even in movies that fall short. I do wish Bryan Brown had a better accent but Joan Chen mimicked it perfectly.
The supporting cast both western and oriental were excellent. Also the "few" ships used were great. Now I want Noble House on DVD.
A crushing disappointment
Leofwine_draca22 February 2014
It's worth pointing out that I came to this film having read James Clavell's excellent novel, TAI-PAN, on which this is based. If I hadn't read the book beforehand, I probably would have enjoyed this adaptation a lot more.
Sadly, I was left feeling that the filmed TAI-PAN is a crushing disappointment, purely because it cuts so very much out of the story. The whole background is missing, the Triad stuff, the politics, the trade with the Chinese. The story is reduced to the human relationships and particularly the family rivalries between the main characters, but there was so much more to it than that.
I do understand that films are very different to books and that adaptations have to cut material out, but TAI-PAN has a two hour running time and a lot of it is slow-paced. If it had told events at a much faster pace, it would have been able to include a lot more of the details and subtleties that are missing here. As it is, there are elements of greatness - plus the novelty of seeing Bryan Brown in a leading role - but it could have been so much more. A miniseries would suffice better, I think.
Sadly, I was left feeling that the filmed TAI-PAN is a crushing disappointment, purely because it cuts so very much out of the story. The whole background is missing, the Triad stuff, the politics, the trade with the Chinese. The story is reduced to the human relationships and particularly the family rivalries between the main characters, but there was so much more to it than that.
I do understand that films are very different to books and that adaptations have to cut material out, but TAI-PAN has a two hour running time and a lot of it is slow-paced. If it had told events at a much faster pace, it would have been able to include a lot more of the details and subtleties that are missing here. As it is, there are elements of greatness - plus the novelty of seeing Bryan Brown in a leading role - but it could have been so much more. A miniseries would suffice better, I think.
Oops
neil-47622 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
An 18th century merchant is involved in the establishment of Hong Kong as a trading outpost.
In between the miniseries adaptations of Shogun and Noble House, James Clavell saw a big screen adaptation of his novel Taipan. While it is not a complete disaster, it has some grievous faults. These include:
1. Trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot - there is a reason why the other books are miniseries. There is far too much story for a single feature film.
2. No names. The film needed a big box office draw to pull people into cinemas. It got Bryan Brown.
3. Some bad casting. The Brocks are pretty badly cast, but Bryan Brown has to be the worst. If they were going to cast someone who wasn't a box office draw, why didn't they go with a Scotsman to play a Scotsman, rather than an Australian? There are some real rubbish Scots accents here.
4. There are also some fairly dodgy effects, especially travelling mattes. Having said that, they are fairly standard for the time.
In between the miniseries adaptations of Shogun and Noble House, James Clavell saw a big screen adaptation of his novel Taipan. While it is not a complete disaster, it has some grievous faults. These include:
1. Trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot - there is a reason why the other books are miniseries. There is far too much story for a single feature film.
2. No names. The film needed a big box office draw to pull people into cinemas. It got Bryan Brown.
3. Some bad casting. The Brocks are pretty badly cast, but Bryan Brown has to be the worst. If they were going to cast someone who wasn't a box office draw, why didn't they go with a Scotsman to play a Scotsman, rather than an Australian? There are some real rubbish Scots accents here.
4. There are also some fairly dodgy effects, especially travelling mattes. Having said that, they are fairly standard for the time.
Should have been made as a mini series.
yenlo23 June 1999
Adventure film based on James Clavell's novel about a 19th-century trade baron who makes his headquarters in Hong Kong. This is the 3rd worst motion picture I've ever seen in a theater (behind Rebel and Dune.) It seemed that the original intention was to have made this as a TV mini series and not for theatrical release. One point in the film Bryan Browns character Dirk Struan tells another male character "When you make dung you'll wipe your arse with paper". The entire theater crowd erupted in laughter for about five minutes and it appeared that the line was not intended to be humorous. That's how bad this movie was.
Is the art alive?
krakatau-4831326 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This film, in my view, is one of the new classics, new, because it's not that old since 1986. What surprised me is its IMDb rating, just 5.3, but ''Bahubali'', Indian naturally, there is 8.8, just I am amaze. One of my "little big actors" plays in the movie - Brian Brown, and I think it's "the role of his life," not that there are not others, but I think here is the main role and he performs it perfectly. The other big is Joan Chen, who plays his Chinese wife, and for her performance I also have no words. I'm sorry, it is not possible for someone who likes the "Bahubali" to like this movie as well. Time will show which one is more valuable.
The Second-Worst Film I've Ever Seen
karlpall3 December 1999
As a movie reviewer for my college newspaper, I often was told: "You've got a great job, you get paid to go to movies." My standard answer was: "It's not that great - I had to sit through 'Tai-Pan'." The only movie that has given me more pain was "Ishtar."
Very interesting historical movie about the beginning of Hong Kong with a bad ending.
Chinesevil27 March 2022
The movie has an interesting historical background and makes us understand the terrible racism and cultural problems of the Chinese towards other more educated and more advanced peoples of the world.
Even the amorous plot is pleasant and vaguely realistic but the ending too often repeats the idea of jealousies, hatreds, like a continuous struggle and violence that ends without a clear meaning.
Even the amorous plot is pleasant and vaguely realistic but the ending too often repeats the idea of jealousies, hatreds, like a continuous struggle and violence that ends without a clear meaning.
why the accents
Mark Price21 February 2005
Poor acting from most and the director seemed so insistent of being true to the book there was very little excitement and a lot of needless dialogue. Who wrote the screenplay and did they ever work again. It is the worst I've ever seen Bryan Brown do. I couldn't get past his Scottish accent which was too thick when he remembered it and not at all when he didn't. Janine Turner cannot do a Southern States American accent either. It was painful to sit through. When you work from a best seller than a mini series on TV would give it more depth. To pack it in to 90 minutes of movie then you have to sacrifice a lot of the book to do the film justice - as with the Godfather for example. I might watch it again and pretend it's a comedy.......... no not enough laughs 1/10
not really all that bad...
eurasianprincess18 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, so it was very late, and I was very tired, but I did find this entertaining, and in the end, that's all I was looking for when I was channel surfing last night.
I admit that some of the accents were poor, but not any worse than Tom Cruise's 'Oirish' in Far and Away, and many other Hollywood attempts I can't be bothered to list at the moment. And though not Oscarworthy, this certainly wasn't the worst acting I've seen. I may have enjoyed it far more than it deserved, because I'm feeling really homesick for HK at the mo, and all the little things like the materials used for some of the men's waistcoats and even the skyline (wow, how much things have changed since they filmed that!) made me smile. What also made me smile was the way *SPOILER*Dirk always seemed to get wounded in the same arm....you'd think after a few fights he'd be all 'What are you doing with that gun? Watch my arm. Watch my arm. Oh, not again!' */SPOILER*
I have to confess, I didn't catch all of it - only about an hour and a half - from about 5mins before *SPOILER* the fight on the boat*/SPOILER* to the end, but what I did see kept me up and wanting to see more until the end, and isn't that what filmmakers want us to do?
Not the best film I've ever seen, but certainly not the worst.
I admit that some of the accents were poor, but not any worse than Tom Cruise's 'Oirish' in Far and Away, and many other Hollywood attempts I can't be bothered to list at the moment. And though not Oscarworthy, this certainly wasn't the worst acting I've seen. I may have enjoyed it far more than it deserved, because I'm feeling really homesick for HK at the mo, and all the little things like the materials used for some of the men's waistcoats and even the skyline (wow, how much things have changed since they filmed that!) made me smile. What also made me smile was the way *SPOILER*Dirk always seemed to get wounded in the same arm....you'd think after a few fights he'd be all 'What are you doing with that gun? Watch my arm. Watch my arm. Oh, not again!' */SPOILER*
I have to confess, I didn't catch all of it - only about an hour and a half - from about 5mins before *SPOILER* the fight on the boat*/SPOILER* to the end, but what I did see kept me up and wanting to see more until the end, and isn't that what filmmakers want us to do?
Not the best film I've ever seen, but certainly not the worst.
Hysterically Bad
irishcoffee63023 August 2003
This film is very very bad. I saw this in a theater on opening weekend with about 10 other people. (That tell you something). Set in 1800's, the storyline is plain wacky the funniest thing is the Russian Ambassodor speaking with a down home Georgia drawl. I guess the casting people thought maybe this character was born in the Georgia region in Russia and they would speak that way. Anyway the acting is amazingly bad not helped by the lines they had to deliver. Count how many times they mention "poxed whores". By the end of the film, after a disaster that takes place, I mentioned to my companion watch the smoke will clear and it will reveal modern Hong Kong. Yep that is what happens modern Hong Kong, Or was it Singapore? Atlanta? What have you. As a good/bad movie to laugh at (like The Oscar, Valley Of The Dolls, Showgirls, The Heretic, etc.)it manages some laughs but unlike the others mentioned above, it is not uniformly hysterical as these are. There are a lot of long dull stretches especially in first half of film. 2/10 only for the Russian's accent. Recommend to avoid otherwise. Go read the book.
19th century saga in 3 easy steps
widescreenguy8 July 2007
first, inject countless clichés and stereotypes, populate the cast with some well-knowns, and add some 'tit'illation.
and wait for the box office receipts to pour in!!!
I am very very disappointed in this film which I purchased on VHS. its one of those I *know* I wont be watching a 2nd time.
it meanders, gap toothed, and those stereotypes just weigh it down till it sinks in Hong Kong harbor. and of course, top it all off with a quickie pan of modern day Hong Kong.
some good acting but not enough to overcome the numerous shortcomings.
I didn't read the book but Im sure it far outclasses this quickie 2 + hour 'featurette'. is there a Hollywood ombudsman you can call up to you know, get your money back or something?
Im glad IMDb exists so that duds like this can be outed and red-flagged.
and wait for the box office receipts to pour in!!!
I am very very disappointed in this film which I purchased on VHS. its one of those I *know* I wont be watching a 2nd time.
it meanders, gap toothed, and those stereotypes just weigh it down till it sinks in Hong Kong harbor. and of course, top it all off with a quickie pan of modern day Hong Kong.
some good acting but not enough to overcome the numerous shortcomings.
I didn't read the book but Im sure it far outclasses this quickie 2 + hour 'featurette'. is there a Hollywood ombudsman you can call up to you know, get your money back or something?
Im glad IMDb exists so that duds like this can be outed and red-flagged.
I thought this must be a joke
Johnny_Boy17 February 2005
The Accents! Not even an attempt - what were they thinking? They might as well have done the whole thing in that Southern Drawl of the Russian Ambassador. Maybe it's because I'm a Brit but the crass incongruity of someone who seemed never to have heard a Scot trying to do a Scottish accent - who did they use as a voice coach - groundskeeper Willie? Scottie from Star Trek (a Canadian)?. This meant the whole thing never really got started for me - I'm sure it's a great story (never read the book - maybe I should) but I couldn't get past the awful casting, dialogue and wooden performances. Is this Hollywood poking fun at the Brits again? It was hard to tell - if it was it was a joke that backfired pretty badly. If the performances were meant to reflect badly on the colonial British (we've heard it all before - get over it) then all they seemed to show was that a portrayal of buffoons by buffoons doesn't really give much insight into the original buffoons. Actually there's a whole sub-thesis there about how you need to be a good actor to play the baddies - hence why Brits always get a staring role as the villain I guess. Anyway this movie is a stinker - which is a shame because it obviously cost quite a bit to make.
Sorry ! This movie was crap !
tmifune22 April 2004
I dont have much to say about this movie..It had a lot going the right way, until you hear Bryan Browns scotland accent HORRIBLE and ANNOYING ! I actually noticed he's got one look on his face through the whole movie..the type of look you see on a person who is avoiding looking straight in the camera
I saw this movie after I saw Shogun, so I had my hopes up I guess ! Go see Shogun or read the book forget about this crappy Kurosawa wannabe movie
A lot of nice scenery and photography, but the rest sucks swedish meatballs..I feel sorry for the people who had to see this in the cinema and watch the whole thing. My generation had Pearl Harbor so... !!!
I saw this movie after I saw Shogun, so I had my hopes up I guess ! Go see Shogun or read the book forget about this crappy Kurosawa wannabe movie
A lot of nice scenery and photography, but the rest sucks swedish meatballs..I feel sorry for the people who had to see this in the cinema and watch the whole thing. My generation had Pearl Harbor so... !!!
No pace, no good story, no good acting. A really bad movie!
Boba_Fett113818 February 2005
This is one dreadful movie. The movie just drags and drags on without any pace or good story development. And the horrible accents and acting also didn't made it exactly pleasant to watch.
Couldn't they at least have tried to make it a bit entertaining? After all I watch this movie expecting it to be an adventure movie. There was not one thing in this movie that was entertaining. I really can't think of one reason why it is worth it that any person should ever watch this movie. Especially after seeing "The Sea Hawk" with Errol Flynn a couple of days ago, this movie is a real disappointment.
How did a fine composer like Maurice Jarre ever got into this mess? this movie really is not worthy to have this man's music.
A real unpleasant watch. One to avoid at all cost.
2/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Couldn't they at least have tried to make it a bit entertaining? After all I watch this movie expecting it to be an adventure movie. There was not one thing in this movie that was entertaining. I really can't think of one reason why it is worth it that any person should ever watch this movie. Especially after seeing "The Sea Hawk" with Errol Flynn a couple of days ago, this movie is a real disappointment.
How did a fine composer like Maurice Jarre ever got into this mess? this movie really is not worthy to have this man's music.
A real unpleasant watch. One to avoid at all cost.
2/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
A Non-Epic
Aylmer26 October 2021
While I wouldn't quite call this film a full-on failure, it does not ultimately live up to the high expectations it creates in the opening. While extremely condensed down from the James Clavell novel covering the founding of Hong Kong as a British territory, this film is ultimately undone by meandering among too many different lurid relationships and not really delivering much action outside of a couple sword fights and an unrealistic man vs. Gang of assassins brawl on a Chinese junk.
Bryan Brown delivers another one of his characteristically fine performances complete with a nearly spot-on Scottish accent. Ditto for the actor who plays his son, who I was shocked to learn was played by an American. The big climax focuses largely on a massive typhoon surging in right at the worst time, which is well realized, but ultimately a major letdown in what characters wind up getting killed off-screen in a decidedly undramatic manner. It would have had a little more punch had the core romance of the movie been established earlier on. The movie also would have been much less confusing if two opposing characters weren't named "Gord" and "Gort".
There's also a couple goofs I had a tough time overlooking, like the wobbly composited ships on the shots of the harbor and the egregiously fake knife used in a key attack scene. All in all, it's decently directed, acted, and well-shot, but this late-stage attempt at an epic film falls just short of delivering the goods.
Bryan Brown delivers another one of his characteristically fine performances complete with a nearly spot-on Scottish accent. Ditto for the actor who plays his son, who I was shocked to learn was played by an American. The big climax focuses largely on a massive typhoon surging in right at the worst time, which is well realized, but ultimately a major letdown in what characters wind up getting killed off-screen in a decidedly undramatic manner. It would have had a little more punch had the core romance of the movie been established earlier on. The movie also would have been much less confusing if two opposing characters weren't named "Gord" and "Gort".
There's also a couple goofs I had a tough time overlooking, like the wobbly composited ships on the shots of the harbor and the egregiously fake knife used in a key attack scene. All in all, it's decently directed, acted, and well-shot, but this late-stage attempt at an epic film falls just short of delivering the goods.
bad old style melodrama
SnoopyStyle24 January 2016
It's 1839 near Canton, China. Chinese officials come to the British settlement demanding for Tai-Pan (chinese word for supreme leader) to appear before the emperor's commissioner for importing opium. Dirk Struan (Bryan Brown) goes despite his companion May-May (Joan Chen)'s warning. The commissioner orders the opium burned without compensation and all foreigners leave Canton. The foreigners retreat back to Macau. Struan sets up his new Nobel House in Hong Kong and convinces Britain to claim the land.
The production looks more like a TV movie. The quality isn't there. The acting is pretty stiff. The story is even worst. This world is too complex to be simplified this way. It basically skims over such tricky issue such as the Opium War. The movie feels lifeless and overwrought.
The production looks more like a TV movie. The quality isn't there. The acting is pretty stiff. The story is even worst. This world is too complex to be simplified this way. It basically skims over such tricky issue such as the Opium War. The movie feels lifeless and overwrought.
A long time in the making?
barneyo17 October 2005
Last night on Turner Classic Movies, I saw a trailer from the sixties called "Lion Power" about all the big projects audiences could expect from MGM in the months and years ahead. Included among them were clips from "Far From the Madding Crowd" and "Where Were You When the Lights Went Out?", plus mention of "Where Eagles Dare" with Richard Burton (not mentioning Clint Eastwood, as perhaps he wasn't signed yet), "Ice Station Zebra", and "2001: A Space Odyssey" with very early-form artwork of its making. Among the many films mentioned in passing near the end of the trailer was "James Clavell's 'Tai-Pan'", yet no earlier version of the film was ever made. Just how long was this thing in the making, and what casts were potentially involved at different times? It would be interesting to see the planned history of such a movie that took so long to finally get made, bad as it reportedly is.
Best book, worst movie
writesprivacy13 January 2022
James Clavell's best novel made the worst movie of his works. King Rat, Shogun, all superb. This one? Had to leave the theater first time through. Having seen it now on video to confir, my first reaction, with the author having passed, seems even more egregious than before.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
