The Art Of War Movie
| Resolution | Size | Download | ||
|
320x144 | 445.18 MiB | ipod | |
Storyline
TAGLINES
Who is your foe?
Do you know who your enemy is?
Shaw is an operative for the United Nations' covert dirty-tricks squad, using espionage and quasi-ethical tactics to secure peace and cooperation. When a shipping container full of dead Vietnamese refugees turns up on the docks and China's ambassador is gunned down at a dinner celebrating a new trade agreement with China and the US, Shaw is framed for the murder and must evade the FBI and Triad gangsters to find out what is really going on.
| Wesley Snipes | Neil Shaw |
| Donald Sutherland | U.N. Secretary General Douglas Thomas |
| Maury Chaykin | Agent Frank Capella |
| Anne Archer | Eleanor Hooks |
| Marie Matiko | Julia Fang |
| Michael Biehn | Robert Bly |
| Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa | David Chan |
| Liliana Komorowska | Novak |
| James Hong | Ambassador Wu |
| Paul Hopkins | Ray, FBI Agent |
| Glen Chin | Ochai |
| Ron Yuan | Ming |
| Bonnie Mak | Anna |
| Uni Park | Tina Chan |
| Erin Selby | Hong Kong Reporter |
| Christian Duguay |
5.50 out of 10 (9275 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Why Make This Movie?
posted on 31 Jul 2009On the strength of trailers and a glowing review by an action-lover friend of mine, I rented this movie only to find that I was left with one question after watching: Why?Once upon a time there was a tv series called The Fugitive. Then a marvelous action movie was made of it starring Harrison Ford as the fugitive and Tommy Lee Jones as the agent chasing him. Then, this spinoff seemed to merit a sequel and US Marshals was shot. So far, so good. USM was a fairly good, though unoriginal action flick, but it was a sequel to a tv spinoff.Then why make Art of War? It's USM all over again! After re-watching USM recently, I confused the two so much I expected scenes from AoW at every turn, and was disappointed and surprised when the surprise ending of AoW wasn't at the end of USM. I am at a loss to explain what possessed the producers to make this movie at all.Other than that, it's an unoriginal but watchable action flick with a convoluted plot and fairly spectacular action sequences. Not guessing who the bad guy is in the first 15 minutes says more about your IQ than about the cleverness of the movie, and the finale is a stretch, but this is a movie that will entertain you if you're into the genre.
So much potential wasted
posted on 11 Jul 2009Warning, possible spoilerI had low expectations going into this movie. After all, it is a Snipes movie. When I came out, I found myself disappointed, not by a particularly bad movie, but by a mediocre movie that could have been a pretty good show.The plot obviously needed some work. Again, this was supposed to be a Wesley Snipes action movie, so don't tell me you saw this because you wanted an inspiring story-line. The central focus of the United Nations is a weak one, and would have been better replaced as a secret agency that doesn't exist. The story revolving around relations between China and the Western world isn't so bad an idea. However it's not exactly at the top of current events so the relevance is a little lost.Background aside, the plot is too close to Mission Impossible to resonate as a unique movie. Too many plot devices could have easily been altered to produce a more entertaining experience. The partner being a villain is far too obvious and tired. Poorly executed. Not even seeing him die is just telling us they hoped the audience was stupid. This problem could have easily been solved by *gasp* actually having the guy die and not be the villain! Is that so much of a stretch?The female lead in the movie provided a great opportunity for a great character. When she first appears, I immediately thought "okay here's Snipes' Asian female counterpart who may or may not be one of the good guys." Instead, she's just there to provide some distraction and someone for Snipes to talk to when he's stuck trying to decide what to do next. Why waste a perfectly good opportunity to introduce a poor excuse for a romance?"The Art of War" title could have been used to a much better extent. Have Snipes' character be well versed in the Sun Tsu text and have him recite snippits of it at the beginning. Make his troubles revolve around Art of War's principles leading up to a great final confrontation after some hard thinking. Or just make it a cool title that has nothing to do with the movie except for a psycho's ranting for two minutes of the movie.Snipes' martial arts skills should have been exploited for this film. The fighting at the beginning of the movie was satisfactory and I was hoping that it would improve throughout the film. Guess I was hoping for too much. Why have him matched up with geezer Michael Biehn who's clearly no threat to Snipes (except maybe at basketball).Speaking of geezers, Donald Sutherland is another actor who doesn't provide any presence expected from a veteran actor. He just comes across as a man with no backbone. The Canadian peace man was a good joke though...Another comment noted the poor language use in the movie and I have to agree. I don't even speak most of the dialects used in the film but even I could tell most of the Chinese was horrible. The lead's (Marie Matiko) Cantonese was atrocious.The action sequences were decent but could have been more. The chase sequence was alright (yeah I know the jumping...), even more so the second time around bringing at least some feeling of intrigue to the film, but was not explored enough to leave a lasting impression. The Matrix effect was clearly not used properly, intended to give a fancy look to a sequence that could have been more intense using conventional cinematography.Small explanations would have been helpful too like who's apartment was that? Was it Snipes'? He DID play basketball just outside... Was she just a member of the team or was she also his lover? Or was he just stalking her and pretended to like playing ball there?The Art of War was a film full of potential but ended up letting me down at every turn. "Hey here's an interesting plot twist... oh wait you just took the stupid way out and hoped nobody noticed..." The script just needed a looking over and would have been an entertaining old-school Snipes film. Instead it ended up being an over-budgeted mediocre thriller.
Good action- good money, no action -no money ?
posted on 11 Jul 2009I thought the movie was all right, some good action scenes, a fairly good story although somewhat predictable. However, I found something a little odd... The final scene "Somewhere in France" is filmed indoors (in a soundstage) although it's supposed to be an exterior shot, and well... it looks bad ! You can clearly see that this scene was shot inside - I mean the sunshine was no stronger than my desk lamp for instance...
:-(
My question is, did they run out of money ? All the special effects and stunts must have cost a bundle, and then when they needed one tiny exterior shot with no action. They could only afford an interior shot -and a poor one at that !!! A shame.
They should have called it "Somewhere in Ohio" and filmed it on location instead ! :-)))My two cents...
Any real potential gone in first 30 minutes
posted on 05 Jul 2009I went to this film in hopes that it would be one of those good Wesley Snipes action movies that we've all come to know and love. Unfortunately I was disappointed. I'll admit there are some good action scenes in it, but the movie, taken as a whole, approaches an almost ridiculous level. The plot tries to be complicated and very intelligent, but it just comes off as silly, contrived and depending on how well you are at reading movies, predictable. Simply put, this movie isn't very good, and you'd be remiss if you chose it over the many other worthwhile offerings there are in the action movie genre.
Disappointing with few action and too much talk.
posted on 05 Jul 2009Neil Shaw is a covert United Nations officer where he: trashes a Chinese millennium party, exposes secret weapons, pounds a few guys in, and makes the defense minister of North Korea 's life a living nightmare publicly displaying his "taste" in women. And this happens in the first ten minutes! With a slamming action introduction to our hero, you would expect THE ART OF WAR to be a fun, non-stop action extravaganza. After the entertaining beginning though, things quickly plummet into a political murder mystery.When the plot begins, we find that an ambassador may be responsible for the death of some Chinese refugees. Once this ambassador is mysteriously murdered, it's up to framed Neil to dodge the Triad and police to uncover the truth about what really happened and who is responsible.Because we want to find out the "truth," there is so much talking that it makes THE ART OF WAR far too long and boring. Also, with so many twists to the plot, it is hard to make out the actual why 's of the characters in the movie. One particular "why" that is confusing is the main villain 's speech where it sounds like the character is whining and mumbling about the United Nations' faults.One thing worth noting besides the beginning is the actual direction. Everything was visually well done and there were no faults to the style of the film. though unique. One note was the climax between Shaw and his main adversary. The slow motion effect done with the bullets fired was nicely done to compensate for the ridiculous close range both of them were in.But from beginning to end aside, THE ART OF WAR is a terrible waste of time, filled with (and should have been advertised as)political babble mixed with conspiracy. With Wesley Snipes, you look for action, but with THE ART OF WAR, you walk out with two hours of life short and a sore bum from slouching.
Nothing new here
posted on 03 Jun 2009The CIA/United Nations has a top secret Impossible Missions Force/ espionage team which it employs to obtain, against incredible odds, information which it can use as leverage against unfriendly powers. The team's highly resourceful point man, Ethan Hunt/Neil Shaw (Tom Cruise/Wesley Snipes), is being hunted for an assassination he didn't commit. Aided only by the one beautiful woman who believes him to be innocent, Hunt/Shaw has little time in which to prove his innocence and trap the guilty insider.This film isn't rubbish, but as my outline of the story indicates, it has the same basic premise as Mission: Impossible. There's nothing new here. Wesley Snipes puts in a very steady performance in the role of Wesley Snipes. I generally enjoy his films and I have to say that this one was no exception. However, with nothing novel to offer, it's very much a film for a quiet Monday night. Some of you might even decide to wait for the video.
The matrix meets blade?
posted on 12 May 2009What dis go through Wesley Snipes'mind when he did this movie, there is no plot, no action and a pointless climax, what a complete bummer after Blade. Wesley Snipes is an actor bound to play in nobrainer movies, he belongs to the dying breed of the one man army guys and tries to share ranks with a Steven Seagall in better days and an Arnold Schwarzenegger. I've caught him saying in an interview that the only reason he wanted to make action flicks was because of the money, a statement he made in the days of Passenger 57. Unfortunately he just missed the boom with this kind of movies, and now he's making these kind of dated films that would have been fun in the 90's but now?? The plot deals with a pack of elite agents, double crossing, some gadget's and ofcourse explosions, all not worth mentioning, get a nice soft pillow and doze off.. This movie clearly shows that: A Snipes is a wannebee and probably never will be capabele of taking a strong lead pure action role, without the FX ( Blade) to please the public. B Donald Sutherland did not pay off his tax debts with the money he got from an earlier disgrace ,"Virus", what the hell is he doing in a movie like this? C Michael Biehn is just about ready to wear a sign around his neck with the text "please James Cameron give me a good part, I can't do it alone", this guy's acting is best suited for a wooden puppet with a big pointy nose or something like that.. Not worth seeing at all!
No art, and no war either
posted on 18 Apr 2009Wesley Snipes plays a secret agent for the UN. Okay. Let me say right now that already this was looking real bad for me liking this movie. Excuse me? "The" UN? Like the UN exists as an organization on its own? Like the UN has an agenda on its own? Never mind.
Apparently this is one of those suspension of disbelief things.So Wesley Snipes is a secret agent for the UN. Oh my GOD I CAN'T BELIVE I WATCHED THIS WHOLE MOVIE! I knew in the first FOUR MINUTES it would be completely devoid of intelligence! I'm not that stupid! Really! *sigh.*
Let me start over. Again.So Wesley Snipes is a secret agent for the UN. He has a name but it wasn't important. Apparently there's some kind of China trade thing going on and the UN has decided it will happen, or something, I never really figured it out. So this secret agent .. *restrains self* .. says he wants to retire but his secret agent boss somehow convinces him to stay for one more "easy" assignment. Ok now I think the guidelines tell me I have to say I'm giving a spoiler before I give it, but I would really call this a saver rather than a spoiler, as it might save you from watching this movie. What happens is, his boss sets him up. DUH! As if this didn't happen in EVERY MOVIE! You know what? It's not a surprise anymore! But it was worse here because it actually didn't make sense even in retrospect. The whole idea apparently was that you watch this movie for two hours and get like one decent fight scene out of it, and realize it had not ONE clever moment, not ONE well-acted scene, not ONE interesting character, not even ONE good idea.You know a woman gets partially decapitated here but ends up living? They COULD have had her be STABBED or something... but apparently they couldn't make up their minds between having something happen that made sense to the plot and having a little extra blood. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit here, they probably didn't even notice.Oh yeah, and at one point, Wesley Snipes goes on a tour back through the route he took during a chase near the beginning apparently figuring things out or something. Only I didn't realize what was going on and I went into ventricular fibrillation thinking that HBO had accidentally cut to an hour and a half earlier in the movie and that I'd have to watch it again.
AAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Agent for the UN. God help the human species.
a good movie to watch.
posted on 25 Feb 2009It was a good movie to watch and the suspense and story was a thrilling one and I do recomend it to see it. I do like Wesley Snipes and of course Anne Archer she is a good actress. The other women in the film is good aswell.
see it and buy it. I will do it later in England.
So unoriginal. But movies like these are fun to watch.
posted on 11 Feb 2009I enjoyed watching this movie, but by no means does it mean that this is a great movie. Only slightly better than the movie I watched the other night (Battlefield Earth) this movie rips off from alot of other movies.(Spoilers included.. and maybe not just this movie but others)1. Mission Impossible-- TAOW takes off the overused idea that the friend gets shot and killed but is he really dead.2. The Matrix-- Oh how many times will we be watching bullets fly by in slow motion. Please I beg of you... I'm not the six million dollar man here.3. The Fugitive-- Oh Gerrard, we've found your replacement. (what you already killed him... oh well) the head FBI dude here is no Gerrard, but you get the idea. Smart FBI dude and Wesley Snipes... Isn't this a rerun? Wasn't this in US Marshals????4. The Thirteenth Floor-- (maybe unintentional but) Yikes, it's an empty building and there's a woman being chased by a man. o_O er uh Deja Vu!!!!!!I had been going at a 6 but gave it a 5. Just too many rip offs in this movie. I'll admit though, Snipes partner was quite interesting. This is a movie for people who like brainless movies such as Hard to Kill or Out for Justice. But not for people who like their brains.
Sickeningly god-awful hunk of junk
posted on 09 Feb 2009Imagine diving into a pool of action film outakes, piecing together random snippets with a stapler and then blowing the whole thing out of focus with a jarring and brash sense of color and sound and you've got ART OF WAR.In the ART OF WAR Snipes is a shadow of a star, the other random actors and characters are formulas waiting to congeal. Absurd and comical, the film explodes in a orgy of cheese, recycling every cliche known to cinemaplex fanatics -- it not only rips-off tripe like ENTRAPMENT but has the gall to rip-off THE MATRIX with half-boiled SPFX and pop-corn kung-fu. Simply terrible, this film is a good example of how far off track Hollywood has gone.
Not even close to Mission: Impossible
posted on 07 Feb 2009The Art Of War *1/2(out of 4)The filmmakers really wanted to turn this into a franchise. The ending blatantly calls for a sequel and just makes the movie even worse. I couldn't help but laugh at the ending since there will never be a sequel and in 10 years it's going to look even dumber. It's like if there had never been a Back To The Future 2 even with the first one ending with `To be continued.' Going in to the theater, I wanted to like this movie. The first 20 minutes or so started all right but it was downhill from there.This movie has some good action sequences but there aren't enough. It tries to be an action packed summer flick with great comic relief. The action works on a certain level but 85 % of the attempted humor falls flat. Michael Biehn was the only one who had funny lines and unfortunately they all came in the first 20 minutes. Wesley Snipes was only funny when if he was deadpanning a line but the rest of the time he was just stupid which was displayed very well in his conversation about McDonalds.Snipes stars as Neil Shaw, a secret agent for the UN or something, who gets framed for the murder of a famous Chinese guy. That's about all the movie wants you to know. Snipes is only adequate in the lead role. His best scenes are ones where he's shooting people or snapping their necks. The two good performances come from Donald Sutherland and Michael Biehn but their screen time adds up to about 10 minutes combined. The rest of the cast is awful. Notable Marie Matiko as the woman on the run with Snipes. She gives what may be the most annoying performance ever. And those stupid glasses she wears in practically every scene don't help at all. Anne Archer is also surprisingly annoying but in her own way. Her voice becomes unbelievably tedious to listen to after her first scene. I would compare her voice to fingers scratching on a chalkboard. After each of scenes I would pray that it was her last but of cource she's in it until the end.However there are 4 or 5 solid action scenes. The two best are the chase sequences in the beginning and near the end. They were both unbelievably well directed. These scenes are far too good to be stuck in this load of garbage.Another complaint of mine was all the things stolen from the first Mission: Impossible, straight down to glasses that have hidden cameras in them. And the whole `surprise' ending was identical to Mission: Impossible. Even the lap top scenes were reminiscent of the retrieval of the NOC list in Mission: Impossible.
surprised
posted on 30 Jan 2009i am surprised as how low the rating of this film, since it's actually a very good one for me. It's clever and do not waste much time to reveal the tense of the plot. It has a good premise and background story. Wesley Snipes plays a UN undercover agent running some scams in UN favor to keep the peace intact. The black operations is a new way of the UN to provide ammunition against many side at the other side of the peace treaty. But in dealing with a prospect of Chinese becoming a new member of the World Trade Organizations, there are many who believe it will affect their suitable purpose. So, they decide to create a scheme and using Shaw (Wesley Snipes) as their scape goat, and turn what suppose to be a treaty to become a mess that could bring the world back to cold war ages. The action is top notch... now much to write more, so i'm just gonna suggest you to watch this if you had spare time.
Better than expected
posted on 09 Nov 2008Yeah, this one worked and kept my attention till the end. I watched it on cable and I spent a good Sunday evening. There is suspense and many action. The stunts were great but some scenes had to much violence. It's a mix of James Bond and Terminator. Wesley Snipes did here a better job than in his second "Blade" which was very bad. If you can look away and don´t take the story too serious you have a top thriller. It´s worth to rent it. No doubt "The Art of War" was better than I thought. Too undervalued. My wife and me vote 7/10.
Not the best Snipes vehicle, but a good contender
posted on 08 Oct 2008Watching some movies created outside of the core Hollywood system sometimes tends to make many mainstream moviegoers realize how spoiled they've become from watching years and years of stereotypical, slam-bang actioners. We not only require the obligatory reckless car chases, building explosions, and martial arts contests; we expect for a movie to impress us over the last one we may have seen from that genre. This consideration is helpful when consuming "The Art of War", a slick action thriller that breaks some rules basic to the blockbuster formula to which so many Hollywood writers and directors subscribe. The resulting feature is surprisingly long on characterization and relationships, but may be disappointingly short on pure action for some fans' tastes. Nevertheless, this film is definitely worth the price of admission. Versatile actor Snipes has had the ambition and design on becoming a bonafide box office movie star; a draw by himself...and through an interesting number of hits and misses, he's done just that. Now, to see a Snipes movie is, with few exceptions, to see a certain level and caliber of entertainment that appeals to the masses. He is able to shift effortlessly from dramatic roles ("Waiting To Exhale") to comedic roles ("White Men Can't Jump") to action-adventure roles ("Passenger 57"). His masterful display of martial arts prowess in the cult favorite, "Blade", has earned him fantasy hero status as well. He's had his share of dogs, like "Demolition Man", "Boiling Point", and "Money Train", but what major male Hollywood star hasn't? Even lesser-acclaimed roles sometimes reveal new depth, such as "Sugar Hill" and "One Night Stand". So, the question arises whether "The Art of War" will fall on the plus or minus column of the Snipes film appreciation list. The answer depends on your qualifications for intelligent-yet-entertaining actioners. Together with a mostly Canadian team of filmmakers, Snipes has co-executive produced a mostly-intriguing tale of a United Nations covert operations team that specializes in influencing political situations with world leaders to our government's advantage. When Snipes, as agent Shaw, is framed for the assassination of a Chinese official, he is pursued on all sides, but quickly turns the tables to uncover deeper levels of terrorism, corruption, and double-crosses within the intelligence arena, including his own agency. The murder takes place before an audience gathered for a U. S. /China trade announcement, which could mean billions of dollars in commerce. Throughout the movie Snipes is solid and reliable, possessing the kind of confidence we've grown to trust over the years. Chief among Snipes' interactives is Anne Archer as UN official Eleanor Hooks, Maury Chaykin as FBI officer Capella (in a marvelously subdued performance), and newcomer Marie Matiko as Julia. Julia, on hand at the Chinese official's assassination, becomes Shaw's unwitting assistant in his quest to get to the bottom of the plot to stop trade arrangement. Matiko is quite likeable and sincere in her role, and has a genuine chemistry with Snipes. "The Art of War" is directed by Christian Duguay, little-known in Hollywood circles, while the story comes from Wayne Beach, who shares writer credit with Simon Davis Barry. Beach also wrote another Snipes vehicle, "Murder at 1600", a film that carries traits similar to "The Art of War". In both films, Snipes is at the center of highly-sensitive political controversy, involving matters of national security. And in both films, Snipes is paired with a female that must be slowly won over to his side. There are action sequences here that are expertly executed, but they are quick and to the point. The norm in mainstream Hollywood is to draw out these scenes as long as possible, destroying as much property as is humanly possible. Additionally, some scenes in this film don't pay off the way we expect them to; just when we think the shot composition is setting us up for someone to suddenly jump into the frame...nothing happens. It's a refreshing change...but is it too sensible for today's audiences? In short, "The Art of War" is a good tune-up film for Wesley Snipes, while we wait on his next blockbuster, whether it be "Blade II" or something else. It's sensible pacing and thoughtful characterization may be too tame for some, though I think the quick-but-effective fight scenes balance the film out. Time will tell if this is a hit or miss for Snipes, but regardless of the outcome, this movie stands on its own merits.
The Art of Moviemaking
posted on 20 Jul 2008This movie has all the standard special effects, action and violence one can stomach. The story line is a little hard to swallow and the bottom line is pitiful. If our country were left to the kind of characters portrayed in this movie, God help us.Hollywood would have us believe that corruption is running rampart, especially where politics are concerned. If we have these kinds of criminal minds at work for us, we need to concentrate on a whole new govenment rather than watching movies. And I love movies.The Art of War, if you don't try to analyze it, is at best entertaining.
Wesley still has the stuff
posted on 24 Jun 2008Wesley Snipes is back better than ever in "The Art Of War," a movie that is so good it deserves to be among the top ten of the summer.There are many reasons why I like this movie. The cast is the number one reason. When I first saw Donald Sutherland in this movie, I knew it would be a thing of beauty. He brings credibility above and beyond what it needs; in other words, he makes a good movie, better. Anne Archer is one actress you can always count on to give a good performance. "The Art Of War" turned out to be a montage of "The Fugitive" series and "Enemy Of The State." While this is the only negative thing about this film, it didn't deter me from enjoying it to my heart's content.There are many other things about "The Art Of War" that I really enjoyed including the high-tech wizadry, action-filled sequences but the best thing about this film above everything else was the story. "The Art Of War" had beautiful twists toward the end of the film. In addition, there are scenes in this movie that are so good they must be seen to believe they are that good. On a scale of 1-10 "The Art Of War" is a solid 7.
Sun Tzu must be rolling over in his grave...
posted on 20 Aug 2009The Art of War: A secret government operative is framed for the assassination of a Chinese ambassador, and has twenty-four hours to clear his name and restore confidence to the UN.Coincidentally, the first time I saw the trailer for "The Art of War" was the same day I began re-reading the book of the same name. Penned by Sun Tzu in the fifth century BC, the book is a treatise on warfare - a delicate balance of common sense and clever insights, its lessons can be applied to almost every aspect of life. The same cannot be said for the movie.I don't expect a lot from an action movie: a decent plot, semi-believable characters and action. I do not think that's asking for too much, yet I'm consistently disappointed. "The Art of War" is an exception - it is fantastically bad. I'll start with the plot. After watching the first ten minutes of the movie I literally could have walked out to the lobby and written an accurate outline of the rest of the movie. I must admit that I would have missed the ending as it is so contrived and has been done so many times before that I couldn't believe that someone would try it again (and do such a bad job of it). I was especially amused with the rhetoric about the strength and importance of the UN - most people recognize it for what it is, an arena filled with partisan politics and spoiled bureaucrats that like to scream a lot and accomplish nothing (do Rwanda or Yugoslavia ring a bell?). As Robin Williams once noted, maybe it's time the UN went condo. Okay, enough of the plot bashing, let's look at the action.The fight scenes are amateurish and poorly choreographed (I've seen better in Jeffrey Speaks films), with combatants flailing wildly and rarely connecting. Worse yet characters repeatedly drop three stories onto concrete, and not only do they not so much as sprain an ankle, they don't even break their stride - this is not "The X-Men". The most grievous sin however is the unashamed theft of the bullet tracing scene from "The Matrix".(there has to be a lawsuit there) which was obviously included because it looks cools, as it serves no discernible purpose.I could go on, but why? I give it a week in the theaters. If you're a Wesley Snipes fan (an oxymoron if ever there was one), rent it.