The best thing I can say about this film is the art direction, which conveys the claustrophobic inner world of its characters. Virtually without exterior shots, possibly due to budget constraints (i.e. trying to recreate early 60s Hong Kong), the film relies heavily on its lush, over-saturated interior surfaces to create the mood. Yet I would suggest that beyond being representational of the repressed passion of the characters, there is little more to see here besides the sets. The performances have been outlandishly overpraised by the "less is more" crowd. In particular, the often-wrong Cannes judges bestowed a best actor award for a performance that in fact does not even create a three-dimensional character, but focuses on long pulls on cigarettes and blank staring into space. Yeah, great stuff. Both my wife and I have seen thousands of films combined, and we both thought it underwritten, underacted, repetitive, and akin to watching paint dry. Beautiful paint, yes, but that's all.
What is more intriguing is the praise the film has gotten. At least one critic mentioned how he thought the film would have been dismissed as laughable if it had been Western actors in a less exotic locale. Could be. It is baffling that so many can be taken by something with so little merit. I could only find one major critic who panned this film: Peter Rainer in New York Magazine. His comments are spot on, in case you want a more thorough argument regarding its self-conscious aesthete mindset.
What is more intriguing is the praise the film has gotten. At least one critic mentioned how he thought the film would have been dismissed as laughable if it had been Western actors in a less exotic locale. Could be. It is baffling that so many can be taken by something with so little merit. I could only find one major critic who panned this film: Peter Rainer in New York Magazine. His comments are spot on, in case you want a more thorough argument regarding its self-conscious aesthete mindset.