Alicia I love this movie so much

EssenceStory Well Deserved Praise

TeenzTen An action-packed slog

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Tweekums This film tells the story of China from shortly after the end of the Japanese Occupation in 1945 when Mao Tse-tung, chairman of the Communist party met with Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek to discuss the future of the country, through a bitter civil war till the founding of the People's Republic of China and the retreat of the Nationalist it the island of Taiwan.Given that it was made by the Chinese State and dedicated to the 60th anniversary of its founding it is not surprising that it shows Mao in a better light than he is viewed in the west… that isn't the problem with the film; the problem is that it is just too stodgy. There are lots and lots of scenes with people just talking about things that aren't all that interesting at times; perhaps these are more interesting to people who know more about the history of China. The film was further let down by some very misleading packaging in the UK; the DVD cover boldly announces "For the first time in one epic film: Jet Li, Jackie Chan, Donnie Yen"… they may all have appeared but in cameos so minor it would be easy to miss them. There is not much in the way of action and the majority of what there is features sepia tinted footage of unknown foot soldiers rather than protagonists. The cast do a decent job; Guoqiang Tang was particularly good as Chairman Mao; of course it helped that he looked rather like him. On the plus side the film was more even handed than I expected; while Mao was obviously depicted as the good guy the Nationalists weren't shown as the villains they might have been. Overall I found this to be a bit disappointing but certainly not enough to regret watching it; I wouldn't particularly recommend it unless you are particularly interested in this period of Chinese history.

Luke Richards It is rare for a movie to deserve one star. This would receive negative ten if such were possible.This isn't just a bad movie. This was made by the state owned China Film Group to mark the 60th anniversary of their happy fascist regime. This "docu-drama" is a shameless, disgusting attempt to ram a skewed history, in which Mao is seen as a paragon of kindness, down a viewer's throat. To call this a documentary is an offense to all historians. This is history with a political agenda (not a rare thing for fascists). As a movie, it deserves one star. But again, this is not a movie. It is a shameless bid by an evil government to deify the monster who created it. IMDb should offer "black hole ratings" or something to illustrate the amount of genuine evil a film/documentary attempts to inflict on humanity. With such a rating system, this horrid spectacle would get ten out of ten.You may be tempted to purchase this due to the martial arts stars on the cover. That's why it was purchased, as a gift, for me. Many famous Chinese actors make cameo appearances. Nothing more. Jackie Chan plays a journalist (although all he does is hand Chiang Kai-Shek a newspaper, so he could just as well be a salesman) and has a total of 2.5 seconds of screen time. I wasn't able to spot Jet Li. It isn't hard to imagine these stars being in the film just for the money, but given the content I was left to wonder if there was something more ominous at work. Again, I implore you, do not be fooled by their faces on the DVD cover into thinking that this is an actual movie.Should you watch this out of morbid curiosity, look at the way they construct the drama. Notice the music--ominous in the background whenever the KMT is portrayed, jolly and twinkly whenever Mao shows his haircut. Mao smiles, lives (the idea that he is hiding is well hidden in the direction) in mud huts with villagers whom he always treats as equals. He is kind and a paragon of benevolence. Chiang is not portrayed as an evil man. The modern Chinese audience is too sophisticated for that. But he never takes off his military uniform. He is constantly cosseted during his time on screen.Propaganda is in symbolism as much as content. This film is saturated with the former and heavily skews the historical accuracy of the latter. This is shameless propaganda. The more you know about politics, advertising, writing, directing, or the construction of any art, the more horrified you will be. The more you know about history, the more disgusted.

Paul63 The year is 1945. The two leaders of China's civil war meet in Chongching and agree to form a coalition government and prepare for peace and democracy.For reasons that aren't entirely clear, one side - the Nationalists (KMT) under Chiang Kai-Shek - decides it rather prefers to go back to the war, and the Communists (CPC) under Mao defends the future of Chinese democracy.Throughout the film, Mao is a benign presence. He's greatly admired by his followers and considerate even to his cook, mourning him when he's killed. He plays and dances with children. He is stoic in the face of disaster and he remains keen to include other parties (the Chinese Democracy League and even the KMT, although not Chiang) in a coalition government before bringing democratic reform. He takes decisions by reaching a consensus and demonstrates decisive wisdom by implementing land ownership reforms. At one point, and without any sense of irony, Mao says before giving a direct order, "I'll be a dictator for a change". Without any cities in their hands Mao plans a new country: the lack of a city for a capital is phlegmatically described as "inadequate" by the Great Helmsman.Meanwhile, the KMT has problems. The party is split with factions conspiring against Chiang Kai-Shek. Assassinations are organised. Corruption in areas they control is rampant - it's "in the bones" of the KMT, says Chiang, revealingly. There are food shortages and rampant black-marketing. Chiang is apparently another benign presence, but seemingly impotent in the face of such problems. Elsewhere, KMT soldiers and agents kill pro- democracy activists.The rest, as they say, is history.But that's precisely the problem with the film: the history.For overall, the film is a rather pedestrian telling of an alternative version of the founding of the People's Republic of China. Any sense of drama is limp like a balloon deflating, and thus fails. The dialogue is preoccupied with explaining events and giving background rather than (say) developing characters and it feels at times like a dramatised documentary. Indeed, in a couple of places, it even uses archive footage.As we know, though, this isn't just a film: it has (another) Official History to tell and tell it it will, come what may. It is an Orwellian exercise.The revision of Chiang Kai-Shek has been remarked upon above but the point missed. Chiang has been rehabilitated to a certain extent as a great Chinese patriot, although one who is mistaken. A key scene in the film occurs with his son: the KMT are deciding to negotiate with the CPC, and the proposal is that China be divided along the Yangtze River. Chiang himself says that this would be something he would never allow. This is in line with the "one China" ideology espoused by the CPC, and also by today's KMT, even if they can't agree precisely what that China is.We know that Chiang and Mao were both ruthless dictators who both could be personally cruel and who both presided over corrupt regimes. Both before and after 1949, both were responsible for the murder of large numbers of their own citizens, although Mao wins the numbers game if we're counting corpses. We also know that the remarked upon land reforms of Mao - who is officially 30 percent wrong - were a catastrophic failure, while those of Chiang Kai-Shek in the 1950s were in fact a success.Finally, we also know that democracy was never really the intention of either leader. The references to democracy in the film are surely in very poor taste when - as I write this - Liu Xiabo, the winner of the 2010 Nobel Peace, languishes in jail and a number of his peers were earlier killed in the Tiananmen Square massacre of 4 June 1989 for demanding precisely that: democracy in China.

horse_power_9000 This is not a movie as such; but more of a propaganda film from some Chinese government brainwashing program. The films producer, the China Film Group (CFG) is actually a state owned media branch of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and are the sole importer/exporter of film in China. 'The Founding of a Republic' has to be the most classic example of communist propaganda to be produced by the CCP. Completely geared at glorifying the communist regime now in control of China, historical fact takes a back seat in this zombifying dissemination which is comparable to such films found in 1930s Germany. In the film the antagonists are the party who governed China during World War 2, the Kuomintang (KMT), while the protagonists are -yup you guessed it- the CCP; and not mention history's biggest mass murderin' glorious leader -Chairman Mao Zedong. And while the KMT ruled brutally, no one was prepared for the bloody reign of terror of Chairman Mao who left a body count greater than that of Hitler's and Stalin's combined. The regime has obviously spared no cost at producing a high quality production, but it can't hide the fact this film is cheesy and over dramatic as it attempts to incite ultra-nationalist sentiment in Chinese viewers. This film glorifies the dictator, it glorifies the regime, it glorifies the party. This government mouthpiece of a movie points the fingers at everyone else's wrongdoings, and condemns them for it, yet refuses to accept responsibility for or even acknowledge the crimes the communist party have committed, and indeed, are still committing. Whenever a film about a political party is made it can't amount to anything but propaganda and you just can't take it seriously. And less so when the direction and dialog is corny and the 'facts' are inaccurate and over-dramatized, and as the 2008 Olympics have taught us the regime in 'The Peoples Republic' are not shy to boast of their glory yet completely ignore their own heinous crimes.