The Children of Huang Shi (2008)

Wonderful character development!

Simply A Masterpiece

People are voting emotionally.

Better Late Then Never

In 1937, the British reporter George Hogg (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) travels to Shanghai expecting to cover the Japanese invasion of Nanking. However, the British consul does not give a visa to him since the Japanese authorities do not want journalists in the capital. George deals with a Red Cross driver that wants to get married and he assumes his identity to travel to Nanking with two other journalists in his truck. George witness and photographs an execution of dwellers by the Japanese soldiers but he is captured. When the soldier is ready to behead George with a sword, he is saved by the communist Chinese soldier Chen Hansheng, a.k.a. Jack (Yun-Fat Chow). George is wounded by a shot and Jack brings him to the Red Cross camping where the nurse Lee Pearson (Radha Mitchell) heals him. Jack sends George to an orphanage and he becomes responsible for sixty orphans. George improves their lives and every now and then he sees Jack, who has become his friend, and Lee, for whom he has fallen in love. With the Japanese occupation and the civil war between nationalists and communists, George decides to travel of about 800 km to a distant but safe land through the mountains and desert with the orphans. "The Children of Huang Shi" is a movie based on a true story about the life of a British journalist that saved sixty orphans during the Japanese occupation of China in 1937. The movie has magnificent cinematography and art direction, and a great cast, with Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Radha Mitchell, Yun-Fat Chow and Michelle Yeoh. However, the narrative is cold and without emotions, and the only touching moment is in the credits, with the testimony of survivors that will certainly touch the heart of the viewer. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Órfãos da Guerra" ("Orphans of the War")

OK, so this story is based on true events, I can see why someone would like this story to be told. But why didn't they work with good writers, this story is cut in little pieces, cliché upon cliché and then tight together to make one piece out of it. The actors really don't know what to do with the lines they get and the director really didn't know what he wanted to tell. Is this a hero-story? Is this a love-story? Is this a historic adventure? Is this a war-story? I give one example: in the beginning of the story, the love-interest (Mitchell) is talking to the hero (Meyers) about how important it is that she is around, being a nurse, and knows that one scratch can lead to an infection and to death. So she tells that she cleans the wounds and tells the patient how important it is to do this as quick as possible, even if 'it's just a scratch'. Later on in the movie Meyers cuts himself when he's working on replacing a tire and tells Mitchell 'it's just a scratch'. And she SMILES at him.What the f?!! Wasn't she supposed to clean this wound as she told all those people she nursed in the war to do so they wouldn't die? Guess what happens to Meyers... And actually it's her fault I yelled at the screen annoyed.and please, don't even mention the monologues the actors get to work with during the movie. Even a first year scriptwriters school student would do better in writing them. So cliché and predictable. I pity the actors - they must have read the script before they said yes. Why did they accept such bad writing? They probably needed the money. The sceneries are beautiful, Michelle Yeoh has the best part and is the only actor that I believed. (maybe because she didn't have that many lines?). I'm afraid those are the only things that worked out well. The story is fabricated and doesn't have a nice flow, the actors really have difficulties working the lines they get from the writers and clearly the director didn't know what he wanted to do with this story.If it wasn't for the beautiful settings, and the fact that you could sense there was (somewhere) a story worth telling, it would have been a total waste of time watching this movie. Well it definitely was a waste of money making it, I would read the book if I were you.

This is like a Schindler's List for the Chinese. It's a war story that focuses not on the terror and pain and atrocities, but on the good a person can do and it is based on a true story. Something that needs to be told and remembered.That being said, was it a well told story? Yes and no. It seemed terribly fragmented to me, moving from one scene to the other with the speed of a bullet. It is hard to "feel" the individual character changes because it all happens so fast. Of course, I couldn't expect a two hour movie to slowly tell a story that spanned many months in real life, but still. You can't show two friends entering China, then one dying and completely omit him from the story from then on because you don't have time. On the other hand, I hardly see the subject as appropriate for a mini series.Bottom line: good story, good acting, watch it if you feel the need for a good war time drama that inspires.

I just saw this in the theater and was REALLY looking forward to seeing it with the GREAT Chow Yun Fat and Michelle Yeoh, but although the scenery and large amount of money spent in making this, the film still falls flat. I am sure many people like Jonathan Rhys Meyers, but this guy CANNOT act to save his life!!!!!!!! Another reviewer thought that Radha Mitchell was wooden, but I didn't mind her performance although her Aussie occasionally slipped in. Chow Yun Fat and Michelle Yeoh's performances, while fun to watch, seemed a bit "phoned in", although the supporting cast of children wasn't too bad. The script was very, very weak and there were a couple of times when they had the Japanese fighter planes strafing the ground that you could DEFINITELY tell that they were squibs and did NOT come off as genuine bullets hitting the ground (too much spark and flash). Overall, really sad considering the time and effort that went into making this film. I likely WON'T pick this one up on DVD unless it's really cheap.