Plot Details: This opinion reveals major details about the movie's plot.

Part of the anti-Quentin Tarantino movement decries him as a rip-off artist, nothing more than a clever thief. They point to Ringo Lam's 1987 film, City on Fire as perhaps his most glaring source of theft. Not only does Reservoir Dogs steal the basic premise, they claim, but it lifts entire scenes outright.

This is how I went into watching City on Fire. Was Tarantino's breakthrough film really just a cleverly dressed up version of this movie or were the naysayers stretching it. After I watched the film, I'd say that anti-QT folks are about half-right.

Like Reservoir Dogs, City on Fire involves a cop infiltrating a group of criminals planning a theft at a jewelry store. But Lam's film mostly concentrates on the undercover cop, Ko Chow (Chow Yun-Fat, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon). But before the heist is even considered, Lam shows us Chow selling the primary thief, Fu (Danny Lee, The Killer), revolvers (which are tightly regulated in Hong Kong) in a sting operation. Chow also has to deal with his snippy girlfriend/fiance and the Hong Kong cops who think that he's actually running guns for the crooks and chase him around. Eventually, Chow does manage to gain the confidence of the baddies and join up with them for the heist.

Tarantino's film borrows extensively from the last half hour of City on Fire, including lifting almost whole three moments in the film. Both films are ultimately about a cop being on the inside for a jewelry heist that goes wrong. Both films are about the betrayal that the cop must go through when he gains the trust of the criminals under false pretenses. Both films end up pretty badly for most of the main characters.

But Tarantino wisely focused on one aspect, the theft itself and the aftermath with the characters. City on Fire is a rather flabby, narratively sluggish film that wastes too much screen time on unnecessary complications before getting to what should be the meat of the film. Lam has a good concept going, but he squanders it by starting long before the action even happens. As I've stated before, a good story starts in the middle, when the action is already in progress. Lam begins before the beginning.

Maybe I'm judging one through the pattern created by another. To be fair, City on Fire is a decidedly different film. It's less a collision of personalities than a more direct police procedural. In these moments, it works. The undercover scenes really stand out here, where Chow is trying to gain the confidence of the criminal group in selling them guns. One scene in particular, where Chow presents a sample revolver in a graveyard at night while wearing a tape recorder strapped to his stomach, exhibits the tension and bravado inherent in trying to pull off this dual role of cop and robber.

Lam introduces an extra layer to the cop/robber identity crisis. Not only does Chow have to try and prove himself to the robbers, he has to avoid being captured by the cops, who don't know that he is working for them. In fact, the police chief seems to refuse any possibility that Chow could be on their side. He's trafficking arms, and that's all the chief needs to know. While this layer sometimes feels extraneous, it adds an extra element of danger, especially when Chow is trying to avoid being outed as a cop by the robbers and avoid being caught by the cops.

If this were the only complications that Lam throws around, then maybe City on Fire would have worked better. But there's a goofy and unnecessary thread about Chow proposing to his girlfriend and not being able to register with her because of the job, so she takes off to Hawaii. It's nothing but chaff, a side plot that detracts from the primary narrative thrust. The scenes with the girlfriend shift tone from the mostly serious crime thriller to borderline romantic comedy. One would think that this entire subplot could have been left on the editing room floor without damaging the quality of the film.

Lam throws in a couple of other bits into the movie that, if played up more, could have really improved the emotional core of the film. As it stands, however, these are merely aborted ideas, a scribble on a cocktail napkin never transferred fully to the screen. In the beginning of the film, we see the guy who was originally supposed to infiltrate the robbers get knifed. He dies and everyone else in the movie seems to get on with their life, except for a "do it for the Gipper" moment. In a few more scenes, we learn that Chow infiltrated another group of crooks. The gig went badly and I assume that the guy he got close shot himself or something. Then, like the poor dead undercover cop, we forget that it happened and Chow goes undercover regardless.

In an interesting twist, I overheard the video store owner discussing Tarantino the thief as I returned this movie. It seems that City on Fire isn't the only movie lifted from. IS that so bad, though, if the end result is a culturally relevant, character driven film that plays with narrative structure?

City on Fire is a decently rendered Hong Kong cop film with a more interesting footnote. Chow Yun-Fat fans will no doubt enjoy The Man relaxed and a little goofy, a role that allows for a little more outlandish performance than some of his better known flicks. I'd say Lam's film is worth watching, but don't expect anything like Woo's The Killer.

Recommended: Yes

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: Good for Groups
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older