Even if I was given a week to consider my verdict, I'm certain that I'd come up with the same answer: 'Infernal Affairs' is the best crime movie of the past 40 years; the best gangster movie since the first Godfather movie. 'Election: Volume 2' deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as 'Infernal Affairs'; it really is that good. It's never going to displace 'IA' in my affections, but in the way that you come to recognise great movies on a first viewing, I know its appeal will endure and not diminish. And, in contrast to the Godfather series with which it might be compared, this 'sequel' is far superior to the first movie.
I wasn't a huge fan of the first movie: it was just too much about style and ritual, and bore too much of a Kitano influence in its alternation of serenity and violence; but I did see enough in it to want to investigate Johnnie To further, even if - after the massive disappointment of the 'Infernal Affairs' sequels - I was reluctant to risk viewing another failed Hong Kong crime movie sequel. But this one was a joy, right from the get-go. Given its pace, I decided not to overly concern myself with plot complexities and especially who's doing what to whom: the introductory scene - despite the number of 'interests' present - was set up in such a way that I knew there was really only one character I needed to focus on: a young, charming, and ambitious businessman whose rise had been facilitated by Triad gang membership, but who was now looking to expand his horizons. It's called 'setting your stall out' - both character and film-maker.
The settings are mostly recognizable and familiar to fans of such as 'The Godfather' and 'Goodfellas', not to mention its predecessor, and - to a certain extent - the great Melville: the quiet, lyrical scenes and locations, the domestic scenes, the triad summit meetings, the nightclubs; and then there's the dialogue: threats - implied and expressed; or ambitions and concerns expressed; plus the occasional burst of savage violence, just in case the messages hadn't 'gotten through'. And the importance of loyalty. All of which might suggest an excess of reverence and homage, or even the dreaded pastiche - but not a bit of it. Maybe it was more a case of To setting his sights high - and in a Daedalus, and in no way an Icarus way - and wanting to be judged alongside those more epic films, because he knew how good the story he had to tell was.
Because its shorter than either of the aforementioned Masterpieces - and less ambitious - it might be considered a lesser film, but I'm having none of it, because there's not one milligram of flab here, and it tells all the story it needs to tell, and tells it well. And its the pacing, the editing,the choreography, the moulding of a succession of scenes into a satisfying whole. It's not even so much the ending, because I could see that coming from a mile away; it's just that everything fits in the way you wanted it to fit, and not in a seen-it-all-before kind of way. It's just perfect, and I can't wait to watch it again.
I wasn't a huge fan of the first movie: it was just too much about style and ritual, and bore too much of a Kitano influence in its alternation of serenity and violence; but I did see enough in it to want to investigate Johnnie To further, even if - after the massive disappointment of the 'Infernal Affairs' sequels - I was reluctant to risk viewing another failed Hong Kong crime movie sequel. But this one was a joy, right from the get-go. Given its pace, I decided not to overly concern myself with plot complexities and especially who's doing what to whom: the introductory scene - despite the number of 'interests' present - was set up in such a way that I knew there was really only one character I needed to focus on: a young, charming, and ambitious businessman whose rise had been facilitated by Triad gang membership, but who was now looking to expand his horizons. It's called 'setting your stall out' - both character and film-maker.
The settings are mostly recognizable and familiar to fans of such as 'The Godfather' and 'Goodfellas', not to mention its predecessor, and - to a certain extent - the great Melville: the quiet, lyrical scenes and locations, the domestic scenes, the triad summit meetings, the nightclubs; and then there's the dialogue: threats - implied and expressed; or ambitions and concerns expressed; plus the occasional burst of savage violence, just in case the messages hadn't 'gotten through'. And the importance of loyalty. All of which might suggest an excess of reverence and homage, or even the dreaded pastiche - but not a bit of it. Maybe it was more a case of To setting his sights high - and in a Daedalus, and in no way an Icarus way - and wanting to be judged alongside those more epic films, because he knew how good the story he had to tell was.
Because its shorter than either of the aforementioned Masterpieces - and less ambitious - it might be considered a lesser film, but I'm having none of it, because there's not one milligram of flab here, and it tells all the story it needs to tell, and tells it well. And its the pacing, the editing,the choreography, the moulding of a succession of scenes into a satisfying whole. It's not even so much the ending, because I could see that coming from a mile away; it's just that everything fits in the way you wanted it to fit, and not in a seen-it-all-before kind of way. It's just perfect, and I can't wait to watch it again.