Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Neil Welch An 18th century merchant is involved in the establishment of Hong Kong as a trading outpost.In between the miniseries adaptations of Shogun and Noble House, James Clavell saw a big screen adaptation of his novel Taipan. While it is not a complete disaster, it has some grievous faults. These include: 1. Trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot - there is a reason why the other books are miniseries. There is far too much story for a single feature film.2. No names. The film needed a big box office draw to pull people into cinemas. It got Bryan Brown.3. Some bad casting. The Brocks are pretty badly cast, but Bryan Brown has to be the worst. If they were going to cast someone who wasn't a box office draw, why didn't they go with a Scotsman to play a Scotsman, rather than an Australian? There are some real rubbish Scots accents here.4. There are also some fairly dodgy effects, especially travelling mattes. Having said that, they are fairly standard for the time.

rbischoff I found this movie to follow the novel pretty closely, considering of course that the novel is about 900 pages and the movie is only two hours! While not of the same outstanding caliber of adaptation as the Shogun miniseries, it nevertheless manages to generate some excitement and give a flavor for the happenings of that period, during which the colony of Hong Kong was founded.Joan Chen was especially good as Mai-Mai, and all the other parts were at least adequately cast. The locations, sets and production values were of uniformly good quality. The only thing lacking was enough time to tell a story this long and complex--in such a short production one only has time to hit the high points of the plot. But it was enjoyable nevertheless.

tmifune I dont have much to say about this movie..It had a lot going the right way, until you hear Bryan Browns scotland accent HORRIBLE and ANNOYING ! I actually noticed he's got one look on his face through the whole movie..the type of look you see on a person who is avoiding looking straight in the cameraI saw this movie after I saw Shogun, so I had my hopes up I guess ! Go see Shogun or read the book forget about this crappy Kurosawa wannabe movieA lot of nice scenery and photography, but the rest sucks swedish meatballs..I feel sorry for the people who had to see this in the cinema and watch the whole thing. My generation had Pearl Harbor so... !!!

John This film is very very bad. I saw this in a theater on opening weekend with about 10 other people. (That tell you something). Set in 1800's, the storyline is plain wacky the funniest thing is the Russian Ambassodor speaking with a down home Georgia drawl. I guess the casting people thought maybe this character was born in the Georgia region in Russia and they would speak that way. Anyway the acting is amazingly bad not helped by the lines they had to deliver. Count how many times they mention "poxed whores". By the end of the film, after a disaster that takes place, I mentioned to my companion watch the smoke will clear and it will reveal modern Hong Kong. Yep that is what happens modern Hong Kong, Or was it Singapore? Atlanta? What have you. As a good/bad movie to laugh at (like The Oscar, Valley Of The Dolls, Showgirls, The Heretic, etc.)it manages some laughs but unlike the others mentioned above, it is not uniformly hysterical as these are. There are a lot of long dull stretches especially in first half of film. 2/10 only for the Russian's accent. Recommend to avoid otherwise. Go read the book.