This is to give more precise and and objective comment than the previous one I've given after reading moviemarcus has objected it.
The standard for us to rate a movie should be neutral and unique regardless of where the movie is from, the background of the director and how the movie has been created. A very simple comparison is if you look at "The Mission" also by Johnny To, one would definitely agrees PTU is inferior in all artistic values. "The Mission" is not perfect and I haven't had a prejudice to judge PTU in the shadow of "The Mission", but the acting performance by the actors in "The Mission" was one of the big contribution making the film so impressive. Any great movie will come along with superb performance by actors because movie is constituted by acting.
Of course there are other things to go along, but for any one element the director has decided to include in a movie the director should do it the best and present it in the best form, otherwise he'd rater give it up. Some movie doesn't have any music, so if the director isn't sure about his music, he'd rather play with it without any music, than to input something inappropriate. Any one single shot, single pop or acting in a movie is important and it's the director obligation to take care of it once he's committed to making a good movie, or the director doesn't understand what a director should be doing.
I'm against Johnny To. I like so much some of his previous films. But he certainly should have a goal reaching a higher level everytime he makes a film. I believe that's the life of being a director, or he should retire.
The standard for us to rate a movie should be neutral and unique regardless of where the movie is from, the background of the director and how the movie has been created. A very simple comparison is if you look at "The Mission" also by Johnny To, one would definitely agrees PTU is inferior in all artistic values. "The Mission" is not perfect and I haven't had a prejudice to judge PTU in the shadow of "The Mission", but the acting performance by the actors in "The Mission" was one of the big contribution making the film so impressive. Any great movie will come along with superb performance by actors because movie is constituted by acting.
Of course there are other things to go along, but for any one element the director has decided to include in a movie the director should do it the best and present it in the best form, otherwise he'd rater give it up. Some movie doesn't have any music, so if the director isn't sure about his music, he'd rather play with it without any music, than to input something inappropriate. Any one single shot, single pop or acting in a movie is important and it's the director obligation to take care of it once he's committed to making a good movie, or the director doesn't understand what a director should be doing.
I'm against Johnny To. I like so much some of his previous films. But he certainly should have a goal reaching a higher level everytime he makes a film. I believe that's the life of being a director, or he should retire.