Wushu

The answer is either 2000 (Finding Forrester, which is worth it simply for "You're the man now, dawg!") or 1996 (The Rock). I don't think Entrapment sucked, but it was hardly memorable or worth existing.

Maybe 1998 (Playing by Heart, which I've never seen, but looks like a good cast).

The term wushu consists of two Chinese characters. 武 (wǔ), meaning "War Art",

Okay, then I find it slightly hilarious that the first movie Jet Li does after swearing off wu shu movies is called War.

Sean, does "martial arts epic"=="wu shu" for you?

Well, no, not really. And my original answer to P-C was going be all "yes and no" and go into the definitions of each, and include links to Wikipedia entries.

Then I checked the Wikipedia page for wu shu, and found that the wikipedia definition for wu shu boils down to "martial arts epic".

So I tossed my original post and went with a simplified "yes".

But I know what you're talking about. I think you and I talked about it back when he first made his announcement about "no more wu shu". I think we have similar definitions. I'm just feeling intellectually lazy this morning. More than usual. Intellectually lazier.

then I find it slightly hilarious that the first movie Jet Li does after swearing off wu shu movies is called War.

Well, it's war as in martial--despite the meaning fo the word martial, most war movies aren't martial arts movies.

Wu shu is a martial arts umbrella and a movie genre. I don't think you can make a wu shu movie without kung fu, but I think you can make a kung fu movie without it being wu shu.

In my head, anyway.

I wish I could see the source material for this interview. Because the article seems to equate a martial arts movie with a wu shu movie with a kung fu movie. Others don't.

Huh. From today's Chron review:

To say that "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" is better than the original isn't enough. The last one was awful, one of the worst movies of its year, while the new one is a pleasure, one of the most enjoyable pictures of the season. The last "Fantastic Four" was 106 minutes of water torture. The new one, instead of expanding in length, clocks in at a streamlined 92 minutes, but nothing about it seems truncated or small-scale. The stakes and the scope are tremendous, and yet the movie doesn't wallow in either. Director Tim Story and writers Don Payne and Mark Frost are at all times telling the story, moving the action forward.

or 1996 (The Rock).

Someone thought that was a good movie? That wasn't on the payroll for it, I mean?

Huh. The people I know who've seen F4:2 thought it was a pile of crap.

And they were working on it.

I enjoyed The Rock a lot. But I am easy.

Eta: I am torn as to whether I will see the new Fantastic Four, because on the one hand I couldn't bear to watch the first one, but on the other the Silver Surfer = love, so I don't know what to do.

The last one was awful, one of the worst movies of its year, while the new one is a pleasure, one of the most enjoyable pictures of the season.

Huh. See, I didn't think the first movie was that awful. It was fun and enjoyable, for the most part.

Someone thought that was a good movie?

I love it. It's one of my favorites.

Maybe 1998 (Playing by Heart, which I've never seen, but looks like a good cast).

I tried to watch it. I did. It was on heavy rotation on one of the movie channels. Jon Stewart was adorable. But it drove me nuts, and I couldn't stand more than 15 minutes of it at a time.