Tai-Pan was probably too ambitious an undertaking for a film as short as just over 2 hours. Maybe a mini-series would have been the answer, but Tai-Pan certainly had the potential to be an oriental Gone With The Wind.Unrealized potential though it is. The screenplay made many references to previous events in the novel that are not shown here. We do know there's one nasty rivalry going on between Bryan Brown and John Stanton who both rose to wealth in the China trade like the protagonists in an Edna Ferber novel.Bryan Brown is the Far East version of Rhett Butler. He's built the family fortune on legal trade and illegal trade in opium. Not that opium was unknown before the British and other European powers got there, but they did turn it into a thriving business. When the Chinese government objected, the European powers took nibbles out of a prostrate and weakened state. One of those nibbles the British took was Hong Kong, spoils from the Opium War of 1841. Brown like Margaret Mitchell's Rhett Butler or the hero of many Edna Ferber books is the guy who builds what became one of the busiest trading centers on the globe.Unlike his rival Stanton, Brown's wife left him and took their small son back to the United Kingdom. Brown didn't mourn he took up with some Chinese women, they were pawns in various business negotiations. He got a son, Russell Wong, from one of them.Things get interesting when his other son arrives from Great Britain played by Tim Guinee. He's a rather uptight Victorian youth who is not pleased with the debauchery he finds and his father's part in it.Tai-Pan is exquisitely photographed with the climatic typhoon scene very well done indeed. A better screenplay would have been needed to tell this epic story.

Last night on Turner Classic Movies, I saw a trailer from the sixties called "Lion Power" about all the big projects audiences could expect from MGM in the months and years ahead. Included among them were clips from "Far From the Madding Crowd" and "Where Were You When the Lights Went Out?", plus mention of "Where Eagles Dare" with Richard Burton (not mentioning Clint Eastwood, as perhaps he wasn't signed yet), "Ice Station Zebra", and "2001: A Space Odyssey" with very early-form artwork of its making. Among the many films mentioned in passing near the end of the trailer was "James Clavell's 'Tai-Pan'", yet no earlier version of the film was ever made. Just how long was this thing in the making, and what casts were potentially involved at different times? It would be interesting to see the planned history of such a movie that took so long to finally get made, bad as it reportedly is.

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.

The Accents! Not even an attempt - what were they thinking? They might as well have done the whole thing in that Southern Drawl of the Russian Ambassador. Maybe it's because I'm a Brit but the crass incongruity of someone who seemed never to have heard a Scot trying to do a Scottish accent - who did they use as a voice coach - groundskeeper Willie? Scottie from Star Trek (a Canadian)?. This meant the whole thing never really got started for me - I'm sure it's a great story (never read the book - maybe I should) but I couldn't get past the awful casting, dialogue and wooden performances. Is this Hollywood poking fun at the Brits again? It was hard to tell - if it was it was a joke that backfired pretty badly. If the performances were meant to reflect badly on the colonial British (we've heard it all before - get over it) then all they seemed to show was that a portrayal of buffoons by buffoons doesn't really give much insight into the original buffoons. Actually there's a whole sub-thesis there about how you need to be a good actor to play the baddies - hence why Brits always get a staring role as the villain I guess. Anyway this movie is a stinker - which is a shame because it obviously cost quite a bit to make.