History YMMV / TheArtOfWar

* {{Sequelitis}}: The second film isn't especially good, but for a direct-to-DVD action film it could certainly have been worse. The third film, on the other hand, is much, MUCH worse, thanks to [[WTHCastingAgency bizarre casting decisions]], [[FightSceneFailure terrible action sequences]] and a massive Idiot Plot.

* {{Sequelitis}}: The second film isn't especially good, but for a direct-to-DVD action film it could certainly have been worse. The third film, on the other hand, is much, MUCH worse, thanks to [[WTHCastingAgency bizarre casting decisions]], [[FightSceneFailure terrible action sequences]] and a massive IdiotPlot.
* {{Tearjerker}}: The deaths of [[spoiler: Jenna and Julia's friend and her mother.]]

* DesignatedHero: Neil Shaw, to more and more of an extent as the series goes on. In the first film he's a competent enough agent, though kind of a {{Jerkass}}. In the second film he makes numerous basic errors of logic and judgement, and at the end he [[spoiler:casually murders his love interest after learning she was a double agent]] just in the name of getting the villain to frame himself. The third film takes it UpToEleven, as he unknowingly takes the bad guy [[spoiler:or rather bad girl]] into his confidence, then ends up [[MoralEventHorizon killing at least a dozen or so South Korean intelligence agents]], before unwittingly facilitating the assassination of South Korea's U.N. representative and nearly getting the Secretary-General of the U.N. herself killed. After all that you'd think the Secretary-General would be only too happy to hand Shaw over to the South Korean authorities and let them hang him out to dry, but she instead ends the film by telling Shaw that he's the only person the U.N. can trust with their lives.

** Turned UpToEleven by the third, the action sequences in which generally tend to consist of people just standing around and firing their guns randomly, with background objects occasionally exploding for no obvious reason.

* FightSceneFailure: Averted by the first film, which has some pretty decent action sequences. Zig-zagged by the second film, which has about as many poorly-executed sequences as good ones. Turned UpToEleven by the third, the action sequences in which generally tend to consist of people just standing around and firing their guns randomly, with background objects occasionally exploding for no obvious reason.

* DesignatedHero: Neil Shaw, to more and more of an extent as the series goes on. In the first film he's a competent enough agent, though kind of a {{Jerkass}}. In the second film he makes numerous basic errors of logic and judgement, and at the end he [[spoiler:casually murders his love interest]] just in the name of getting the villain to frame himself. The third film takes it UpToEleven, as he unknowingly takes the bad guy [[spoiler:or rather bad girl]] into his confidence, then ends up [[MoralEventHorizon killing at least a dozen or so South Korean intelligence agents]], before unwittingly facilitating the assassination of South Korea's U.N. representative and nearly getting the Secretary-General of the U.N. herself killed. After all that you'd think the Secretary-General would be only too happy to hand Shaw over to the South Korean authorities and let them hang him out to dry, but she instead ends the film by telling Shaw that he's the only person the U.N. can trust with their lives.

** Shaw lying that he's Eddie Murphy and doing a horrible impression of Axel Foley's laugh.

* DesignatedHero: Neil Shaw, to more and more of an extent as the series goes on. In the first film he's a competent enough agent, though kind of a {{Jerkass}}. In the second film he makes numerous basic errors of logic and judgement, and at the end he [[spoiler:casually murders his love interest]] just in the name of getting the villain to frame himself. The third film takes it UpToEleven, as he unknowingly takes the bad guy [[spoiler:or rather bad girl]] into his confidence, then ends up [[MoralEventHorizon killing at least a dozen or so South Korean intelligence agents]], before unwittingly facilitating the assassination of South Korea's U.N. representative and nearly getting the Secretary-General of the U.N. herself killed. After all that you'd think the Secretary-General would be only too happy to hand Shaw over to the South Korean authorities and let them hang him out to dry, but she instead ends the film by telling Shaw that he's the only person the U.N. can trust with their lives.
* FightSceneFailure: Averted by the first film, which has some pretty decent action sequences. Zig-zagged by the second film, which has about as many poorly-executed sequences as good ones. Turned UpToEleven by the third, the action sequences in which generally tend to consist of people just standing around and firing their guns randomly, with background objects occasionally exploding for no obvious reason.
* SugarWiki/FunnyMoments:
** Shaw lying that he's Eddie Murphy and doing a horrible impression of Axel Foley's laugh.
** Capella yelling to be freed from a revolving door (after being used to trick Bly), after Bly's dramatic death.
* {{Sequelitis}}: The second film isn't especially good, but for a direct-to-DVD action film it could certainly have been worse. The third film, on the other hand, is much, MUCH worse, thanks to bizarre casting decisions, terrible action sequences and a massive IdiotPlot.

!!The book:

* FunnyAneurysmMoment: The book was originally written for Helu, the ruler of the Kingdom of Wu. About fifty or so years after Sun Tzu's death, Wu was completely destroyed and absorbed by the Kingdom of Yue. Additional points when you consider that Helu's son and successor Fu Chai did many things that Sun Tzu (and ''The Art Of War'') would have frowned upon.
* HypeBacklash: Frequently advertised as ''the'' book about war, some point out that most of it is common sense. This may be ValuesDissonance as common sense may not have been as common back then. In addition, back in Sun Zi's day, superstition was rampart, along with the belief that the supernatural can influence wars.
* OlderThanTheyThink: ''The Art of War'' is frequently thought of as a fairly modern book. It is not -- general Sun lived in the sixth century BC (600-500 BC) and was a contemporary of Darius I of Persia and Confucius.
* ValuesDissonance: Today, some of the tactics he advocates would be considered ''[[UsefulNotes/TheLawsAndCustomsOfWar war crimes]]'' at worst and ''state-funded terrorism'' at best. See also TryingToCatchMeFightingDirty. Examples include [[ISurrenderSuckers pretending to set up truce talks to lure enemies into a trap]] and attacking the enemy without declaring war. This might be part of the whole point of the book being a CombatPragmatist but ethics still have a place in warfare. The central assumption behind pretty much the entire work is that the reader will remain in a superior position because of his adherence to these tenets. In real life, almost no one can maintain military and political dominance one hundred percent of the time, and doing things like staging false peace talks and attacking the enemy without declaring war would mean that your enemies would settle for nothing less than your annihilation. What qualifies as "pragmatic" has changed over the millennia. Also, it was written for one king in particular, but the work has since spread everywhere, making it no longer revolutionary knowledge by default.
** More importantly, Sun Zi wrote with the unwritten assumption that the reader is seeking total annihilation of the opposition, either via assimilation after victory, or plain old genocide.

!!The movies:

* CrowningMomentOfAwesome:

* FunnyMoments:

* HypeBacklash: Frequently advertised as ''the'' book about war, some point out that most of it is common sense. This may be ValuesDissonance as common sense may not have been as common back then.

* MagnificentBastard: This is a goal to which all generals should aspire. As the book notes:
-->"To win a hundred battles is not of the supreme excellence. To subdue one's enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

* OlderThanTheyThink: ''The Art of War'' is frequently thought of as a fairly modern book. It is not -- general Sun lived in the sixth century BC (700-600 BC) and was a contemporary of Darius I of Persia and Confucius.

* ValuesDissonance: Today, some of the tactics he advocates would be considered ''[[TheLawsAndCustomsOfWar war crimes]]'' at worst and ''state-funded terrorism'' at best. See also TryingToCatchMeFightingDirty. Examples include [[ISurrenderSuckers pretending to set up truce talks to lure enemies into a trap]] and attacking the enemy without declaring war. This might be part of the whole point of the book being a CombatPragmatist but ethics still have a place in warfare. The central assumption behind pretty much the entire work is that the reader will remain in a superior position because of his adherence to these tenets. In real life, almost no one can maintain military and political dominance one hundred percent of the time, and doing things like staging false peace talks and attacking the enemy without declaring war would mean that your enemies would settle for nothing less than your annihilation. What qualifies as "pragmatic" has changed over the millennia. Also, it was written for one king in particular, but the work has since spread everywhere, making it no longer revolutionary knowledge by default.

* HypeBacklash:
** Frequently advertised as ''the'' book about war, some point out that most of it is common sense. This may be ValuesDissonance as common sense may not have been as common back then.

* ValuesDissonance: Today, some of the tactics he advocates would be considered ''[[TheLawsAndCustomsOfWar war crimes]]'' at worst and ''state-funded terrorism'' at best. See also TryingToCatchMeFightingDirty. Examples include [[ISurrenderSuckers pretending to set up truce talks to lure enemies into a trap]] and attacking the enemy without declaring war. This might be part of the whole point of the book being a CombatPragmatist but ethics still have a place in warfare. The central assumption behind pretty much the entire work is that the reader will remain in a superior position because of his adherence to these tenets. In real life, almost no one can maintain military and political dominance one hundred percent of the time, and doing things like staging false peace talks and attacking the enemy without declaring war would mean that your enemies would settle for nothing less than your annihilation. What qualifies as "pragmatic" has changed over the millennia.

* ValuesDissonance: Today, some of the tactics he advocates would be considered ''[[TheLawsAndCustomsOfWar war crimes]]'' at worst and ''state-funded terrorism'' at best. See also TryingToCatchMeFightingDirty. Examples include [[ISurrenderSuckers pretending to set up truce talks to lure enemies into a trap]] and attacking the enemy without declaring war. This might be part of the whole point of the book being a CombatPragmatist but ethics still have a place in warfare. The central assumption behind pretty much the entire work is that the reader will remain in a superior position because of his adherence to these tenets. In real life, almost no one can maintain military and political dominance one hundred percent of the time, and doing things like staging false peace talks and attacking the enemy without declaring war would mean that your enemies would settle for nothing less than your annihilation. What qualifies as "pragmatic" has changed over the years.

* OlderThanTheyThink: ''The Art of War'' is frequently thought of as a fairly modern book. It is not -- general Sun lived in the VI century BC and was a contemporary of Darius I of Persia and Confucius.

* OlderThanTheyThink: ''The Art of War'' is frequently thought of as a fairly modern book. It is not -- general Sun lived in the VI century BC and was a contemporary of Darius I of Persia and Confucius. The book was written about fifty after his death.

* OlderThanTheyThink: ''The Art of War'' is frequently thought of as a fairly modern book. It is not -- general Sun lived in the VI century BC and was a contemporary of Darius I of Persia and Confucius. The book was written about two centuries after his death.

* OlderThanTheyThink: ''The Art of War'' is frequently thought of as a fairly modern book. It is not -- general Sun lived in the VI century BC and was a contemporary of Darius I of Persia and Confucius.

* Tearjerker: The deaths of [[spoiler: Jenna and Julia's friend and her mother.]]

* FunnyAneurysmMoment: The book was originally written for Helu, the ruler of the Kingdom of Wu. About fifty or so years after Sun Tzu's death, Wu was completely destroyed and absorbed by the Kingdom of Yue.
** Additional points when you consider that Helu's son and successor Fu Chai did many things that Sun Tzu (and ''The Art Of War'') would have frowned upon.