Outcast

A ruler seeks a less combative way to cultivate his culture's destiny, and denies the throne to his first born son, who flourishes amidst rage and conflict.

But the studious son he chooses is not well-versed in the vicissitudes of intrigue (Bill Su Jiahang as Prince Zhao), and even though he has been chosen, he must flee to avoid his brother's wrath (Andy On as Prince Shing). 

The ruler passes, his heartfelt wishes bluntly ignored and traditionally outweighed, but as coincidence or fate would have it, his vision finds an honourable adherent. 

For a lone warrior ruined by the crusades is randomly wandering his vast kingdom (Hayden Christensen as Jacob), in search of potent spiritual redemption, lost in drink and purposeless posture. 

He senses injustice and agrees to defend the literary lad along with his devout sister (Yifei Liu as Princess Lian), who are trying to reach the wilds beyond a far off mountain, where they believe they'll indeed be safe.

But his brother's minions pursue them everywhere and they're soon betrayed by those they trust, the lone warrior fortunately formidable gallantly gifted focused resolute. 

But he's haunted by ghastly past lives that left him doubtful and woebegone.

The doubts challenged through stern conviction.

Independent freelance, robustly trained.

Outcast presents insurmountable odds disputing courtesy, tact, and diplomacy, as the intellectual spirit yearns for transformation, in an epoch plagued by war.

If I remember details from a Chinese history course I took way back correctly, China generally focused on its own well-being in the past. It was rarely imperialistically disposed and tended to concentrate on its own enlightenment. 

They were so certain of their civilization that when barbarians came to plunder, they had no need to defeat them militaristically, preferring to wait for their culture to win them over (a process called "sinification").

Thus, I tend not to take theories which suggest China is seeking to colonially express itself seriously.

Why would they focus primarily on themselves for millennia and then suddenly embark on crusades? It makes more sense to wait for the world to change than risk losses in some disastrous conflict.

Further, after centuries of woe they've finally reasserted themselves as a preeminent culture.

Why would they risk all that for a bit of land?

When they're already so blessed with so much diversity back home?

Outcast postulates redemption through a noble act unbidden and unrewarded, compensation driven through active spirit, the vigorous rapport of a peaceful life.

I imagine China's much more concerned with peace based upon the learned hypotheses shared by well-read teachers.

What's to be gained from a grandiose conflict?

That they don't picturesquely possess already?

With Nicolas Cage (Gallain). 

Primal

Unable to abide by the rules and structures of traditional zookeeping, an independent spirit strikes out on his own, in the ironic pursuit of free ranging wildlife, whom he captures to earn his living.

Meanwhile a resourceful assassin has been caught by the American government, which plans to transport him back to the States, for having committed brutal crimes.

Frustratingly, he can't travel by plane, due to a physiological peculiarity, and must therefore be securely shipped, on the very same boat upon which Frank Walsh (Nicolas Cage) is voyaging, to facilitate the sale of his animals.

Elite military personnel vigilantly guard their prisoner, expecting everything to go as planned, but a not-so-subtle animate seizure brings about harrowing unforeseen circumstances.

Soon they're back on the hunt in an enclosed cryptic junk yard jungle, Frank's animals having been set free, to add wild beastly fierce complication, to a rather sensational schematic.

Venomous snakes, birds, tapirs, monkeys, and a ghost-jaguar enjoy unexpected freedom, locked down encaged no longer, curious to learn more about their new environment.

Will they accidentally assist in the improvised plans to recapture a crazed escape artist, or further annoy the troops as they search, while sincerity tracks them down?

Primal proceeds with raw carnal instinct intending to generally avoid incarceration, those who persist intuitively enacting intense entrepreneurial codes.

Its narrative logistics aren't far off course considering its limited budget, although I can't help but wonder how shocking it may have been had it possessed more bountiful resources.

It steers clear of Snakes on a Plane which I initially thought may have provided inspiration, preferring to stick to infused human conflict instead of concentrating on the ghost-cat.

Actors are given the chance to emit passionate refinements of character, and with less material to go on than enigmatic drama they still establish volatile identities.

Can't say I'm the biggest fan of capturing animals to sell them to the highest bidder. Especially the rarest inhabitants of the jungle. It's much more fun to think they roam free.

Life of Pi does make a strong argument in favour of zoos, but I think the larger animals still definitively abhor them (unless they're lazy).

I was mistaken in my initial hypothesis regarding Primal's concluding moments, but I can't say much more than that without giving too much away.

It's a cool film if you like this kind of story.

Would have been cooler with African American survivors.

And reforms leading to the release of the animals in the end. 

Has Nicolas Cage ever been in a film with Gary Oldman?

They're both best actor winners who never lost their cool.

As far as I know.  

Directed by Robert Rodriguez? 

. . .