Shanghai Knights [Minor Spoilers]

Black Omega

First Post
Just saw Shanghai Knights last night, and I have to admit it was..different.

Almost no carry over from the previous movie, the Princess is mentioned briefly at the start and Roy O'Bannon's wife simply disappears for the sake of the plot.

The action is excellent, as you'd expect. At times the sound track is a little goofy, working in the Keystone Cops theme for the fight with the NY Cops, then Singing in the Rain for the umbrella fight with the London street thugs.

Fann Wong as Wang's sister was very good. I was a bit surprised to do a search a find she's been in movies and TV shows for a decade, though mostly in Singapore.

The injokes were more of the usual from the first, this time in a more Sherlock Holmesian vein. The main villain being named Rathbone and being a masterswordman, for example.

The drawbacks. The bit of wire-fu they worked for Wu Yip's fight with Wang just seemed jarringly out of place. Jack the Ripper was comic relief was just weird. My only disappointment was Owen Wilson's character not really doing much. He's funny and has great chemistry with Jackie Chan, but unlike Shanghi Noon he mostly just stays out of the way for the action scenes. I really thought he'd end up fighting Rathbone.

Minor quibbles though, it was good mindless fun. I'm looking forward to more from Fann Wong.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


The biggest issue I had with the movie, the kid but that is because of flash backs to Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom. :)

Overall I was pleased with the movie and enjoyed a number of the easter eggs. Roy talking about family and naming his kids is a line from a Beetles song. :)

As with all Jackie movies, stay for the credits!
 




What I want to know is ...with the seriousness of the first one at least some of it anyway. Why did they make this one to seem more of a spoof?

I liked the easter eggs. I liked the fighting in it as I know Jackie loved Chaplin and the Keystone Cops, but the villan was considerably less vilanous than the last one. I also missed Roy's Wife....among other little things they did in the first one.

Just some stray thoughts,
Darius
 

Darius101 said:
What I want to know is ...with the seriousness of the first one at least some of it anyway. Why did they make this one to seem more of a spoof?

I liked the easter eggs. I liked the fighting in it as I know Jackie loved Chaplin and the Keystone Cops, but the villan was considerably less vilanous than the last one. I also missed Roy's Wife....among other little things they did in the first one.

Just some stray thoughts,
Darius

Well two words; Jackie Chan. He didn't like the first one and this is more his style. It's more along the style of his HK action films with dramatic set pieces for his fighting scenes. He was never made to be a dramatist anyway, and SK shows off what he does best; Acrobatic fighting.
 

Darius101 said:
What I want to know is ...with the seriousness of the first one at least some of it anyway. Why did they make this one to seem more of a spoof?

Maybe it's me, but I saw no seriousness in the first movie at all. It was pure Jackie Chan comedy style, with a few minor exceptions. Everything from his name (Chon Wang - John Wayne), to the scene with the peace pipe smoking, and the indian wife, to the train robbery - every bit was laced with parody of 1940's and 50's U.S. westerns, and humor.

I have not seen the Knights yet, but from the review here it sounds like more of same, just with lots of parody towards Victorian England.
 

Darius101 said:
I also missed Roy's Wife....among other little things they did in the first one.


Darius

Was it Roy's wife? I thought it was Jackie's Indain wife, that peferred Roy.

Which is something I was very pleased with, Roy being seen as the leader/hero and Jackie as the side-kick. Enjoyed the play on that.:)
 

Remove ads

Top