Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Review: Rush Hour 2 202

Posted by JonKatz from the good-honest-Grade-B-fun dept.
With the possible exception of Shrek, I haven't seen an audience have as much fun all summer as the full house yukking through Rush Hour 2, a multi-cultural martial arts comedy/adventure/ cop/ buddy movie and testament to the still- growing sweep and reach of Hong Kong cinema, for which Jackie Chan deserves much credit. Lots of laughs in an unpretentious movie that stars one actor's mouth and another's feet.

Even though it's only the second movie in the series, Chan and Chris Tucker have already achieved a lot of the chemistry that worked so well for Mel Gibson and Danny Glover in the Lethal Weapon series. Chan and Tucker don't act as well, and the plots and writing are weaker, but they're funnier, and Chan's martial arts tricks, gags and maneuvers are, as always, amazing. It was a nice touch to pair these two -- who do a non-stop series of black/Asian riffs on one another -- with Crouching Tiger's brooding and beautiful Zhang Ziyi.

This movie is neither balletic or inventive, but nobody expects it to be, and it makes no claims for itself that it doesn't fully deliver on, a rarity this summer. The movie is fast-paced and good-hearted. Tucker is a bit shrill, but he gets off a furious string of put-downs, double entendres and racial spoof lines, and plays well off of the good-natured Chan, who can kick-box 20 bad guys but can't yet say "Madison Square Garden" on the first take. The settings are neat too -- the movie skips from Hong Kong to L.A. to Las Vegas as Tucker and Chan track down one of the mysterious Hong Kong Triads - yes, they're in Lethal Weapon also -- bent on flooding the U.S. with counterfeit money.

The plot is even more ridiculous than the first Rush Hour but it doesn't matter. It's striking to see the impact Hong Kong cinema has had on American movies, from this comedy to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon to The Matrix. Jackie Chan deserves a lot of the credit, bringing the genre to the attention of Hollywood studios and many moviegoers.

This is an honest Grade B comedy, playing off a few very good lines, lots of well-choreographed martial arts battles -- one goes up the side of a building under construction, another takes place in a steam bath with combatants clad only in towels. Chan and Tucker obviously have a lot of fun working together, and it comes through in the movie. There is always the sense of two cultures sparking off one another in funny ways, as Chan struggles to deal with hip-hop and Tucker mangles phrases from his Chinese-English dictionary.

Nobody will say this is a great movie, but it was plenty of fun. Chan's hilarious, self-mocking outtakes are, as always, well worth sticking around for. He brings the audience into the movie-making process in ways that are open and appreciated -- everybody in my theater stayed behind. He seems to be reminding us -- and maybe himself -- not to take things too seriously. CT Throwing in my 2 bits on this just because I can (complain all you want posters! I'm abusing my privilage!) I enjoyed the flick a lot. I walked in, and was entertained. Final Fantasy and Moulin Rouge were the last 2 movies that I can say that about. The action sequences are nothing compared to CTHD, but damnit, they're fun. Many shots are super spoofy and just really funny, but I only saw maybe one shot that looked really fake (and thats including the shots that were supposed to look fake). Tucker and Chan are terrible actors, and half of the jokes are the bland Saturday Night Live caliber comedy that I would leave the theater over, but then they hit a zinger. Dammit I laughed and had a lot of fun. Then I went home and watched Romeo Must Die to see some real action.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Review: Rush Hour 2 More

Review: Rush Hour 2

Comments Filter:

  • Sorry, but the plot was actually GREAT, and yes, Chris and Jackie ARE good actors. It's amazing how there seems to STILL be a anti-Chan bias even among geeks and longtime fans in western culture. The same fanboys who will rave about how great Akira was will then turn around and unfailingly undercut Jackie Chan with off the cuff comments like, "Grade B plot" and clumsy references to acting skill.

    It's like every film reveiewer has a compulsion to go out of their way to assert that a Chan movie had to have some weakness of plot or direction or acting. This wasn't mere escapist fare, it was as strong a plot as any of the movies this summer or last. Perhaps its threatening to see an Asian style film start to really take ahold in the West. Maybe you just wouldn't recognize a good plot in a Jackie Chan film if it bit you in the ass.

    If this movie were filmed by John Woo, or if it was animated, it would be held up as a tour de force of moviemaking. Chan kicked ass this weekend and everyone who saw the movie without consciously wearing a "Reviewer" hat knows it.

    • Hardly. Most people don't consider martial arts films to be the ultimate in filmmaking. When people go to see a martial arts film, they in general aren't going to see it for the plot. They're going so that they can see the hero beat the living crap out of all of the bad guys.
      Let's be honest here. A typical kung fu movie has the following plot:
      1. Good guy is bullied somehow by the bad guy's gang or the government. This results in either his friends or his family being killed, and then...
      2. Good guy trains hard at kung fu either at shaolin or from some old guy that initially refuses to teach him until he is swayed out of pity or persistance. This causes...
      3. The good guy gets his "Revenge(tm)" on the bad guy. The "Revenge(tm)" ends in either...
      (a) The good guy killing all of the bad guys with no problems, or
      (b) The good guy getting stomped by the bad guys until his teacher/girlfriend jump in to protect him. They get beat, and in a fit of godlike endurance and skill the good guy kills all of the bad guys.
      Invariably, the plot is peppered with Chineseisms that us dumb roundeyes are doomed to only partially get (read: nationalism, honesty, rising to the call of duty, defending ones fellow man at your own potential cost) much like our understanding of Japanese budo consists of something on the order of "raw fish, wierd sex acts, and hot nubile women."
      So. Anti-asian? No. Anti-chan? No. Cookie-cutter plots? Yes. But who cares? It's a kung fu movie. That's what I couldn't understand about america's fascination with crouching tiger. For all of it's beauty, IT'S A KUNG FU MOVIE. It's what you would have gotten if the Shaw Brothers had a budget. Sheesh.

  • So it's not a huge movie, and you're going to have to go to your local art-house theater to see it, but the funniest movie of the summer is "MADE". I know, I know, that's not saying much this summer, but any movie that has Dustin Diamond [imdb.com] in a cameo playing himself has already achieved something awesome. The movie has some flaws (Vince Vaughn's "annoying guy" act gets, well, annoying) but overall it's better than any of the big movies at your local googleplex. See it, Katz!

  • I agree with the review, I went to this movie to laugh a lot and go "oooooh" at Jackie Chan's stunts, and that's exactly what happened. If you're the type of person that can't shut up about how fake wrestling is when you're at "WWF smackdown" party, then don't go see this movie. Everyone knows the plot is crazy, everyone knows the stunts are ridiculous, but it's really fun, and if you can relax and have a good time, you'll laugh your ass off.

  • Hey! (Score:2)

    by quartz ( 64169 )
    The Taco is abusing his privileges again! I'm complaining! Er, what was the article about? Oh yeah. Jackie Chan rocks. His martial arts may not be pure coreography, but nothing I've seen so far even comes close to his talent for spoof and sellf-parody in martial arts movies. I have yet to watch a JC movie without having a good laugh. At the ending credits scenes if not anything else. :-)

  • I hope I like it, I hated the first one (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Quick review of the first one:

    Chris Tucker: Ok, I'll do every black stereotype I know, including the classics like what kind of music we listen to and how good we dance. And Jackie, you can be the butt of all my Chinese jokes.

    Jackie Chan: Very good! And I will go up to black people and call them nigger because I don't know any better, and they will want to kill me and that will be a good excuse for me to show that I can kick their asses.

    Honestly, I love Jackie movies (Shanghai Noon and Drunken Master were better, recent offerings) but the only humor in the first one was a bunch of stupid racist stereotypes.

    • Doesn't all Hollywood movies like that?

    • Plenty of stupid racist stereotypes in Rush Hour 2 as well, from the previews anyway.

      At one point, Tucker punches Chan and says, "sorry, you guys all look alike." Hey, why not let Jackie Chan make some watermelon-eating jokes while we're at it? Jebus. Pathetic.

      On a semi-related topic, why aren't black people (can I say that? or do I have to say African-American?) furious that they keep being represented as these shrill-voiced, jive-talkin' caricatures? I would think it's insulting, but I'm just a European-American.

      Where's that troll Tyrone Fine when you need him? :)
      • From watching both RH 1 and 2, it seemed that many of the jokes from 1 were used in 2, but on the other character. Such as: Jackie saying "I'm michael jackson, you're toto"(obligatory broken English).

        But I enjoyed it regardless. I was surprised to see a few recognizable characters in this since usually in Jackie Chan films, they hire plenty of actors I've never seen as minor characters.

        If you want to see Jackie Chan atempt a serious film with some action thrown in(the action starts from a "misunderstanding") go see Heart of the Dragon. It's mainly about Jackie trying to cope with living with this mentally retarded brother.
      • At one point, Tucker punches Chan and says, "sorry, you guys all look alike." Hey, why not let Jackie Chan make some watermelon-eating jokes while we're at it?

        Yeah, I think that was the point. Tucker's using a joke that's usually directed at black people. It's irony

        On a semi-related topic, why aren't black people (can I say that? or do I have to say African-American?) furious that they keep being represented as these shrill-voiced, jive-talkin' caricatures?

        It's not a "jive-talkin' characture", it's Chris Tucker. That's what he does. I don't think blacks are usually represented that way. If you want a black actor acting seriously as an intelligent person, go see a movie with Denzel Washington or Morgan Freeman. Chris Tucker acts the way he does because he's a clown - that's his schtick.
        • Yeah, I think that was the point. Tucker's using a joke that's usually directed at black people. It's irony

          Where I come from there are a hell of a lot more asian than black folks, so I hear the "they all look alike" in the wild, so to speak. So it didn't strike me as ironic, but plain racist.

          If you want a black actor acting seriously as an intelligent person...

          I never said I had a problem with comedy. And I know there are some great dramatic black actors. But how about a black *comedian* who isn't in the Chris Tucker style?
          • Hmm Black comedians who are funny? I can't seem to think of any, because I live in the woods and or spend too much time living vicariously through postings on slashdot. Or maybe I should mention Bill Cosby.

            Everyone usually sees only what they want to see. It's not even because they don't understand the objective truth, they're just not comfortable with it. Likewise, it's not that you can't think of a black comedian who doesn't fit the aforementioned "style", it's that you don't care to. That is truly telling. Quite frankly, I could probably name ten black comedians off the tip of my tongue, and I'm just a run of the mill vitimin D deprived white guy. On the off chance that you're actually telling the truth, take a break from the MTV and HBO, you might be shocked at how big the world really is.

          • You obviously don't know much aboot major hollywood "comedy" if you think they are going to put a myriad of comedians in major budget films. They will put in the film what is popular, and sadly, cheap shots like these are what is popular. And you obviously don't know much aboot stand up comedy if you think that there are no black comedians that have a style that is not "Chris Tucker's" style. I suggest you tune into Comedy central more often.
    • Drunken Master is actually one of his older movies - I think it's from the 80s. It's just that it was only released (and dubbed) in this country recently.
  • Katz and I actually agree that this movie was hilarious.

    Maybe I'll send some winter coats down to hell for L.B.J. to wear.

  • Surprised - JonKatz stuck to the topic! (Score:4, Funny)

    by tshak ( 173364 ) on Sunday August 05, 2001 @11:44AM (#2114584) Homepage
    A review of a Jackie Chan movie by JonKatz, and no comment like, "Now, if only Chan and Tucker could bust into prison and free Dmitry while battling the evil creators of the DMCA!" :-)
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • To my surprised, he hadn't flubbed! But upon closer inspection, I noticed he got her name backwards.

      Katz got it right. It *is* Zhang Ziyi.
    • "Crouching Tiger was not an American movie..."

      Actually, a friend and I were going back and forth about that this morning. We're in BC, and we saw a show on it pre-release that I would have sworn called it a Canadian film. IMDB [imdb.com] appears to be listing it [imdb.com] as a US movie. (Down the page a bit, where it lists the USA subtitled version as "original".) My friend says he thought Ang Lee emigrated to Canada after making this film, but he's not sure. Do you have a link to more info on it?

  • Maybe I was smoking crack during that movie, but
    I found it to be minimally funny. The only value
    I found it to truly possess was amazing computer
    graphic rendition.

    With that being said, I'm wondering how great Rush
    Hour 2 could possibly be if you place it just
    below Shrek in bang-for-buck...

    • You'll have to forgive Katz, he thinks fart jokes are highbrow comedy.

      Of course, there's comedy itself in picturing Katz, Mr. Corporations 'R Evil himself, running up to the window to hand his money over to the corporations (AOL/Time-Warner in this case).

      Yeah, Jon, you want to see everybody out on the street protesting for your silly causes, but you can't even resist seeing some cheesy comedy on opening night? Get bent.

    • I agree...Shrek was an ok movie, but I didn't find it hilarious. The computer animation was good, and the story was fairly original, but it doesn't compare to the like of South Park or a Farelly brothers flick.
      • Can you actually call a plot original that starts out by saying "Once upon a time..."? The humor itself may not have been very good (better than expected), but the fact that its a children's movie makes the jokes even funnier. These are jokes that probably made parents cringe but forget about it when they relized that their kid doesn't get it.

  • Jackie who? (Score:3, Informative)

    by SailorBob ( 146385 ) on Sunday August 05, 2001 @12:13PM (#2121081) Homepage Journal
    As much as I admire Chan as a martial artist and enjoy his films, saying that he brought martial arts movies and Hong Kong to Hollywood's attention is showing how little Mr. Katz knows about the history of the martial arts movie. It was a Chinese-American named Bruce Lee who brought Hong Kong and the martial arts film to the American big silver screen - over 30 years ago.

    People like Samo, Jackie Chan, Chuck Norris and Jet Li would all acknowledge without hesitation that Bruce Lee is the father of the modern martial arts movie. Heck, Samo and Norris even got their starts in acting appearing in Bruce Lee movies. (Yes they are that old, and so is Chan)

    • People like Samo, Jackie Chan, Chuck Norris and Jet Li would all acknowledge without
      hesitation that Bruce Lee is the father of the modern martial arts movie. Heck, Samo and Norris even got their starts in acting appearing in Bruce Lee movies. (Yes they are that old, and so is Chan)


      Jackie Chan himself got his start in movies as an extra in Bruce Lee movies.

    • Re:Jackie who? (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Heck, Samo and Norris even got their starts in acting appearing in Bruce Lee movies.
      As well as Jackie Chan...

      He was playing in Enter The Dragon as one of the (insignificant) opponents of Bruce Lee. Here [jackiechan.com] is a picture Bruce being nasty with Jackie... :-)

      (Go see the whole site [jackiechan.com] tho, it is much better than the official)

  • Not a great movie, but a fun movie (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sg3000 ( 87992 ) <<sg_public> <at> <mac.com>> on Sunday August 05, 2001 @12:21PM (#2122613)

    I agree with Katz on this one. Jackie Chan's movies are always fun, and although I enjoyed Rush Hour 2, it wasn't as good as Rush Hour 1 or Rumble in Toronto -- I mean Rumble in the Bronx. In Rush Hour 1, the script was a little tighter and made a little more sense. Rumble in the Bronx had some of Jackie's best stunts, particularly in the gang fight scene with Stigmata by Ministry playing in the background.

    Rush Hour 2 felt, well rushed, where the script needed a little more polishing. This makes sense because I heard that Chan wasn't happy with the results of the stunts in the movie. The first act was pretty painful, but the movie got better in Act 2 and 3. But the script could have benefited from a rewrite (or perhaps this was just an editing problem). What was the point of the "Snoopy tattoo"? Why did the customs agent say she got rid of Lee and Carter when she really sent them to find the plates? Why did Lee carry around his dad's badge all the time (he took it to the US on a spur of the moment trip with Carter)? Why did Ricky Tan look younger than Lee even though he used to be Lee's father's partner?

    The movie was funny though. Chris Tucker was funny once again, and Jackie Chan still excels at physical comedy. Chan also gets bonus points for doing the incredible stunts himself -- which should embarrass American "action stars" like Swartzenegger, Willis, Stallone, Reeves, etc. In an industry where any person with access to a harness, a computer to digitally remove the harness, tons of explosives, and sunglasses can be called an action star, it's cool to see Jackie Chan do his own stunts and make them look breathtaking.

    • that'd more accurately be "Rumble in Vancouver". That's where the movie was filmed.
    • In Rush Hour 1, the script was a little tighter and made a little more sense.
      Funny; I didn't like the first Rush Hour; I only watched the second one because I was getting into the cinema for free. I thought it was a much better. Not sure why...

      Chris Tucker was funny once again
      Oh, yeah. Now I remember. Can't stand Chris Tucker. His high-pitched sreaming throughout the movie drove me fucking spare. In the second one, though, I was mentally prepared, so it didn't bother me as much. If I were to watch the first one again, I might enjoy it more.

      What was the point of the "Snoopy tattoo"
      So we could zoom in on her semi-naked bod? Best reason I can think of.

      Why did the customs agent say she got rid of Lee and Carter when she really sent them to find the plates?
      I'd assumed that she was sending them on a wild goose chase. Although now that you mention it, she wasn't. So: dunno.

      Why did Ricky Tan look younger than Lee even though he used to be Lee's father's partner?
      Must be a Jackie Chan thing. Anita Mui played his mother in drunken master 2. That would have been silly if it weren't for a fact that any Anita Mui movie is a cause for celebration.

      My big question: why was Chris Tucker ahead of the Great Jackie in the credits? That's just not right.
    • I thought it was great - great as in very entertaining. great as in epic? no, but thats not what the movie was supposed to be. I think calling it "not great" is implying it's bad
    • Why did the customs agent say she got rid of Lee and Carter when she really sent them to find the plates?

      Because she knew she was being monitored and so had to make that call to make the cia get off Carter/Lee's case.

      I actually saw the film twice. The first time I thought it was disappointing because the story line seemed wacked. But the second time around everything made sense for me. I guess the only bad thing is the producing. They could have made this movie better had they worked a bit more on getting these details in the plot to the audience better.

  • That's Chan's style (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jsse ( 254124 ) on Sunday August 05, 2001 @11:45AM (#2123308) Homepage Journal
    Chan and Tucker don't act as well, and the plots and writing are weaker, but they're funnier, and Chan's martial arts tricks, gags and maneuvers are, as always, amazing.

    I live in Hong Kong.

    Chan pioneered a new style of martial art movie ever since his first movie in Hong Kong, Drunken Fighter,(Many years ago, you probably haven't seen it) which added comedy elements in martial fighting.

    Jacky Chan said in a local radio that he had a hard time working with Hollywood movie makers. He doesn't like they took everything too seriously. For example he proposed to use a silver-dye paper gun for a gun-kicking shot. The Hollywood producers didn't like it, but he argued the kicking scene just took 0.02 sec and nobody would notice.

    That's his style, he'd rather put more effort to add more action and fun in action movie, then to spend time to build the plot.

    Frankly I don't like watching weak-plot movies but his work is still very entertaining.

    • Re:That's Chan's style (Score:5, Interesting)

      by maaaaanis ( 180232 ) on Sunday August 05, 2001 @12:47PM (#2110369)
      When Jacki was here in Australia about 5 or so years ago making a couple of films that I was lucky enough to work on, he was adamant that he would never work in the US again (I think the last film he did in the US before then was Cannonball Run!). He hasn't got anything against the US as such, just his style of film making conflicts totally with the more professional, organised and unionised style of Hollywood filmcrews. Basically the guy is (or was) an insane workaholic, when he works on his own Hong Kong productions there's hardly a job on set and post production that he doesn't do.
      I remember being on set one day watching him go about setting up a stunt scene. He correographed the stunt, wrote the lines to go along with it, directed the other actors then carried the camera to the top of a scaffold to set the camera angle he wanted. Later that evening, whilst he was in the studio where I was recording his voice-overs for a previous film, he broke the session so that he could look at the rushes from the previous days shoot. I thought he'd have an editor or an assistant do all the menial work for him but he grabbed the film cans and ran upstairs to the edit bench, laced up the print and sound himself. When I asked if he needed any help he got shitty and explained that he had an edit bench in his hotel room where he edited the film each night. He even did sound effects in the foley room later on when he wasn't happy with what the sound editors had done.
      The main reason he doesn't (or didn't) like working for Hollywood was that union regulations wouldn't let him doing anything but act, he had to just sit in his trailer until his was called and they didn't appreciate his input into the correographing of fight scenes theat he felt were lame.
      I guess things have changed a bit now, he's close to 50yo now and the injuries were starting to take there toll five years ago, so I guess that doing films like Rush hour are something akin to retirement for him ;-)
      One more thing I have to say is, he really is one of the warmest, most genuine guys you could work with in the film industry, not one hint of pretentiousness at all he treats everyone he works with equally and is funny as hell.
      The dude rocks all round.
      • he was adamant that he would never work in the US again (I think the last film he did in the US before then was Cannonball Run!). He hasn't got anything against the US as such,

        Since you've worked with him I'm sure you'd like to know what happened. :)

        In today's radio show(again) he told us his unhappy event when filming 'Cannonball Run'. He and another HK actor had to wait 10 days to shoot a 1/2 hour film, and the Hollywood staffs then was very disrespectful to him - just told them to talk 'anything' for 1/2 hours and then they could leave. Already top movie stars in HK, they felt so unhappy and they spoke foul language(in Chinese) during that boring 1/2 hour session(while their face act otherwise). Unfortunately the few minutes clips that they spoke foul language was being used. :D

        • Can you understand what they're saying, or did they overdub the voices. I can't really remember his parts in the film, apart from watching pr0n on the TV in the dashboard ;-)
    • Having seen a lot of Chan's movies, I have to agree. Even if it's only a split-second part of a fight scene, he'd prefer to have it done the best he can do rather then even have a small bit of it be bad. Does he always get his way? Well, it depends. If he's making the movie with HK producers, yes. They realize that he knows what he is doing. If it's with Hollywood, you can practically forget it. Look at "The Big Brawl" for the first example of Hollywood screwing up Chan.

      I won't say he completely ignores the plot, but it does usually take a back seat to the butt-kicking scenes. But then, I don't go to a Chan movie to see plots worthy of Shakespeare. I go to see Jackie Chan use an entire prop-room's worth of stuff against his opponents.

      Kierthos
      • I'll do a <meetoo/>. Chan's movies tend to have really lame stories, dialog, and characters - the women helplessly shriek "save me Jackie", etc. - hopefully the actress in this one has a better character.

        But, Chan's fight scenes are always spectacular, enormously creative. He always finds an interesting set and makes great use of props. The thing I like most about him is that he is likeable, and doesn't take himself 1% as seriously as assholes like Steven Segal. Can you imagine that uptight egomaniac showing outtakes of himself screwing up stunts, much less laughing about it? Jackie has soul, I'll go see this flick even if the writing is lame.
        • > hopefully the actress in this one has a better character.

          The two main women in this movie either kick his ass, or save his ass (depending on the woman). Nicely done! And Zhang Ziyi....oh my...she needs to be in a LOT more movies!

          I read an interview with her in a Kung-Fu magazine where she said she wanted to take this role to prove to herself that she could portray a character so opposite of herself, someone truly bad. She _really_ pulled it off - she's totally menacing in this movie. Also note: she's _not_ a martial artist - she's a national champion dancer, though, and that's what allowed her to do the necessary moves so well.
      • Look at "The Big Brawl" for the first example of Hollywood screwing up Chan.

        Oh yes, you reminded me, he has talked about 'Big Brawl' in radio today. Saying how he had a tough time working with Hollywood guys, and how those Big noses media treated him(very) differently since 'Cannonball'.

        You probably wouldn't hear him saying that to US media. :D
    • Chan pioneered a new style of martial art movie ever since his first movie in Hong Kong, Drunken Fighter,(Many years ago, you probably haven't seen it) which added comedy elements in martial fighting. If that's the same movie that they call "Drunken Master" over here in the U.S., a lot of us have seen it because it was re-released last year. DM was a VERY good movie, one of the best martial arts movies I've ever seen (not that I'm a martial-arts movie expert). I'd recommend DM over all of his movies.
  • Nobody will say this is a great movie

    Wrong again, Katz!

    This was a great movie!!!! Everone should see this, it puts planet of the apes and it's godawful ending to shame.

    ... Kengineer

  • Needed Corrections (Score:3, Troll)

    by cybermage ( 112274 ) on Sunday August 05, 2001 @11:47AM (#2123927) Homepage Journal
    one of the mysterious Hong Kong Triads - yes, they're in Lethal Weapon also --

    Lethal Weapon 4 [imdb.com], actually, but who's counting.

    Jackie Chan deserves a lot of the credit, bringing the genre to the attention of Hollywood studios and many moviegoers.

    Along with Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, etc...

    This is an honest Grade B comedy, playing off a few very good lines, lots of well-choreographed martial arts battles -- one goes up the side of a building under construction

    actually, it's already built with people living in it; and the building has scaffolding around it.

    another takes place in a steam bath with combatants clad only in towels.

    They're mostly in bath robes and it's a massage parlor.


    I don't know what it will take for Katz to call a movie Grade A, or good, but atleast he conceded that this one is enjoyable. I, on the other hand, judge movies by how well they tell their story. If it's a comedy and it makes me laugh, by definition it was good. I had a good time watching this one and hope Katz is right about it being a franchise (something they elude to in the outtakes.)

    Oh yeah, there was a trailer for Fellowship of the Ring in front of this one.
    • I had a good time watching this one and hope Katz is right about it being a franchise (something they elude to in the outtakes.)

      Empire Online has an announcement here: http://www.empireonline.co.uk/news/news.asp?story= 3235 [empireonline.co.uk]

    • Re:Needed Corrections (Score:4, Informative)

      by Accipiter ( 8228 ) on Sunday August 05, 2001 @01:54PM (#2121924)
      Jackie Chan deserves a lot of the credit, bringing the genre to the attention of Hollywood studios and many moviegoers.

      Along with Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris, etc...

      Wrong. While Lee, Norris, etc. brought in the martial arts genre, Jackie Chan single handedly invented the Comedy-Kung-Fu genre.

      Most other martial artists make serious movies.

  • talking about outtakes (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You should really check out the outtakes after the ending of FF8. Truely amazing stuff.
  • Yes.. It had no plot.. but hey.. Its Jackie Chan.. Do you really goto a Jackie Chan movie looking for a plot.. NO.. He delivered his brand of Action/Kung Fu comedy. And with Chris Tucker the comedy just got moved up a notch because of the chemestry they both have together. It was the first movie in a long time where I've outright laughed like hell at a lot of parts of the movie. Though if you just wanna see it for the action.. it wasn't Jackie Chan's greatest for action and stunts, it had basically more humor than stunts. But overall the movie had some great fighting sequences that were complimented by the hilarious antics of Chan and Tucker.. So.. I personally liked the movie a lot.. I'll watch it everytime it comes on the movie channels next year..

  • The three most important reasons for seeing RH2 (Score:5, Funny)

    by MartyJG ( 41978 ) on Sunday August 05, 2001 @12:13PM (#2131142) Homepage
    1. Zhang Ziyi
    2. Ziyi Zhang
    3. That cute Chinese actress whose name I keep forgetting...
    • The explicit reason I am not going to see this film is that given that Tucker and Chan have talent, it seems pointless to use "Exotic Oriental Chicks in Leather" or whatever as a draw.

      Figures that the slashdot crew would be drooling over the Tiger Lily exotic whatever stuff.

      Whenever a filmmaker resorts to T&A it's cause he or she has nothing else to say.

  • Romeo must die??? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dasmegabyte ( 267018 ) <das@OHNOWHATSTHISdasmegabyte.org> on Sunday August 05, 2001 @01:30PM (#2132378) Homepage Journal
    God, that movie had the WORST cinematography of any movie ever made. They had one trick: take a picture of the start of an action, cut to another angle so the actor doesn't actually have to do any work when jumping or kicking or firing a shot, and then cut to a third angle to show the denoument of the action. To anybody who's ever seen a real hong kong action film (and i don't mean those stupid "wire films," either), this American trick spoils everything. The actors in these films are genuinely talented...they don't need three takes to make one action look good. Some of the best Jackie Chan movies are filmed from a very far exterior angle shot, so you can see the surreal, comic fluidity of their motions. A perfect example of this is Supercop (see the HK version if you can...the changes made for the US release are notoriously dumb, and the lip sync horrid). Michelle Yeoh's high kicks and splits as she defeats 10 surrounding opponents is filmed in such a way that you can see every limb as she does so. It's obvious that there's nobody holding her up when she jumps, she's doing her own stunts and it makes the film much higher quality.

    These American Chan films have a similar failing...they never show his limbs! Watch "Shanghai Noon" and try to count the number of times you actually see him connect with his foot when he kicks something, as compared to the number of times he lashes out and then they show a guy stumbling back. Count also the number of times you can see a character's face or upper body during an attack. It may be more "graphic novel" to show action in close up, but it's also more artificial.

    I want my Chan where he belongs...in the director's seat, in control of the camera for action shots, working with somebody ELSE's script (so the film doesn't have the stupid touchy-feely multiculutral nice guy feel that Chan's movies often do). Just giving him a part or letting him choreograph a fight isn't enough; for a truly great Chan film you need to picture the whole scene...after all, what would Picasso's Guernica be, looked at through a toilet paper roll?
    • I've gotta agree with that. Cinematography-wise, I think the coolest effect in CTHD was when the camera pulled way back right as Michelle Yeoh threw a pair of "axes" (not sure exactly what they were) at Zhang Ziyi. It looked like something out of Tekken, and was impressive not only because we have proof that Zhang really did pull off that great reverse-handspring-nevermind-I-think-I'll-go-forwa rd-after-all move, but also because it looked amazingly fluid and beautiful. The Matrix also had some of this, like in the subway.

      I also have to agree with you about the camera being in waaaay to close for most of the scenes. I think it's much cooler to actually see some connection. I think the most egregious example of this is in the recent "Kiss of the Dragon" with Jet Li. I can see what the producers were going for here by pulling in the camera so close -- they were trying to accentuate Li's amazing (and I mean, amazing) speed by turning the flick into a veritable slideshow of dark flashes, which would be Jet Li's flailing limbs beating the shit out of some bad guy. But 15 straight minutes of this technique got really, really tiresome.

      And I don't care what Taco says. For reasons other than just the way it was filmed, Romeo Must Die sucked.


    • Actually.. that 3-shot technique was originated in Hong Kong cinema. Watch some of the more dated Hong Kong action films, especially scenes where actors run up walls and such... One shot of the feet going up the wall, another shot of actor on the wall, another shot of actor coming down. In modern films, you'll probably see visual effects done with a computer instead, but that's where it started. It's a technique used when they need to film something physically impossible. You may be right about it being overused in American film-making, but it originated in Hong Kong and it had a purpose.

    • These American Chan films have a similar failing...they never show his limbs! Watch "Shanghai Noon" and try to count the number of times you actually see him connect with his foot when he kicks something, as compared to the number of times he lashes out and then they show a guy stumbling back. Count also the number of times you can see a character's face or upper body during an attack. It may be more "graphic novel" to show action in close up, but it's also more artificial.

      This is somewhat related to the fact that in Hong Kong flicks the actors actually make contact with each other, not crippling contact, but actual contact none the less. Whereas in American movies there is a 1 inch air zone where all of the techniques go and no actual contact is made. This difference of technique leads to the necessity of using different camera angles to make sure that no one notices the lack of contact. If you want to see some really brutal old school Kung Fu movies check out Half a Loaf of Kung Fu, Tai Chi Master, and Young Master. Those are some of the best movies you'll ever see, and Young Master contains a VERY cool chinese dragon fight.

      Kintanon

  • I really enjoyed this movie (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Almohada ( 106771 ) on Sunday August 05, 2001 @01:28PM (#2132767)
    I have to say, Jackie Chan doing his own stunts and making them look so easy never ceases to amaze me.

    The one stunt that blew my mind was when he was running through the count room because that was one continuous shot. That was one heck of a stunt to try to do in only one shot.

    The plot holes I found were excuseable. Nobody goes to a Jackie Chan movie expecting an Oscar calibur script.

    The outtakes at the end were a little disappointing though, they're usually much funnnier than that.

    I am very much looking forward to the proposed Jackie Chan/Jet Li project that's being tossed around. These two martial arts gurus in one movie will be mind blowing. I just hope the plot Robert Mark Kamen (Kiss of the Dragon) comes up with doesn't make it more of a vehicle for one or the other, however I think being in a film with Chan will help Li out quite a bit, giving him even more exposure that he is well deserving of.

    Revolution Studios expects production to begin Fall 2002 and I can't wait!
  • Katz actually liked a movie! Stop the presses! Film at 11.

    This marks the first time Jon Katz not only liked a movie, but appeared to really enjoy it!

    Of course, I see this for what it is. The simple explaination is: this is not Jon Katz! It is an imposter!


  • Wow... who woulda thunk it?
  • Crouching Tiger was a product of Taiwan.

    Anywho, I thought it was interesting how Zhang Ziyi did not speak any English or Cantonese(that I caught).

  • Rush Hour 2 (Score:3, Informative)

    by Accipiter ( 8228 ) on Sunday August 05, 2001 @11:35AM (#2137497)
    Nobody will say this is a great movie

    Bzzzt! This is a great movie.

    I saw it last night, and I was thoroughly entertained. The Plot, while certainly not an Oscar contender, is well planned and executed.

    There are many scenes in RH2 that are throwbacks to the first movie. The comedy is well paced, and manages to tag along with the plot very well. (I liked Chris Tucker's rendition of 'Don't Stop Till You Get Enough' in the karaoke bar. The massage parlor scene(s) were great too.)

    Tucker and Chan aren't spectacular actors, but they're not "terrible" actors as CmdrTaco would have you believe in his *cough* 'privilage [dictionary.com]' *cough* abuse. They manage to carry the movie better than you'd expect, and deliver solid performances. Plus, the outtake scenes during the end credits are always a treat to watch. (I wish more movies would include outtakes. They're great.)

    Jackie Chan's fight scenes are, as always, superbly done. I always love watching Jackie fight, because the entire sequences are so well put together. If you like to laugh, and like action, you'll like this movie.

    And OH, my GOD.... Zhang Ziyi is absolutely beautiful.
    • I thought Danny Glover's acting performance in the Lethal Weapons was atrocious, and certainly outshined by Jackie Chan (who plays the equivocal straight-man role).

      What I like about RH2 over LW is that Chan is a badass cop, and Tucker has the attitude, and together they manage to solve the crime. They both bring value to the table. It seemed in LW that Gibson was always doing the Maverick cop crazy-but-it-works routine and Glover just got dragged along and whined about it.

      And Zhang Ziyi looked very nice in this movie... I think I like the modern Triad look better than the traditional Chinese look. At least on her.
    • And OH, my GOD.... Zhang Ziyi is absolutely beautiful.
      To bad she's a crazy bitch!
    • Zhang Ziyi is absolutely beautiful.,You are so right...Natalie-who petrified with hot grits? :) She is so great looking--I just love those lips!I wish I could've been that scruffy lookin' long-haired guy in "Crouching Tiger" even if it was just acting...

  • Let me get this straight... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Levine ( 22596 ) <levine@nOsPAM.goatse.cx> on Sunday August 05, 2001 @11:39AM (#2141853) Homepage
    You hated The Mummy 2 because you didn't understand it was a spoof of itself...

    You hated Planet of the Apes because it didn't live up to the original...

    You hated Snatch because you couldn't keep up with it...

    You liked Monkeybone and Down To Earth...

    And now you're singing the praises of RUSH HOUR 2?!?!

    Slashdot, or more specifically Katz, seem to defy description at times.

    Cheers,
    levine
    • And that was the stinker of the summer.
    • I wonder why it is that all movie reviews on SlashDot rapidly degenerate into subjective flames typically sparse of any real information to argue to the contrary of their target. I grant you your right not to like Katz, but does posting flames that don't even give any indication as to why you think he is wrong make you feel good about yourself somehow?

      I think the thing I find most annoying about these posts is the way that they exaggerate everything out of proportion, and then get modded up. Have you actually read any of the reviews properly? Have you seen the movies? If you have, why are you saying that Katz "hated" them? I agree that he often seems a little off-base and perhaps expects too much of movies, but he is normally quite coherent in his explanations as to why he didn't like them, and generally will amend his opinions with comments on why they are subjective and could be disagreed with.

      • I think the thing I find most annoying about these posts is the way that they exaggerate everything out of proportion

        What you find annoying, others find funny. I suspect we're looking at a culture gap here.

    • I would have to say Slashdot defies description at times.

      And Mr. Levine, if you don't like Katz's articles, TURN THEM OFF.

      • I would turn off Katz myself if there was some way to turn off his movie reviews but still see his actual opinion pieces. Those actually have some business on Slashdot...but WTH do movie reviews have to do with science & technology reviews? Especially something like Rush Hour 2? I can understand an A.I. review, but this is a ridiculous waste of resources. I thought he/Taco/etc. would've learned their lesson after all the flames resulting from his review of Scream 3...

        • Geeks watch films. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by cyberwench ( 10225 )
          I think that's the basic point behind his reviews... that many geeks watch movies, therefore reviews of movies are a reasonable thing to have here. Personally, I'd say that movies are a branch of geekdom just like science or technology. Besides which, movies do tend to intersect technology in a lot of ways.

          For the most part, I tend to disagree with his reviews although I find them mostly well-reasoned. They're useful to me in another more important way though... they let me know when that movie I wanted to see is out. =)

          It's only really a waste of resources to people who don't think his reviews belong here and feel compelled to post about it. What's the point of getting bent out of shape about it?
          • The danger of the "Geeks are interested in *" argument is that geeks are interested in lots of nontechnological things--literature, RPGs, sex, football, local weather, whatever.

            Also, why should Katz get to post his movie reviews here, whereas if a reader just submitted his/her review, there's probably zero chance it would make it on the page? I don't think Katz's writing about non-sociopolitical topics is sufficiently unique to get put up for public consumption. Thousands of readers are just as capable of generating such observations. Maybe this is criticism of all movie critics, but I don't read their sites, where Katz's reviews belong, either. :-)

          • Many geeks eat sandwiches. Should Slashdot post sandwich recipes?
        • I like some Anime, but I don't like Cowboy Bebop. Yet, I have to *constantly* hear CmdrTaco griping how they aren't enough episodes in America. So should I bitch and moan that I can't turn off just the Cowboy Bebop shit?

          Do what I do. Turn off the people and sections you may *remotely* not have an interest in (for example, "movies"). Then, when you see the movie icon on the very top of the homepage (which is there regardless if you turned the section off or not) you can decide if you want to take your chances, click it, and read what might be a review. Otherwise, do what I do: every so often choose that topic and look at the past months' "missed" articles. There are all kinds of things that don't make the homepage.

          Nevertheless, if you miss a "great epic" by John Katz in the process of ditching his reviews, the world won't end, your body won't cave in, and your eyebrows won't sear off. It's a fucking website.

    • Have you seen the movie? Well I have and let me tell you, everybody in the audience was laughing their head off from the start of the movie right to the end. It's been a long time since I went to a theater and saw everybody reacting that way to a movie. Hell I might see it again and I haven't went twice to see a movie since the first Jurassic Park. That, coupled to a couple of great action sequence, makes this an amazing summer movie that goes out and accomplishes even more than it set out to do. A must see.
    • Umm, yea but... If I remember correctly, Katz really panned Final Fantasy. Now he's saying it's pure gold? That's it, I give up, I'm outta here...
  • I saw Rushhour 2 yesterday and I agree that it was probably one of the best movies of the summer. The audience was laughing practically the entire time. I never saw Rushhour 1, but after this, I'm gonna go rent the DVD. I came into Rushhour 2 expecting it to be awful due to the very mixed reviews at metacritic.com but I was pleasantly surprised.

    Kiss of the Dragon was nothing compared to this movie. Shrek, while I really liked it, is more of a kids movie (even with some of the adult jokes) so it can't be really compared to this movie.

    The only negative part is Chris Tucker. He was just annoying for most of the movie. It seemed like he kept repeating the same "joke" over and over: Be annoying and act like you're a tough cop. What kind of cop behaves like he does? Jackie Chan was like Tucker's baby sitter.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close