Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson get together again in "Shanghai Knights," the sequel to "Shanghai Noon." It's difficult to say which I like better, although the two seem a little more at home in "Noon." "Knights" is a movie not to be taken seriously. The soundtrack attests to that, being mostly British invasion rock from the 1960's. And there is a lot of historical fudging, not the least of which is Owen Wilson's dialogue and attitude. He just seems so miscast as a cowboy. What keeps this movie from going wrong is Jackie Chan's amazing moves. Here he shows where he shines as an action-comedy star. And the martial arts styles of Fann Wong and Donnie Yen are no slouch either! So, never mind the anachronisms, just prepare to admire Jackie Chan.
208 Reviews
Matches the enjoyment of the first, which is good!
CMUltra20 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
*Minor Spoilers!*
Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson reprise their characters of Wang and O'Bannon in this second installment of the series. I hope there will be a third!
Chan's slapstick fight sequences are even better here than in Shanghai Noon. They're bigger, better and there are more of them! In addition to all of the clever integration of set items (fruit stands, wax sculptures, books, ladders, etc) that we are accustomed to, the Shanghai Knights sequences are also imbued with a wonderful sense of meta-humor. While he's using an umbrella in his kung fu against the Fleet Street gang, there is a sudden brief and whimsical nod to Singin In The Rain, complete with flawless stylisms by Chan.
I believe the use of actual characters from the period was a bit overdone. At times they were cute winks to the audience while, at other times, they seemed needlessly inserted. Distracting. One very nice addition was Jack the Ripper, if only because of the brief and very decisive meeting he has with Wang's sister, Lin. Lin is played by Fann Wong and, as the female interest, is superior to Lucy Liu's character of the first movie.
The villains are better too. Aiden Gillen is good as Lord Rathbone, then fantastic in his action scenes. The best, however, is Donnie Yen. Yen's portrayal of the evil Wu Chow is okay, but who really cares? The character itself is merely the vehicle to get Yen and his fantastic martial arts skill into a movie with Jackie Chan. Seeing these two work together in beautifully choreographed fights was a dream come true. And though partially edited out of the actual movie, the DVD thankfully offers their climactic fight scene in its full-uncut glory.
My only disappointment of note was Wilson's O'Bannon character. He wasn't quite as consistently funny in this outing, and the character itself could have been portrayed better. There was no evolution in O'Bannon. He had the exact same deficiencies as in the first movie. I understand that the charm of O'Bannon lies in his irresponsibility, but a *little* maturing could have been accomplished while keeping the charm intact. Evolution is important to keeping the characters fresh, but O'Bannon was the same as in the first.
Overall, I rank this a little better than the first and HIGHLY recommend it!
6.5 out of 10.
Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson reprise their characters of Wang and O'Bannon in this second installment of the series. I hope there will be a third!
Chan's slapstick fight sequences are even better here than in Shanghai Noon. They're bigger, better and there are more of them! In addition to all of the clever integration of set items (fruit stands, wax sculptures, books, ladders, etc) that we are accustomed to, the Shanghai Knights sequences are also imbued with a wonderful sense of meta-humor. While he's using an umbrella in his kung fu against the Fleet Street gang, there is a sudden brief and whimsical nod to Singin In The Rain, complete with flawless stylisms by Chan.
I believe the use of actual characters from the period was a bit overdone. At times they were cute winks to the audience while, at other times, they seemed needlessly inserted. Distracting. One very nice addition was Jack the Ripper, if only because of the brief and very decisive meeting he has with Wang's sister, Lin. Lin is played by Fann Wong and, as the female interest, is superior to Lucy Liu's character of the first movie.
The villains are better too. Aiden Gillen is good as Lord Rathbone, then fantastic in his action scenes. The best, however, is Donnie Yen. Yen's portrayal of the evil Wu Chow is okay, but who really cares? The character itself is merely the vehicle to get Yen and his fantastic martial arts skill into a movie with Jackie Chan. Seeing these two work together in beautifully choreographed fights was a dream come true. And though partially edited out of the actual movie, the DVD thankfully offers their climactic fight scene in its full-uncut glory.
My only disappointment of note was Wilson's O'Bannon character. He wasn't quite as consistently funny in this outing, and the character itself could have been portrayed better. There was no evolution in O'Bannon. He had the exact same deficiencies as in the first movie. I understand that the charm of O'Bannon lies in his irresponsibility, but a *little* maturing could have been accomplished while keeping the charm intact. Evolution is important to keeping the characters fresh, but O'Bannon was the same as in the first.
Overall, I rank this a little better than the first and HIGHLY recommend it!
6.5 out of 10.
Is Jackie Chan Heading for a Lifetime Achievement Oscar?
lawprof8 February 2003
Well, a Lifetime Achievement Oscar may be the only category that's open to the aging but impish martial arts virtuoso, Jackie Chan, whose latest series-sequel, "Shanghai Knights" is...excellent, fun, entertaining.
My kid got into Jackie Chan films a while back and we have a half-shelf of $5.99 videotapes of the young Chan. Poorly shot with howlingly funny dubbing they nonetheless catch a Kung-Fu master at the height of his considerable prowess.
Hollywood and Jackie's sincere but imperfect effort at learning English led to a series of films that are high budget such as "Rush Hour" with its sequel and "Shanghai Noon," now followed by this film. Each has a sidekick for the irrepresible Chan but "Shanghai Knights " is the first where the faithful companion is a strong character in his own right.
"Shanghai Knights" begins with the Peking (not Beijing, it's the end of the nineteenth century) murder of Chan's dad and the theft of the Imperial Seal (a device to mark documents, not a pet). Chan is a Nevada sheriff who upon learning of the homicide and theft sets off to New York City to find his pal, played formidably and with evident relish by Owen Wilson.
The duo head for London where an unending series of misadventures brings the heroes, along with Chan's gorgeous and martial arts-skilled sister (Fann Wong) into the path of such diverse characters as little Charlie Chaplin, Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Jack the Ripper and others. Of course all ends well and if the martial arts terpsichore is less breathtakingly complex than its predecessors - well, let's cut Jackie some slack.
The film is PG-13 but Wilson provides a measured but running dose of raunch aided by a bevy of scantily clad beauties. There's no doubt HE had a terrific time making the movie.
Director David Dobkin keeps the pace moving and pays humorous tribute to films and stars from the Gilded Age of the cinema. I won't spoil the amusing surprises but listen to the music as the intrepid trio (sister now a full-fledged partner) waft to and fro in a caricature of nineteenth century London. Sad to say most moviegoers won't recognize the well-executed takeoffs of some great moments in film.
As always, a special Chan treat are the outtakes before the end credits, scenes that prove making these films may not be good for the health of the no-longer-young star or his cast but they all have a blast (literally).
And here's good news for the many who will enjoy this movie. I don't know if there will be a "Rush Hour III" but last week I couldn't get within 150 feet of the venerable Yonah Schimmel's on the Lower East Side's Houston Street. Chan and crew were filming a sequel to this new release - a flunky stopping pedestrian traffic told me the title would be "Shanghai Knish!" I can't wait.
7/10.
My kid got into Jackie Chan films a while back and we have a half-shelf of $5.99 videotapes of the young Chan. Poorly shot with howlingly funny dubbing they nonetheless catch a Kung-Fu master at the height of his considerable prowess.
Hollywood and Jackie's sincere but imperfect effort at learning English led to a series of films that are high budget such as "Rush Hour" with its sequel and "Shanghai Noon," now followed by this film. Each has a sidekick for the irrepresible Chan but "Shanghai Knights " is the first where the faithful companion is a strong character in his own right.
"Shanghai Knights" begins with the Peking (not Beijing, it's the end of the nineteenth century) murder of Chan's dad and the theft of the Imperial Seal (a device to mark documents, not a pet). Chan is a Nevada sheriff who upon learning of the homicide and theft sets off to New York City to find his pal, played formidably and with evident relish by Owen Wilson.
The duo head for London where an unending series of misadventures brings the heroes, along with Chan's gorgeous and martial arts-skilled sister (Fann Wong) into the path of such diverse characters as little Charlie Chaplin, Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Jack the Ripper and others. Of course all ends well and if the martial arts terpsichore is less breathtakingly complex than its predecessors - well, let's cut Jackie some slack.
The film is PG-13 but Wilson provides a measured but running dose of raunch aided by a bevy of scantily clad beauties. There's no doubt HE had a terrific time making the movie.
Director David Dobkin keeps the pace moving and pays humorous tribute to films and stars from the Gilded Age of the cinema. I won't spoil the amusing surprises but listen to the music as the intrepid trio (sister now a full-fledged partner) waft to and fro in a caricature of nineteenth century London. Sad to say most moviegoers won't recognize the well-executed takeoffs of some great moments in film.
As always, a special Chan treat are the outtakes before the end credits, scenes that prove making these films may not be good for the health of the no-longer-young star or his cast but they all have a blast (literally).
And here's good news for the many who will enjoy this movie. I don't know if there will be a "Rush Hour III" but last week I couldn't get within 150 feet of the venerable Yonah Schimmel's on the Lower East Side's Houston Street. Chan and crew were filming a sequel to this new release - a flunky stopping pedestrian traffic told me the title would be "Shanghai Knish!" I can't wait.
7/10.
Fantastic sequel!
Renaldo Matlin27 December 2003
It's an odd thing, this syndrome where people seem to automatically dislike a sequel more than the original. I don't know whether its subconscious or what but the IMDb proves it; Almost everywhere I go, people seem to agree (at least movie lovers) that "Aliens" is even better than "Alien", yet "Aliens" is listed #85 on IMDb's top 250, "Alien" is #61. Then there is another masterpiece: "The Godfather", all though many people seem to agree that however great, "The Godfather Part II" is even better. Not so according to the votes from IMDb-users: "The Godfather" is #1, "Part II" is #4. "Star Wars" is #10, "The Empire Strikes Back" is #15, and the list goes on and on. It's as if the general public goes into sequel-sucks-mode before they see the film and automatically would give it a lower grade no matter what. This also seems to be the case with "Shanghai Knights". Like many of my movie geek friends I thought the first film was great, but "Shanghai Knights" took me by great surprise and turned out to be even better, much more fun, better fights, greater villains, greater scenery, bigger plot, more film references, and I can go on. Still, it gets a 6,4 average while the first one gets a 6,7. Apparently it is one of the laws of physics that all though you personally feel a sequel outdoes the original, the masses would have you believe otherwise (the "Toy Story"-movies being the exception that proves the rule).
Well, we're all better off without the masses anyway. That's why nature invented things like the plague!
Now to my review of "Shanghai Knights":
I rarely laugh out loud to comedies unless it's Monty Python-type comedy filled with unpredictable insane humour, but "Shanghai Knights" had me in stitches several times. I really liked the first film, but the sequel is filled with references to everything you ever found fascinating about Britain and the charming duo of Chan and Wilson this time reaches its peak. But what really gets this film going is fight scenes like you've never seen them before! I am serious, I've watched Jackie Chan-films since I was a little kid and everyone knows he is the Buster Keaton of martial arts, but this time the fights choreographed by Jackie himself are so exhilarating to watch, boasting with playfulness to such a degree it leaves you dumbstruck in awe. All though it is apparent they used wires on some of the stunts, the mix of wire- and wireless stunts seem to balance themselves perfectly, giving a show fit for the greatest circus on Earth! It is hard to put to words the sheer delight it is to watch Jackie Chan (now close to 50!) beating up a gang of crooks while at the same time doing an homage to Gene Kelly and "Singin' in the Rain"! It gave me that rare sensation I remember getting the first time I saw Chaplin perform the "dance of the rolls" in the "Gold Rush", Buster Keaton caught in the middle of that hurricane in "Steamboat Bill Jr." or when Donald O'Connor ran up the wall in "Singin' in the Rain". It is a rare cinematic treat, created by and performed to excellence by Jackie Chan, again underlining what a rare and unique screen artist he is and how grateful we should be for him risking his back to give us that joy. People who still think of him as only a martial arts artist should take a hike. He's been a legend in his own right for close to two decades, one of the greatest entertainers of his generation (if not THEE greatest) so I ask you this: when will they give him an Honorary Academy Award!? I am sure Chaplin, Keaton and Gene Kelly would have supported this wholeheartedly, had they been alive today!
A great deal is also owed to the writing pair of Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (Made Men, Spider-Man 2) who pepper the story with quirky charm the type Chan & Wilson seem born to play, once in a while serving up hysterical one-liners that should crack up anyone with an IQ over 50 (the best one has to be the subtitle after one of the characters has an encounter with Jack the Ripper).
Not surprisingly many of the people with an IQ *under* 50 bothered to fill the Goof-section up with all the factual errors in "Shanghai Knights" when it is just the thing you have to expect from a crazy comedy of this kind. For as long as I can remember I've enjoyed British history, I know the first real automobile wasn't invented until 1889, I'm a big fan of the Jack the Ripper-legend who terrorized London in 1888, I love the work of Chaplin who was born in 1889, I know Arthur Conan Doyle was originally a doctor of optometry, but not once did I mind all these things clashing in 1887's London, it is pure fantasy and should be enjoyed as such. Wonderful escapism played to perfection by great talent in front of and behind the camera. The writers didn't intend to re-create history, they just did as Jackie Chan would do in a fight: take every thing available and throw it in to make it more entertaining to the viewer! Then again there are people who have NO relation to any of the above-listed things and not surprisingly they won't find "Shanghai Knights" that entertaining. Which is really sad, for if you love movies you should *really* learn to love history as well, as the two can make a fabulous pair whether it is done in the name of fantasy or fiction.
Of course director David Dobkin also deserves special praise for never letting the heart and soul of the film getting lost in all the commotion.
I didn't mention Owen Wilson in all this, but don't get me wrong, he's great as usual. Wilson and Chris Tucker (Rush Hour) has to be the greatest thing happening to Jackie Chan since he discovered the art of mixing comedy with martial arts. And of course the supporting actors deserves mentioning, especially Aidan Gillen who makes a wonderful sneaky upper-class villain (named Rathbone, not exactly the most inventive referance to Hollywood legendary actor Basil Rathbone - but still wonderful the same) and Aaron Johnson as a kid who looks and acts like he was just pulled out of "Oliver!" with great conviction (a scene where Wilson tells him of for being a an orphan is both heartbreaking and side-splittingly funny at the same time). Fann Wong also does a great English language-speaking film debut as Jackie Chan's sister.
To sum it all up; leaving me laughing to the point of exhaustion, "Shanghai Knights" is one of this years most pleasant surprises!
Well, we're all better off without the masses anyway. That's why nature invented things like the plague!
Now to my review of "Shanghai Knights":
I rarely laugh out loud to comedies unless it's Monty Python-type comedy filled with unpredictable insane humour, but "Shanghai Knights" had me in stitches several times. I really liked the first film, but the sequel is filled with references to everything you ever found fascinating about Britain and the charming duo of Chan and Wilson this time reaches its peak. But what really gets this film going is fight scenes like you've never seen them before! I am serious, I've watched Jackie Chan-films since I was a little kid and everyone knows he is the Buster Keaton of martial arts, but this time the fights choreographed by Jackie himself are so exhilarating to watch, boasting with playfulness to such a degree it leaves you dumbstruck in awe. All though it is apparent they used wires on some of the stunts, the mix of wire- and wireless stunts seem to balance themselves perfectly, giving a show fit for the greatest circus on Earth! It is hard to put to words the sheer delight it is to watch Jackie Chan (now close to 50!) beating up a gang of crooks while at the same time doing an homage to Gene Kelly and "Singin' in the Rain"! It gave me that rare sensation I remember getting the first time I saw Chaplin perform the "dance of the rolls" in the "Gold Rush", Buster Keaton caught in the middle of that hurricane in "Steamboat Bill Jr." or when Donald O'Connor ran up the wall in "Singin' in the Rain". It is a rare cinematic treat, created by and performed to excellence by Jackie Chan, again underlining what a rare and unique screen artist he is and how grateful we should be for him risking his back to give us that joy. People who still think of him as only a martial arts artist should take a hike. He's been a legend in his own right for close to two decades, one of the greatest entertainers of his generation (if not THEE greatest) so I ask you this: when will they give him an Honorary Academy Award!? I am sure Chaplin, Keaton and Gene Kelly would have supported this wholeheartedly, had they been alive today!
A great deal is also owed to the writing pair of Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (Made Men, Spider-Man 2) who pepper the story with quirky charm the type Chan & Wilson seem born to play, once in a while serving up hysterical one-liners that should crack up anyone with an IQ over 50 (the best one has to be the subtitle after one of the characters has an encounter with Jack the Ripper).
Not surprisingly many of the people with an IQ *under* 50 bothered to fill the Goof-section up with all the factual errors in "Shanghai Knights" when it is just the thing you have to expect from a crazy comedy of this kind. For as long as I can remember I've enjoyed British history, I know the first real automobile wasn't invented until 1889, I'm a big fan of the Jack the Ripper-legend who terrorized London in 1888, I love the work of Chaplin who was born in 1889, I know Arthur Conan Doyle was originally a doctor of optometry, but not once did I mind all these things clashing in 1887's London, it is pure fantasy and should be enjoyed as such. Wonderful escapism played to perfection by great talent in front of and behind the camera. The writers didn't intend to re-create history, they just did as Jackie Chan would do in a fight: take every thing available and throw it in to make it more entertaining to the viewer! Then again there are people who have NO relation to any of the above-listed things and not surprisingly they won't find "Shanghai Knights" that entertaining. Which is really sad, for if you love movies you should *really* learn to love history as well, as the two can make a fabulous pair whether it is done in the name of fantasy or fiction.
Of course director David Dobkin also deserves special praise for never letting the heart and soul of the film getting lost in all the commotion.
I didn't mention Owen Wilson in all this, but don't get me wrong, he's great as usual. Wilson and Chris Tucker (Rush Hour) has to be the greatest thing happening to Jackie Chan since he discovered the art of mixing comedy with martial arts. And of course the supporting actors deserves mentioning, especially Aidan Gillen who makes a wonderful sneaky upper-class villain (named Rathbone, not exactly the most inventive referance to Hollywood legendary actor Basil Rathbone - but still wonderful the same) and Aaron Johnson as a kid who looks and acts like he was just pulled out of "Oliver!" with great conviction (a scene where Wilson tells him of for being a an orphan is both heartbreaking and side-splittingly funny at the same time). Fann Wong also does a great English language-speaking film debut as Jackie Chan's sister.
To sum it all up; leaving me laughing to the point of exhaustion, "Shanghai Knights" is one of this years most pleasant surprises!
Jackie kicks it where the others missed it every time, historically inaccurate.
zer0oskul15 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The only people who should feel insulted by this posting are the two college bred guys I was making fun of the other day because they were using points from this movie to try to win an argument.
Even a history fan such as myself can enjoy the thing.
To point out historical inaccuracies, I will have to ruin the movie but only slightly, I won't offer any major plot points.
The year is 1886, the Statue of Liberty is almost completed and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is about to publish his first Sherlock Holmes story.
The year is 1902, Charlie Chaplin is thirteen and there is an automobile with a steering wheel available.
The year is 1837 and the Artful Dodger(who for no reason I can understand is also Charlie Chaplin) is wandering the streets of London hoping to meet Oliver Twist but winds up with Xion Uang and Roy O'Bannon and gets to go to America with them at the end, though Charlie Chaplin was not an orphan. He was actually an actor from the age of five and did not get to America until he was 21 in 1910.
The year is 1888, and Jack the Ripper is wandering the streets of East London, hunting down prostitutes(and Xion Lin for some reason)to mutilate.
The year is 1862 and Richard Gatling has just invented the Gatling Gun of which of which the Chinese assassins have a prototype.
Aside from the immense historical inaccuracies, Jackie Chan is incredible, the gags are brilliant, the Singing in the Rain fight sequence will make you say ooh and ow, Owen Wilson makes the most evil insult to orphans everywhere. I recommend seeing it but don't use it as a historical guide for anything.
You will like it and your kids WILL love it.
Even a history fan such as myself can enjoy the thing.
To point out historical inaccuracies, I will have to ruin the movie but only slightly, I won't offer any major plot points.
The year is 1886, the Statue of Liberty is almost completed and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is about to publish his first Sherlock Holmes story.
The year is 1902, Charlie Chaplin is thirteen and there is an automobile with a steering wheel available.
The year is 1837 and the Artful Dodger(who for no reason I can understand is also Charlie Chaplin) is wandering the streets of London hoping to meet Oliver Twist but winds up with Xion Uang and Roy O'Bannon and gets to go to America with them at the end, though Charlie Chaplin was not an orphan. He was actually an actor from the age of five and did not get to America until he was 21 in 1910.
The year is 1888, and Jack the Ripper is wandering the streets of East London, hunting down prostitutes(and Xion Lin for some reason)to mutilate.
The year is 1862 and Richard Gatling has just invented the Gatling Gun of which of which the Chinese assassins have a prototype.
Aside from the immense historical inaccuracies, Jackie Chan is incredible, the gags are brilliant, the Singing in the Rain fight sequence will make you say ooh and ow, Owen Wilson makes the most evil insult to orphans everywhere. I recommend seeing it but don't use it as a historical guide for anything.
You will like it and your kids WILL love it.
Shanghai Knights: 7.5/10
movieguy102125 January 2003
Fresh out after his box-office bomb The Tuxedo, Jackie Chan is back, again playing the role of Chon Wang. In this sequel to Shanghai Noon, Wang and Roy O'Bannon (Owen Wilson) are in different parts of the country: Chon in Nevada, Roy in New York. However, after Chon's father is killed by Lord Rathbone (Aidan Gillen), he must go to London to find Rathbone to avenge the death of the father. Along the way, Chon's sister Lin (Fann Wong) comes in. Guess who is smitten by her?
Another reason why Chon has to kill Rathbone is that he has a sacred Seal of the Emperor. That's just thrown in to make the plot make more sense. Mucho fight scenes and hilarity ensues.
Chan does better in buddy action comedies like this, instead of straight action. He's noted for using props around him in his fight scenes; this movie is no exception. Chan just takes any old prop he sees and does, what looks like, improv. It's hard to imagine all of these scenes choreographed perfectly; they seem so slipshod (in a good way). All of the fight scenes have Chan's usual charm and wit, you can't help but smile whenever he does seemingly impossible stunts.
Many of the characters were one-dimensional. Rathbone doesn't really have any depth, except that everyone likes him. However, in movies like this, you don't really need twists and turns. Lin's beautiful, but what is her background? Someone working for Rathbone has no depth whatsoever and just pops in. And, of course, there's the little pickpocket (Aaron Johnson) whose name is quite funny. He just comes and goes.
The opening credits were almost exactly like the ones for Shanghai Noon, with sweeps over Chinese letters. Something I enjoyed was how they incorporated famous figures, though a little bit goes a long way. About halfway through, it takes one of those obligatory buddy turns, where they end up hating each other. However, this time, the roles are reversed from Shanghai Noon and it lasts for about two minutes, which leaves you wondering why it was even put in. They took the cliché light-heartedly. At times, it did get heavy-handed (especially at the beginning), but managed to pull through.
The sets were very authentic. Unlike the first, where they could just use cheap facades, they had to create a whole new world, and they did so. You could really believe that the clan was in England. I also liked the transitions in between scenes. They were all `swishes', but as the movie progressed and got more `complex', so did the transitions, from going out on both sides to diagonal. It may seem rather juvenile to put it in, and even more so to mention it, but I thought they were quite cool.
I do wish, however, that they had spent more time in the West. If they had had more about the horse from the first one (also, whatever happened to Chon's wife, Falling Leaves?), it would have been better. However, it almost immediately left the West for the East. Like The Tuxedo, Chan allows himself to be pushed around and beaten.
Chan is great, as usual. He's a great diversion from the real life. He can make us believe that what is done can be done. Technically, he can, because he does his own stunts. Wilson is in top comedic form here, as usual, also. He's quickly becoming an item in Hollywood, and his name's getting out there. Then again, he did do I Spy.
I laughed a lot during Shanghai Knights. Many came from the fight scenes, and others were from Wilson's one-liners. I love how the writers can merge action and comedy seamlessly. I hope for a Shanghai Five, where they go to Hawaii, or some sequel, since this franchise is going somewhere.
My rating: 7.5/10
Rated PG-13 for action violence and sexual content.
Another reason why Chon has to kill Rathbone is that he has a sacred Seal of the Emperor. That's just thrown in to make the plot make more sense. Mucho fight scenes and hilarity ensues.
Chan does better in buddy action comedies like this, instead of straight action. He's noted for using props around him in his fight scenes; this movie is no exception. Chan just takes any old prop he sees and does, what looks like, improv. It's hard to imagine all of these scenes choreographed perfectly; they seem so slipshod (in a good way). All of the fight scenes have Chan's usual charm and wit, you can't help but smile whenever he does seemingly impossible stunts.
Many of the characters were one-dimensional. Rathbone doesn't really have any depth, except that everyone likes him. However, in movies like this, you don't really need twists and turns. Lin's beautiful, but what is her background? Someone working for Rathbone has no depth whatsoever and just pops in. And, of course, there's the little pickpocket (Aaron Johnson) whose name is quite funny. He just comes and goes.
The opening credits were almost exactly like the ones for Shanghai Noon, with sweeps over Chinese letters. Something I enjoyed was how they incorporated famous figures, though a little bit goes a long way. About halfway through, it takes one of those obligatory buddy turns, where they end up hating each other. However, this time, the roles are reversed from Shanghai Noon and it lasts for about two minutes, which leaves you wondering why it was even put in. They took the cliché light-heartedly. At times, it did get heavy-handed (especially at the beginning), but managed to pull through.
The sets were very authentic. Unlike the first, where they could just use cheap facades, they had to create a whole new world, and they did so. You could really believe that the clan was in England. I also liked the transitions in between scenes. They were all `swishes', but as the movie progressed and got more `complex', so did the transitions, from going out on both sides to diagonal. It may seem rather juvenile to put it in, and even more so to mention it, but I thought they were quite cool.
I do wish, however, that they had spent more time in the West. If they had had more about the horse from the first one (also, whatever happened to Chon's wife, Falling Leaves?), it would have been better. However, it almost immediately left the West for the East. Like The Tuxedo, Chan allows himself to be pushed around and beaten.
Chan is great, as usual. He's a great diversion from the real life. He can make us believe that what is done can be done. Technically, he can, because he does his own stunts. Wilson is in top comedic form here, as usual, also. He's quickly becoming an item in Hollywood, and his name's getting out there. Then again, he did do I Spy.
I laughed a lot during Shanghai Knights. Many came from the fight scenes, and others were from Wilson's one-liners. I love how the writers can merge action and comedy seamlessly. I hope for a Shanghai Five, where they go to Hawaii, or some sequel, since this franchise is going somewhere.
My rating: 7.5/10
Rated PG-13 for action violence and sexual content.
fun sequel
cherold1 June 2004
The implied promise of a sequel is that it will give you what you got from the first movie, but that promise is often broken. Shanghai Knights is an exception, giving the audience that same mix of goofy dialogue and slapstick martial arts that made the first movie so much fun. This time the duo heads to England, allowing them to make a bunch of incredibly silly jokes about England and Sherlock Holmes and Charlie Chaplin. The movie is essentially one long wink, and if you like that sort of humor your likely to find much of it amusing. At times I thought they pushed the anachronistic dialogue a little too far, as when Owen asks the gorgeous Fann Wong if she works out, but overall it works pretty well. Chan supplies a number of very entertaining fight sequences along with his usual goofy charm and the end result feels like a more actiony version of a Hope/Crosby road movie.
Entertaining and funny movie with two sympathetic and charming protagonists
ma-cortes5 July 2005
This second part is a follow-up to ¨Shangai noon¨with the likeable starring(Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson) . When the killers murder Chon's estranged father he flees. He goes London to retrieve a brilliant royal object that Jackie Chan's father guarded in the forbidden city Pekin when he was murdered by some Chinese rebels . Roy also escapes to England, and he and Chon make their way to London with revenge on their minds. And Chon's sister, Lin, has the same idea. They meet Victoria queen (Gemma Jones) and a roguish street boy called Charles Chaplin . They'll confront the villains (Aidan Gillen and Donnie Yen) which want to overthrow the British and China thrones and nasty Chinese Boxers and even Jack the Ripper (Oliver Cotton). Meanwhile, Owen Wilson falls in love with Chan's sister (Fam Wong).
Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson give a jolly and perfect couple . It's usual in Chan films create duos , a ¨buddy movie¨ type , as male : Chris Tucker (Rush hour I and II) , as female : Jennifer Love Hewitt (the Tuxedo) and Claire Forlani (The medallion) and here magnificently with Wilson . Here they uncover a worldwide conspiracy to murder the royal family but almost no one will believe them . The choreographic fights are excellent , they are made as musical numbers, there are remembrances to ¨singing in the rain¨dancing as well as Harold Lloyd , Keistone cops and to author Arthur Conan Doyle with his Sherlock Holmes creation . It's an agreeable picture but uneven comedy, works better when Jackie Chan goes into the action . It's a Chan vehicle for the continuous struggles in leaps and bounds .The final confrontation among the starring and the enemies on the Thames river with fireworks background and in the Big clock tower are overwhelming and breathtaking . Cinematography (Adrian Biddle) and music (Randy Edelman) are spectacular and atmospheric. Production set is extraordinary, it's very well designed along London epoch . The picture was rightly directed by David Dobkin. Rating : Nice and bemusing .
Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson give a jolly and perfect couple . It's usual in Chan films create duos , a ¨buddy movie¨ type , as male : Chris Tucker (Rush hour I and II) , as female : Jennifer Love Hewitt (the Tuxedo) and Claire Forlani (The medallion) and here magnificently with Wilson . Here they uncover a worldwide conspiracy to murder the royal family but almost no one will believe them . The choreographic fights are excellent , they are made as musical numbers, there are remembrances to ¨singing in the rain¨dancing as well as Harold Lloyd , Keistone cops and to author Arthur Conan Doyle with his Sherlock Holmes creation . It's an agreeable picture but uneven comedy, works better when Jackie Chan goes into the action . It's a Chan vehicle for the continuous struggles in leaps and bounds .The final confrontation among the starring and the enemies on the Thames river with fireworks background and in the Big clock tower are overwhelming and breathtaking . Cinematography (Adrian Biddle) and music (Randy Edelman) are spectacular and atmospheric. Production set is extraordinary, it's very well designed along London epoch . The picture was rightly directed by David Dobkin. Rating : Nice and bemusing .
Nice and no more
ricderob28 October 2012
Shanghai Knights boasts an adequate story, interesting characters -loved the Scotland Yard inspector-, good acting -especially from the villains-, some funny moments, solid action scenes, cute movie and historical references, and strong production. So you can watch it confidently, knowing you're not going to get a horrid piece of junk.
That's the positive side. On the negative side, the movie is thoroughly unremarkable. I only watched it last night and I'm racking my brain trying to remember something memorable about it. After a while, I can only come up with two things. The name of the Jackie Chan character cracked me up: Chon Wang -pronounced "John Wayne". The same as in the first part, of course, but I haven't watched that since it came out.
The other thing that cracked me up ***minor spoiler start*** is that Roy blew all their money from part I by investing in zeppelins instead of cars. I thought that was pretty clever. But then there's the head-scratching moment when Roy confesses he lied, he actually lost the money publishing his book... a book that so happens to be a hit all over the country and is even well-known in England. Huh? I guess the script called for a "confession moment" and there was nothing else he could confess to right then ***minor spoiler end***.
How does this movie compare to Shanghai Noon? Can't tell, I don't remember. As for Rush Hour (not to mention early Jackie Chan films), I found the latter to be funnier, more original and an altogether better film. But Shanghai Knights is still OK, if you're tired of rewatching old Jackie films.
That's the positive side. On the negative side, the movie is thoroughly unremarkable. I only watched it last night and I'm racking my brain trying to remember something memorable about it. After a while, I can only come up with two things. The name of the Jackie Chan character cracked me up: Chon Wang -pronounced "John Wayne". The same as in the first part, of course, but I haven't watched that since it came out.
The other thing that cracked me up ***minor spoiler start*** is that Roy blew all their money from part I by investing in zeppelins instead of cars. I thought that was pretty clever. But then there's the head-scratching moment when Roy confesses he lied, he actually lost the money publishing his book... a book that so happens to be a hit all over the country and is even well-known in England. Huh? I guess the script called for a "confession moment" and there was nothing else he could confess to right then ***minor spoiler end***.
How does this movie compare to Shanghai Noon? Can't tell, I don't remember. As for Rush Hour (not to mention early Jackie Chan films), I found the latter to be funnier, more original and an altogether better film. But Shanghai Knights is still OK, if you're tired of rewatching old Jackie films.
Same as the first film...
Reverie519 June 2013
Enjoyed this equally as much as Shanghai Noon. Seen it as a kid, watched it again, this time understanding all the cultural references which made it even more enjoyable. Charlie Chaplin, Sherlock Holmes, Conan Doyle, etc.
Flaws, of course there were (machine gun hitting absolutely nobody, okay, maybe just 1 person). Same as the first, I didn't enjoy the stereotypes. Sure it makes it fun sometimes, but I'm just tired of them. Definitely enjoyed the "Singin in the Rain" fight scene, one of my Jackie favorites of all time. I wonder where they'll go next (sequel pending).
Flaws, of course there were (machine gun hitting absolutely nobody, okay, maybe just 1 person). Same as the first, I didn't enjoy the stereotypes. Sure it makes it fun sometimes, but I'm just tired of them. Definitely enjoyed the "Singin in the Rain" fight scene, one of my Jackie favorites of all time. I wonder where they'll go next (sequel pending).
Knockabout, period martial arts comedy adventure feel-good action buddy movie
smellthecult-com-124 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
More knockabout, period martial arts comedy adventure feel-good action buddy movie nonsense, then.
By order of the British Government, Wang's father is killed and, worse still, the Imperial Seal is stolen, an act that is witnessed by Wang's sister Lin, who heads off to London intent on revenge. Before she leaves, she sends a letter to her brother advising him of the wicked deed. Wang arrives in New York to claim the money still owed to him by Roy from the 1st movie, and together they set off for London to help Wang's sister and, perhaps, familiarise themselves with the ladies of Lahndon Tahn.
It's neither riotously funny nor dreadfully dreary, coming across as more of the same in every regard.
Jackie is watchable as ever, and even Wilson doesn't annoy too much and, for all its silliness, some of the action sequences are actually half decent.
If you liked the first one, you will certainly enjoy this too. Just hope to all the Christ's they don't make a third.
By order of the British Government, Wang's father is killed and, worse still, the Imperial Seal is stolen, an act that is witnessed by Wang's sister Lin, who heads off to London intent on revenge. Before she leaves, she sends a letter to her brother advising him of the wicked deed. Wang arrives in New York to claim the money still owed to him by Roy from the 1st movie, and together they set off for London to help Wang's sister and, perhaps, familiarise themselves with the ladies of Lahndon Tahn.
It's neither riotously funny nor dreadfully dreary, coming across as more of the same in every regard.
Jackie is watchable as ever, and even Wilson doesn't annoy too much and, for all its silliness, some of the action sequences are actually half decent.
If you liked the first one, you will certainly enjoy this too. Just hope to all the Christ's they don't make a third.
Expected nothing but LOVED IT!
ornshaw16 February 2003
I saw this movie only to accompany my children, but I absolutely loved it! Had never seen a Jackie Chan movie, but now I want to see Shanghai Noon too, so we will rent that one. There were several adult references and I don't mean sexually, but funny references only adults would remember. Be sure to stay for the credits as the outtakes are great. I want to see it again!
just as nice as the first
lagudafuad31 March 2013
Shanghai Noon (2000) gradually becomes Shanghai Knight, with both actors from the previous movie reprising their role as Chon Wang (Jackie Chan) and Roy (Owen Wilson). The movie is not as good as the first, but it is surprisingly interesting funny and captivating. This time the makers also went as far as bringing into the plot this time much more familiar themes that we are more used too, we have in the plot this time a boy who winds up being Charlie Chaplin, the detective in the film ended up being Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who goes on to write the Sherlock Holmes mysteries, and according to the movie the name Sherlock Holmes is a made up name by Roy.
The movie plot is about our dynamic duo from the first movie, only this time their adventure takes them to England. The movie starts with the death of Wang's (Jackie) father who was a guard of the royal diamond seal which was stolen. Wang's father while dying told his daughter Chon Lin (Fann Wong) to retrieve the stolen seal and also deliver a puzzle box to her brother.
Now Wang her brother had become a Sheriff in Nevada, and when he got the message about his father's death and the seal stolen away to England, he searched for Roy to get some money to travel to England. Roy on the other hand had lost all their gold that they got in the first film to gambling and daft investments. So now together with Wang's sister Lin, they have to retrieve the diamond and have it return back to china.
Many more homages were made in this film that I will like to mention: 1. The name of the villain also was tagged "the finest swordsman in England," which is a tribute to Basil Rathbone, who is known for his swordsmanship and always seem to be better than his counterparts in his movies but always holds back because the hero has to win. Also Rathbone played Sherlock Holmes in the 1930s to the 1940s series.
2. Also in the movie we get to see Jackie Chan pay homage to the Rush Hour movie where Jackie distracts the guards by using Chinese vases.
3. When knocking on Conan Doyle's door, the clothes that Roy and Wang are wearing are exactly the same dress that Holmes and Watson wore in Conan Doyle's stories.
The movie did fairly in the box office but it was a massive hit in Pakistan, where the movie was dubbed in Punjabi and several millions copies of the movie's DVD and VCD sales were great, and so making the producers to also make Shanghai Noon also in Punjabi.
This movie is a nice watch one that you will like seeing, and I enjoin you that you do.
www.lagsreviews.com
The movie plot is about our dynamic duo from the first movie, only this time their adventure takes them to England. The movie starts with the death of Wang's (Jackie) father who was a guard of the royal diamond seal which was stolen. Wang's father while dying told his daughter Chon Lin (Fann Wong) to retrieve the stolen seal and also deliver a puzzle box to her brother.
Now Wang her brother had become a Sheriff in Nevada, and when he got the message about his father's death and the seal stolen away to England, he searched for Roy to get some money to travel to England. Roy on the other hand had lost all their gold that they got in the first film to gambling and daft investments. So now together with Wang's sister Lin, they have to retrieve the diamond and have it return back to china.
Many more homages were made in this film that I will like to mention: 1. The name of the villain also was tagged "the finest swordsman in England," which is a tribute to Basil Rathbone, who is known for his swordsmanship and always seem to be better than his counterparts in his movies but always holds back because the hero has to win. Also Rathbone played Sherlock Holmes in the 1930s to the 1940s series.
2. Also in the movie we get to see Jackie Chan pay homage to the Rush Hour movie where Jackie distracts the guards by using Chinese vases.
3. When knocking on Conan Doyle's door, the clothes that Roy and Wang are wearing are exactly the same dress that Holmes and Watson wore in Conan Doyle's stories.
The movie did fairly in the box office but it was a massive hit in Pakistan, where the movie was dubbed in Punjabi and several millions copies of the movie's DVD and VCD sales were great, and so making the producers to also make Shanghai Noon also in Punjabi.
This movie is a nice watch one that you will like seeing, and I enjoin you that you do.
www.lagsreviews.com
Ummmm
xredgarnetx22 April 2007
SHANGHAI KNIGHTS gives us a different director and setting and even time frame. This time around, our boys (Chan and Wilson) travel to turn-of-the-century London to tackle the killer of Chan's father. They get to ride in an automobile, even! The villain, Aiden Gillen, is smooth and effective. Chan's character has a pretty, ass-kicking kid sister in this one, played by Fann Won. Some funny name dropping comes up, including one surprise that is funny but highly improbable. It's just that the film lacks the pizazz of the first and lumbers along to an almost-identical finish to the original. This is a sequel that should not have been made. I knew we were in trouble from the opening, when I spotted a U.K. casting credit.
This Sequel Worked
MLDinTN27 January 2004
This movie is actually funny and entertaining. I wasn't expecting much because the past several Jackie Chan films, Rush Hour sequels and the Tuxedo, have sucked. But, the duo of Chan and Wilson really worked. The whole Sherlock Holms gag with the author and the Charlie Chan kid were very funny. IT was also very funny when they are in the hotel in New York City and we find out Roy really works there and isn't rich. This has plenty of Chan stunts with ladders, amazing kicks, and swords. Plus, it was nearly 2 hours, but it didn't feel long. Most "comedies" now days if over 90 minutes really start to feel dull, but that wasn't the case with this film.
PS: Watching this makes pillow fights look really fun!
FINAL VERDICT: This is worth renting if you are looking for some laughs and entertaining night.
PS: Watching this makes pillow fights look really fun!
FINAL VERDICT: This is worth renting if you are looking for some laughs and entertaining night.
Shanghai Knights
Sovran_H8 February 2014
Very nice movie and a very great sequel of the first one they did it pretty good comparing to other movies who their sequel's suck .
This had action in it stunts , comedy , laughs , little bit of romance in a few words it was just a masterpiece sequel . Loved the performance by Jackie his stunts , sense of humor , action and also the performance by Owen which I didn't expect to be better than the Shanghai Noon but it was even better and the moment when Jackie finds out he's not rich and he's a waiter . Also loved Jackie's Sister and Owen's love while Jackie tries to separate it and doesn't want Owen as an brother in-law :P
Really nice movie who hasn't seen it you don't know what you missed check it out !
This had action in it stunts , comedy , laughs , little bit of romance in a few words it was just a masterpiece sequel . Loved the performance by Jackie his stunts , sense of humor , action and also the performance by Owen which I didn't expect to be better than the Shanghai Noon but it was even better and the moment when Jackie finds out he's not rich and he's a waiter . Also loved Jackie's Sister and Owen's love while Jackie tries to separate it and doesn't want Owen as an brother in-law :P
Really nice movie who hasn't seen it you don't know what you missed check it out !
funny and frequently witty...
natport1914 March 2003
As good as you may believe Jackie Chan to be, it is his chemistry with Owen Wilson that makes Shanghai Knights a success. The action sequences are at the head of its class for the genre, but it is the humor and frequent wit that connects all of the dots. Without spoiling all of the details, Shanghai uses its fictitious storyline to humorously incorporate historical figures into its plot, such as Jack the Ripper, Charlie Chaplin, and Arthur Conan Doyle. Never stretching its PG-13 rating, the movie remains funny even with its light ethnic jabs and sexual material.
Chan and Wilson also starred together in the original installment to this hopeful growing franchise. Also, they have both proved their recuperation after horrid efforts in The Tuxedo and I-Spy, respectively, in the second half of last year. Now that Wilson has a few of these buddy comedies under his belt, it might be best for him to return to his greatest talent: writing. Nominated for Best Original Screenplay at last year's Academy Awards was The Royal Tenenbaums, which he co-scripted with director Wes Andersen, but it was their screenplay for Rushmore, along with flawless performances by Jason Schwartzman and Bill Murray, that is by far the better of the two.
But for Shanghai Knights, which is consistently funny, the humor extends into a series of hilarious outtakes proving Chan's lack of knowledge in the English language. The best of which is when he means to say `baby sister' and results in saying `babysitter.' Wilson is quick to poke fun at him, showing that their great chemistry so apparent on-screen is also a backstage thing too. So, if you are sick of the over-rated Academy Award nominated films, then two hours with these guys will do you no harm, and you will laugh just as hard as you would at any other 2003 comedy (yes, including Old School and Bringing Down the House).
*** out of ****
Chan and Wilson also starred together in the original installment to this hopeful growing franchise. Also, they have both proved their recuperation after horrid efforts in The Tuxedo and I-Spy, respectively, in the second half of last year. Now that Wilson has a few of these buddy comedies under his belt, it might be best for him to return to his greatest talent: writing. Nominated for Best Original Screenplay at last year's Academy Awards was The Royal Tenenbaums, which he co-scripted with director Wes Andersen, but it was their screenplay for Rushmore, along with flawless performances by Jason Schwartzman and Bill Murray, that is by far the better of the two.
But for Shanghai Knights, which is consistently funny, the humor extends into a series of hilarious outtakes proving Chan's lack of knowledge in the English language. The best of which is when he means to say `baby sister' and results in saying `babysitter.' Wilson is quick to poke fun at him, showing that their great chemistry so apparent on-screen is also a backstage thing too. So, if you are sick of the over-rated Academy Award nominated films, then two hours with these guys will do you no harm, and you will laugh just as hard as you would at any other 2003 comedy (yes, including Old School and Bringing Down the House).
*** out of ****
Almost as good as "Noon", but not quite
movieman_kev14 March 2005
Owen Wilson and Jackie Chan are back again as Roy O'Bannon and Chon Wang, this time traveling to London to avenge Chon's murdered father. Also Chon's sister, Lin (Fann Wong), is added to the mix as a potential romantic interest for Roy. While "Knights" isn't as good as the previous "Noon", it's entertaining enough and never seeks to be more then it is: A mindless action/ comedy. It's a lot better than Jackie's 'other' franchise sequel, Rush Hour 2". Having enjoyed this film, it just makes my hopes for David Dobkin's next directed movie, "the Wedding Crashers".
My Grade:B
DVD Extras: Commentary with David Dobkin; Second Commentary with Alfred Gough and Miles Millar; Fight Manuel; Action Overload; 11deleted and extended scenes; Trailers for "Bringing Down the House", "The Recruit"
My Grade:B
DVD Extras: Commentary with David Dobkin; Second Commentary with Alfred Gough and Miles Millar; Fight Manuel; Action Overload; 11deleted and extended scenes; Trailers for "Bringing Down the House", "The Recruit"
Jackie is great at stunts
drunken_critic21 November 2003
I have come to the conclusion: I only go to Jackie Chan movies to see spectacular stunts and cool fight scenes. This movie was like a dance movie for guys. The fight scenes are more than punching and kicking. The fight scenes are beautifully choreographed dances. The fight scene in England with the gang that harassed the kid thief is a perfect example. It was homage to the movie `Dancing in the Rain' when Jackie Chan (character John Wayne) fought gracefully with an umbrella.
I wish there were more fight scenes and stunts in this movie. I felt the story was boring and formulaic and the only thing redeeming was the fights/stunts. The script was corny. Every person involved referred to/or was a famous person in history. This movie was the sequel to Shanghai Noon. It was mildly funny in the first movie when Jackie Chan's character was named John Wayne, but this movie it was done overboard. The kid thief ends up being Charlie Chan. The detective at Scotland Yard is the writer of Sherlock Holmes. Jack the Ripper even makes a lame cameo in this movie. It felt very lame and almost painful watching some parts. For instance in the end they are knighted by the Queen, Chan and Wilson bow in humility made me sick at the cheesiness of the situation. I squinted my eyes and grimaced during most of the attempt to make an original story, but I came alive during the action sequences of the movie.
Hopefully in Chan's next movie, there will be more stunts and fight scenes and less dialogue. 6.5/10
I wish there were more fight scenes and stunts in this movie. I felt the story was boring and formulaic and the only thing redeeming was the fights/stunts. The script was corny. Every person involved referred to/or was a famous person in history. This movie was the sequel to Shanghai Noon. It was mildly funny in the first movie when Jackie Chan's character was named John Wayne, but this movie it was done overboard. The kid thief ends up being Charlie Chan. The detective at Scotland Yard is the writer of Sherlock Holmes. Jack the Ripper even makes a lame cameo in this movie. It felt very lame and almost painful watching some parts. For instance in the end they are knighted by the Queen, Chan and Wilson bow in humility made me sick at the cheesiness of the situation. I squinted my eyes and grimaced during most of the attempt to make an original story, but I came alive during the action sequences of the movie.
Hopefully in Chan's next movie, there will be more stunts and fight scenes and less dialogue. 6.5/10
Entertaining and Amusing Martial Arts Comedy
JamesHitchcock14 August 2006
In "Shanghai Noon" Jackie Chan played a Chinese-born Western Sheriff named Chon Wang (pronounced, in one of the film's many in-jokes, "John Wayne"). In this sequel the action moves from the Wild West to the London of 1887, the year of Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee. Chon has gone to London, accompanied by his American sidekick Roy O'Bannon, to track down the men who have murdered his father, the Keeper of the Imperial Seal. The murderers are a rebel against the Chinese government and Lord Nelson Rathbone, a British aristocrat who is a cousin of Queen Victoria and tenth in line to the throne. Rathbone is planning to murder not only the Queen herself but also all the rest of the Royal Family so that he can become King. It falls to Chon, O'Bannon and Chon's sister Lin (with whom O'Bannon has fallen in love) to thwart this dastardly plot, assisted by a cheeky street-urchin (who later turns out to be Charlie Chaplin) and a bumbling policeman (who turns out to be Sir Arthur Conan Doyle).
This is not, of course, a serious historical drama. There are numerous historical inaccuracies; apart from those already on your "goofs" board, I noted a couple more. There is no such place in Ireland as "Holmes County". Queen Victoria had nine children and, by 1887, numerous grandchildren, so any cousin of hers would have been a lot further down the line of succession than tenth. These goofs, however, do not matter greatly, as the film never sets out to be a serious drama or an accurate picture of late nineteenth century life. Like most Jackie Chan vehicles it is a comedy which incorporates martial-arts elements. (It has many similarities to the more recent "Around the World in Eighty Days" which presented an equally inaccurate picture of life in Victorian Britain).
Much of the humour comes from the martial arts sequences, which, as normal with Chan, combine exciting action with slapstick comedy. Humour also arises from the relationship between Chon and O'Bannon, amusingly played by Chan and Owen Wilson. Many adventure stories have at their centre a European or European-descended hero accompanied by a loyal, but subordinate, non-Caucasian companion, a pattern going back at least to Robinson Crusoe and Man Friday and famously exemplified by the Lone Ranger and Tonto. In "Shanghai Knights" this pattern is inverted. O'Bannon has been publishing, under a pseudonym, a series of novels which give a fictionalised account of his adventures with Chon and which always show himself as the hero. In reality, however, it is the brave and resourceful Chon who takes the leading role; O'Bannon is lazy, boastful and something of a coward, a man who left to his own devices would prefer to lead an easy life and use his fame to attract the girls. He is, however, a loyal friend to Chon and can sometimes find reserves of courage when required. This may not be a serious film but it can be an entertaining and amusing one; I preferred it to the first film, "Shanghai Noon". 6/10
This is not, of course, a serious historical drama. There are numerous historical inaccuracies; apart from those already on your "goofs" board, I noted a couple more. There is no such place in Ireland as "Holmes County". Queen Victoria had nine children and, by 1887, numerous grandchildren, so any cousin of hers would have been a lot further down the line of succession than tenth. These goofs, however, do not matter greatly, as the film never sets out to be a serious drama or an accurate picture of late nineteenth century life. Like most Jackie Chan vehicles it is a comedy which incorporates martial-arts elements. (It has many similarities to the more recent "Around the World in Eighty Days" which presented an equally inaccurate picture of life in Victorian Britain).
Much of the humour comes from the martial arts sequences, which, as normal with Chan, combine exciting action with slapstick comedy. Humour also arises from the relationship between Chon and O'Bannon, amusingly played by Chan and Owen Wilson. Many adventure stories have at their centre a European or European-descended hero accompanied by a loyal, but subordinate, non-Caucasian companion, a pattern going back at least to Robinson Crusoe and Man Friday and famously exemplified by the Lone Ranger and Tonto. In "Shanghai Knights" this pattern is inverted. O'Bannon has been publishing, under a pseudonym, a series of novels which give a fictionalised account of his adventures with Chon and which always show himself as the hero. In reality, however, it is the brave and resourceful Chon who takes the leading role; O'Bannon is lazy, boastful and something of a coward, a man who left to his own devices would prefer to lead an easy life and use his fame to attract the girls. He is, however, a loyal friend to Chon and can sometimes find reserves of courage when required. This may not be a serious film but it can be an entertaining and amusing one; I preferred it to the first film, "Shanghai Noon". 6/10
As enjoyable as the original
slightlymad2228 July 2014
Like it's predecessor "Shanghai Knights" has a nice mix of action and humour, and in Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson, two actors who clearly enjoy working together, and playing these characters. Like "Shanghai Noon" this movie bounds from one Chaplin-esque fight and gag to another.
The Great Seal of China is stolen by sinister intruders, and its guardian killed. The guardian of course is the father of Chan, who is sheriff of Carson City, Nevada. Hearing of the tragedy from his beautiful sister Chon Lin (Fann Wong), Wang hurries to New York to join up with his old comrade in arms from the first movie Roy O'Bannon (Wilson).
The movie is just the sort of mindless entertainment .
For Jackie Chan, "Shanghai Knights" is a return to form after "The Tuxedo", whilst Wilson has been making a wide variety of roles Meet The Parents and Zoolander with Ben Stiller, Royal Tennebaums and Behind Enemy Lines with Gene Hackman and I Spy with Eddie Murphy.
Among other reasons to enjoy this, is over the closing credits there are outtakes (Something Chan has done since his first American movie the Burt Reynolds led ensemble Cannonball Run) in which Chan and his co-stars miss cues, fall wrong, get banged and bounced on assorted body parts, and break up laughing. The outtakes are particularly good this time. I think every movie should have outtakes over the credits. Imagine Saving Private Ryan if it ended with outtakes......
The Great Seal of China is stolen by sinister intruders, and its guardian killed. The guardian of course is the father of Chan, who is sheriff of Carson City, Nevada. Hearing of the tragedy from his beautiful sister Chon Lin (Fann Wong), Wang hurries to New York to join up with his old comrade in arms from the first movie Roy O'Bannon (Wilson).
The movie is just the sort of mindless entertainment .
For Jackie Chan, "Shanghai Knights" is a return to form after "The Tuxedo", whilst Wilson has been making a wide variety of roles Meet The Parents and Zoolander with Ben Stiller, Royal Tennebaums and Behind Enemy Lines with Gene Hackman and I Spy with Eddie Murphy.
Among other reasons to enjoy this, is over the closing credits there are outtakes (Something Chan has done since his first American movie the Burt Reynolds led ensemble Cannonball Run) in which Chan and his co-stars miss cues, fall wrong, get banged and bounced on assorted body parts, and break up laughing. The outtakes are particularly good this time. I think every movie should have outtakes over the credits. Imagine Saving Private Ryan if it ended with outtakes......
Two sidekicks whose click is fast fading
SimonJack18 May 2021
Jackie Chan's character in this and his previous film with Owen Wilson, is named Chon Wang. Wilson's Ray O'Bannon pegged him in 2000 as a Chinese John Wayne. So when he calls his name in this film, it sounds very much like John Wayne. And, that remains the funniest thing in this second pairing of the two actors. Chan and Wilson play two sidekicks whose "click" is fast fading.
This film has a little humor in the plot by introducing two characters of history from England. One could guess the first one right away. Tom Fisher plays a Scotland Yard inspector, Artie Doyle. That's Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the British author who created the character Sherlock Holmes who became England's most famous sleuth in a series of novels and short stories. In real life, Doyle was a medical doctor before his writing career - not a Scotland Yard detective. The second historical character is the young boy, Charlie, whom those who hadn't already guessed would be revealed in the end as Charles Chaplin. With the movie set in 1887, the real Charlie Chaplin of film fame wasn't yet born. A young Aaron Johnson plays Charlie.
Those little fictional insertions of a couple of famous names are the extent of humor in this action comedy. And, as some others have noted, by this time in his career, Jackie Chan is no longer the karate or Kungfu master who is unrivaled. He has to be rescued a couple times by someone else. He gets captured a couple of times, and is injured three times and clearly beaten in his final martial arts contest with the villain, Lord Nelson Rathbone, played by Aidan Gillen.
The screenplay for this film is a jumbled mess, with smaller plots in three locations tossed together. The script is full of holes, and it comes off as more hokey than any kind of action thriller. Chan was still making money on his films, but the declining net earnings was matching the declining quality of his movies.
This film has a little humor in the plot by introducing two characters of history from England. One could guess the first one right away. Tom Fisher plays a Scotland Yard inspector, Artie Doyle. That's Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the British author who created the character Sherlock Holmes who became England's most famous sleuth in a series of novels and short stories. In real life, Doyle was a medical doctor before his writing career - not a Scotland Yard detective. The second historical character is the young boy, Charlie, whom those who hadn't already guessed would be revealed in the end as Charles Chaplin. With the movie set in 1887, the real Charlie Chaplin of film fame wasn't yet born. A young Aaron Johnson plays Charlie.
Those little fictional insertions of a couple of famous names are the extent of humor in this action comedy. And, as some others have noted, by this time in his career, Jackie Chan is no longer the karate or Kungfu master who is unrivaled. He has to be rescued a couple times by someone else. He gets captured a couple of times, and is injured three times and clearly beaten in his final martial arts contest with the villain, Lord Nelson Rathbone, played by Aidan Gillen.
The screenplay for this film is a jumbled mess, with smaller plots in three locations tossed together. The script is full of holes, and it comes off as more hokey than any kind of action thriller. Chan was still making money on his films, but the declining net earnings was matching the declining quality of his movies.
Very funny film
tomrito8 February 2003
Went to see this film today and I still have a smile on my face. It all depends on what you want from a movie. If you want to go and be entertained and laugh for a few hours and see one of the best film chemistry between two actors in film history, then you will enjoy this movie. This is just a feel good comedy from start to finish. No more, no less. It's not the best movie ever made, but for a few hours, it will make you feel good. So don't go expecting too much, just go and have fun. I kind of wish they could make one of these movies every month.
The white Chris Tucker
davishasrisen8 February 2003
Owen Wilson is the white Chris Tucker. If you like Owen Wilson you thought this movie was really funny. Its like Rush Hour except wilson and tucker switch. I love the part where they your a little kid and nobody likes you we have parents that love us. No one likes you because your a little orphan. That was so funny. Overall 7 out of 10.
Lacklustre sequel with a bitter vibe
Leofwine_draca16 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Seriously lightweight, this sequel to the better SHANGHAI NOON is very much a mish-mash of all the Jackie Chan films you've ever seen before, albeit with a rich backdrop: London of 1887. So far so good, and the UK capital does look very lavish and spellbinding, if perhaps a little too
clean and Americanised? When will films finally realise that the prostitutes of this period were in their 40s and looked at least twenty years older, thanks to all the diseases and hard lives they lived? Anyway, despite the setting – which is really only present so that the viewer can be inundated with dozens of 'cultural' jokes – it's very much business as usual, as Chan tracks down the murderer of his father, Wilson just kind of ambles along, lots of policemen and villains get involved and things end with a high-rise climax, just like in RUSH HOUR actually.
The only thing that makes this film worthwhile is Chan. While the action here is another step down from the kind of frenetic frenzies we remember from the 1980s, Chan's in his element, looking good, sounding good and engaging in some amusing homages to his inspirations – Buster Keaton, SINGING IN THE RAIN, Harold Lloyd and more. He even gets to visit the clock-tower set-piece of PROJECT A, except this time it's done on a far bigger scale, taking place inside Big Ben. My money's still on the earlier film as having the edge, though. Chan's martial arts are limited to some horseplay in some revolving doors and a few small scale fights, where he utilises dozens of props in his battle with multiple opponents – the market dash is another highlight and the emphasis is very much on the scenery rather than Chan's hand-to-hand skills. Saying that, there IS one decent martial arts fight against villain Donnie Yen, a Hong Kong hero in his own right; it is very well choreographed, but the editor keeps cutting away to mundane stuff with Wilson and other characters! Man, if they'd just stuck to a single ten-minute fight scene between these two guys, the film would have probably got the highest mark possible.
A big detraction in this film is Wilson, whose lovable persona seems to have been dropped in favour of a bitter bore, whose sole purpose in the film is to flirt with women and make anti-British jokes. Wilson is horribly bad and most British viewers will just want to beat the tar out of him after he just keeps going on and on about how the Americans won the Revolution, tea-drinking, and more this is the kind of rubbish you hear on Internet forums, not Hollywood films! Still, no doubt American viewers will find it absolutely hilarious. What is even more offensive than the humour is the amount of historical inaccuracies present in the film; Charlie Chaplin becomes a street urchin, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle suddenly isn't Scottish anymore – let alone the fact that he never was a police detective, the main villain is a poseur with a distinctly non-Victorian hairstyle the list goes on. I have a horrible suspicion that the teen generation are going to grow up thinking this film spoke the truth, and that the name 'Sherlock Holmes' was invented by a Yankee cowboy There are one or two entertaining jokes within the movie, including Fann Wong (pretty but oh-so-shallow)'s midnight encounter with Jack the Ripper, and a nice martial arts brawl taking place at Madame Tussaud's, complete with dummies falling to bits and more. But whenever Wilson's on screen, the whole thing just falls flat, and Chan's only half the martial artist he once was, so in hindsight I'd probably give this flick a miss.
The only thing that makes this film worthwhile is Chan. While the action here is another step down from the kind of frenetic frenzies we remember from the 1980s, Chan's in his element, looking good, sounding good and engaging in some amusing homages to his inspirations – Buster Keaton, SINGING IN THE RAIN, Harold Lloyd and more. He even gets to visit the clock-tower set-piece of PROJECT A, except this time it's done on a far bigger scale, taking place inside Big Ben. My money's still on the earlier film as having the edge, though. Chan's martial arts are limited to some horseplay in some revolving doors and a few small scale fights, where he utilises dozens of props in his battle with multiple opponents – the market dash is another highlight and the emphasis is very much on the scenery rather than Chan's hand-to-hand skills. Saying that, there IS one decent martial arts fight against villain Donnie Yen, a Hong Kong hero in his own right; it is very well choreographed, but the editor keeps cutting away to mundane stuff with Wilson and other characters! Man, if they'd just stuck to a single ten-minute fight scene between these two guys, the film would have probably got the highest mark possible.
A big detraction in this film is Wilson, whose lovable persona seems to have been dropped in favour of a bitter bore, whose sole purpose in the film is to flirt with women and make anti-British jokes. Wilson is horribly bad and most British viewers will just want to beat the tar out of him after he just keeps going on and on about how the Americans won the Revolution, tea-drinking, and more this is the kind of rubbish you hear on Internet forums, not Hollywood films! Still, no doubt American viewers will find it absolutely hilarious. What is even more offensive than the humour is the amount of historical inaccuracies present in the film; Charlie Chaplin becomes a street urchin, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle suddenly isn't Scottish anymore – let alone the fact that he never was a police detective, the main villain is a poseur with a distinctly non-Victorian hairstyle the list goes on. I have a horrible suspicion that the teen generation are going to grow up thinking this film spoke the truth, and that the name 'Sherlock Holmes' was invented by a Yankee cowboy There are one or two entertaining jokes within the movie, including Fann Wong (pretty but oh-so-shallow)'s midnight encounter with Jack the Ripper, and a nice martial arts brawl taking place at Madame Tussaud's, complete with dummies falling to bits and more. But whenever Wilson's on screen, the whole thing just falls flat, and Chan's only half the martial artist he once was, so in hindsight I'd probably give this flick a miss.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
