Tom Dey | 102 mins* | TV | 16:9** | USA & Hong Kong / English, Mandarin & Sioux | 12 / PG-13
Hong Kong martial arts legend Jackie Chan and Hollywood funnyman also-ran Owen Wilson team up for a film that I don’t think anyone involved could reasonably deny is just “Rush Hour in the Wild West”. Unfortunately, the result is surprisingly lacklustre.
There are two reasons we come to a film like this, exemplified by my summation of the two leads: action and comedy. Some of Chan’s contributions to the former are entertaining, but they’re by no means his best work. Sadly, the latter isn’t that great either. The film works better for both its leads when they’re apart, and that defeats the object. It’s not that Chan and Wilson don’t have chemistry, it’s just that the film gets bogged down in showing their relationship. It’s not funny enough to merit so much screen time.
Indeed, the film as a whole is far too long, meandering through subplots and sequences that need a good trim, if not dumping entirely. This is an action-comedy that runs close to 2 hours — it’s not as if it needs padding; cut it back to 90 minutes and it’d probably be fine. That said, the editing is kinda bizarre, with random jump cuts and comedic asides just plonked in. Fight scenes are occasionally over-cut too — considering Chan can do all these stunts and moves, and indeed is doing them, why has it been cut to look like it’s trying to hide a stuntman?!
Things that could have (should have) been fixed way back at the writing stage leer out at the viewer. The plot is treated almost perfunctorily, as if it’s not interesting enough to bother explaining or expounding upon. It’s hardly highly original or complex, but it feels as if important beats or character motivations have just been skipped over. For instance, the character/story impact of the final fight would be so easy to build up a bit, but they haven’t and so it falls a bit limp. Not to mention the bit when two characters who are essentially on the same side have a duel when they have more pressing things to worry about — save the Princess first, fight amongst yourselves later! Then there’s all the time given to Wilson’s rivalry with the local sheriff/martial/whatever, which we’re told exists, isn’t really built from anything, and suddenly is half the focus of the climax.
Also, it’s kinda racist and/or xenophobic, towards both the Chinese and Native Americans. Or maybe it’s just unthinkingly clichéd. Or old fashioned — it is 13 years old. On the other hand, that still puts it this side of the millennium. There’s a solid dose of sexism too. It’s established, almost in passing, that the Princess (Lucy Liu) knows her own mind, is clearly quite intelligent, and can fight a bit. Expect her to show that off in the climax? No. She eventually gets in about three kicks before someone twists her ankle. This is after she ran away, not by going out the front door, but by climbing some rickety scaffolding. How dumb is she?! Or, rather, how dumb is she suddenly when the plot wants a damsel in distress bit.
Shanghai Noon should be a lot of fun. It should be Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson engaging in a bit of comedy between skilfully choreographed, occasionally amusing, balletically staged fight sequences. But it isn’t. It’s laden with an underwritten plot, bulked up by clichés, stereotypes, overplayed character scenes, humour that doesn’t work, and a shortage of judicious editing. It is still kinda fun, but it could so easily have been more.
Tomorrow, Shanghai Knights.
This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2013. Read more here.
* On TV, where there were no studio logos and obviously foreshortened end credits, it ran 102 minutes 26 seconds. I cite this just in case anything was cut from the middle, because the full PAL running time is 3 minutes 29 seconds more. (I’m nothing if not thorough.) ^
** It’s painfully obvious that the TV version has been cropped from its original 2.35:1. And you thought pan & scan died with 4:3 TVs. ^
Sharknado is a defining film of 2013. The volume of conversation it generated, which achieved the near-impossibility of higher viewing figures for its repeats, is exceptional. So I was determined to give it its due in a full-length review. But I can’t be bothered — it doesn’t merit such attention.
Having heard only bad things, I expected a soul-crushing dud of 
Well. What can I say? Curiosity got the better of me.
This wouldn’t matter so much if what was left was entertaining, but it’s a little weak. I’ve seen a couple of the LEGO Star Wars TV specials and found them to be quite fun, but LEGO Batman can’t reach their level. It’s not just that it’s almost four times as long as one of those, it’s that the humour it does contain doesn’t hit home in the same way. It’s often too juvenile, too “that’ll do”, too “I can tell this is supposed to be humorous but it’s just not funny”. I know I started by saying that I just watched this through curiosity, but partly it was that I’d found those Star Wars specials enjoyable enough and thought this would be more of the same with superheroes. It wants to be, but it isn’t.
The fourth 
The second half is more familiar Toy Story stomping ground — indeed, if there’s one bum note, it’s that the villain and his ‘plot’ are almost a rehash of 
Apparently Toy Story of Terror! spent two years in development. While that might seem excessive for a mere under-half-hour animation, the time and effort have paid off handsomely: the result is a thoroughly entertaining short — and one that actually embraces its seasonal theme, rather than forcing it in as an afterthought. Terrific.
The island town of Swallow Falls exists for one purpose: sardines; the fishing, packing, and distribution thereof. But when the world suddenly realises that sardines are gross, the town’s economy is left in tatters and the only foodstuff the islanders have is sardines. (While we’re on the glum bit, the location of Swallow Falls is identical to the real-world location of Bermuda, except in this reality almost every inhabitant is Caucasian and the island is indisputably part of the US. This is why you don’t scrutinise the geopolitics of kids’ movies, especially American ones.)
not an unworthy aim, and something Cloudy also achieves, but not a main consideration in my personal assessment of things. The main selling point is that it’s very funny. Of course there’s the slapstick cartoon humour, which is well done, but there’s also a lot of great one-liners, random asides, and the like. Not ‘adult jokes’ by any means, but I think it makes the film fun for grown-ups too.
He’s a very funny character, but that’s in the writing, directing and animation — the voice work is spectacularly minimal. Apparently Harris was offered the lead but turned it down for the “more interesting” part of Steve. Nothing against Hader, but if I were the directors I’d have tried to persuade him to do both.
I should probably learn to stop writing off non-Pixar animated movies so readily (and, based on what I’ve heard and seen of their last few efforts, maybe slacken off on the Pixar love. I say that as if it’s news — plenty of people already have; and I’ve never been wholly on that bandwagon anyway. But I digress…) Big, bold, colourful, funny and exciting, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is the kind of film I imagine a lot of kids love and watch on loop. In the process they may even be learning some Important Moral Lessons, which, crucially, aren’t too heavy-handed. Many of these aspects work for adults too. I don’t know if you’d want to watch it on loop, but you may certainly want to watch it again.
Frank Drebin and the crew at Police Squad are back for the usual mix of silly one-liners and farcical slapstick. Fortunately, they’re as entertaining as ever.
“Old fogies go to India” is the setup of this frothy comedy-drama that clearly courts the so-called ‘grey pound’ — i.e. older viewers still prepared to pay to go to the cinema. But when said fogies are played by Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, Tom Wilkinson, Bill Nighy, Ronald Pickup, Celia Imrie and Penelope Wilton, it will surprise no one to learn there’s something here for us all.
Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson weren’t the first to bring Hergé’s journalist-adventurer to the big screen, oh no… though you have to go quite far back — and much more obscure — to find the previous efforts.
(I don’t know if the BFI DVD includes the original French, Turkish and Greek soundtrack, but on TV it was entirely dubbed into English. There’s a French Blu-ray, but it doesn’t look to be English friendly.)
There are few things as weird (or, at least, weird in quite the same way) as watching an acclaimed and beloved classic film and… just not getting it. Here’s a paragon of moviemaking; a film that is not only exalted but, crucially, has remained in people’s affections against the forces of age; a thing that has truly stood the test of time… and yet… meh.
In the end, I felt like I just didn’t get it. Not that I was watching something bad and I couldn’t fathom why so many people loved it, but that I just didn’t understand what it was I was meant to be seeing. Which is perhaps the same thing. I mean, I can see Kubrick was making an anti-war point at least as much as he was trying to make people laugh, but what do turgid sequences of people reading out numbers and flicking switches contribute to either of those aims? Perhaps the joke is meant to be in how long it goes on for? Like 
100Films.co.uk 