Slashdot Mirror
Review: Rush Hour 2
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.
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.
Why is it that every time a review comes out, all these people come out of the woodwork to find little errors. Is it jealousy? Do you think you could write a better review and are jealous that he gets paid money for his?
/. should be told when the review their reading is factually acurate, or not. If he can't get the facts straight, what's the use of his opinion of them?
Have you been reading his reviews? I'm especially fond of his review of Jurassic Park 3, in which he admits he didn't even sit through it. I have, and could, write better reviews. I'm not jealous of the fact that Jon gets paid to write. I'm annoyed that he's so pretentious and sloppy about it (and getting worse.) I've been reading his 'reviews' on this site for a while and have let bigger errors slide. I pointed out the picky things that I did, because if he can't get details like that right, what use is the review? Why should people pay attention to his reviews if he cannot get the details of what he saw right?
As a reviewer, he has a great deal of latitude to give his opinion of what he saw, and I respect that. But, if he's gonna go beyond opinion to report what he actually saw, he should do so accurately, or not at all. People who read
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
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...
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
You should really check out the outtakes after the ending of FF8. Truely amazing stuff.
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!
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?
~ Leilah