[Screen It]

(2003) (Jackie Chan, Owen Wilson) (PG-13)

If you've come from our parental review of this film and wish to return to it, simply click on your browser's BACK button.
Otherwise, use the following link to read our complete Parental Review of this film.

Action/Adventure/Comedy: An Asian sheriff teams up with a laidback cowboy and travels to London to find the person responsible for his father's murder.
It's 1887 and Chon Wang (JACKIE CHAN) is the sheriff in Carson City, Nevada who can't believe that the exploits of his former associate, Roy O'Bannon (OWEN WILSON), have now been put into print. Yet, Wang soon has more to worry about when he gets word that his father has been murdered, the Imperial Seal his family had been guarding was stolen, and that his sister, Chon Lin (FANN WONG), has followed the murderers to London.

Accordingly, Wang heads for New York to find Roy and reclaim his half of the money Roy was supposed to invest for them. Not surprisingly, he's lost that and is in trouble with the law again. After eluding them, Wang and Roy then stow away in a cargo hold to get to London. Once there, and following a run-in with Charlie (AARON JOHNSON), a larcenous street urchin, as well as a street gang, they meet Artie Doyle (THOMAS FISHER) of Scotland Yard.

He's happy that they helped nab that gang, but is unhappy to report that Lin has been jailed due to reportedly trying to kill Lord Rathbone (AIDAN GILLEN), the Queen's cousin and tenth in line for the throne. It turns out he's in cahoots with Wu Chan (DONNIE YEN) who wants to use the Imperial Seal to gain control of China all while helping Rathbone eliminate those ahead of him on the power list.

From that point on, and as Roy becomes sweet on Lin, the three of them, with help from Artie and Charlie, set out to prove the conspiracy and avenge the murder of Wang and Lin's father.

OUR TAKE: 5 out of 10
Unless we're talking about documentaries or historical dramas, most movies are, in one way or another, visualized bits of make-believe. Accordingly, it usually doesn't take much to get the average viewer to suspend their disbelief and go along with whatever is offered.

That is, unless any such film breaks or violates the rules of its own, particular universe. While reaction to such occurrences depends on the severity and number of such violations, they're usually not a good thing, regardless of whether they're purposeful or not.

Such is the case with "Shanghai Knights," the sequel to "Shanghai Noon," the martial arts-laden western that paired Jackie Chan ("The Tuxedo," the "Rush Hour" movies) with Owen Wilson ("I Spy," "Zoolander") in hopes of being as big as Chan's other mismatched pair hit, "Rush Hour." As was the case with the first film, we're supposed to marvel at Chan's acrobatic and creative fight sequences and laugh at the culture clash between his and Owen's laidback surfer-style cowboy antics.

All of that occurs, but the thing most educated people are apt to notice is the cultural revisionism that runs rampant throughout the production. While a bit of that was present last time around - Wilson's character started calling Chan's character "John Wayne" since he couldn't pronounce his name and a ZZ Top song played during a barroom brawl - it's overdone to the point of annoyance here.

Not only does the John Wayne bit continue, but we're also subjected to Forrest Gump style revisionist history or remarks regarding Jack the Ripper, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes, Charlie Chaplin, Hollywood movies, zeppelins, Stonehenge and more. For a while, some of that and the various period songs (from the wrong period, natch) are cute, but they start piling up so deep that the quality wanes much like the related punch lines (since we see them coming long before they arrive).

To make matters worse, and unlike Gump, the timelines for such matters are incorrect, a point that will likely remove some viewers from the proceedings as they ponder what is and isn't temporally and historically correct or possible.

That's not meant to imply that anything about the plot by screenwriters Alfred Gough & Miles Millar ("Shanghai Noon," "Showtime") is deep or complicated. In fact, one gets the sense that they and director David Dobkin ("Clay Pigeons") threw in such material simply as a means to differentiate this film from the first.

Sure, the setting (London) and villains -- Aidan Gillen ("My Kingdom," TV's "Queer as Folk") and Donnie Yen ("Blade II," "Highlander: Endgame") - are different, but the formula is the same. In short, Wilson does his normal contemporary surfer shtick while Chan amazes with his agile physical prowess. The latter is far more imaginative and entertaining than the former, resulting in a mediocre hit or miss effort.

Despite the nearly nonstop flurry of action and comedy, most everything feels rather flat or repetitive. When things aren't repeated from the first film (which is to be expected from a sequel) or run into the ground (all of the England bashing), other bits are lifted from other films (such as the revolving fireplace fight scene and the hands on the statue's bust moment from two of the Indiana Jones films).

The one thing the film has going for it is Chan and his highly choreography and elaborate fight, stunt and action scenes. While there's nothing really new here, Chan puts enough nimble twists on previous stunts - including a fun homage to "Singin' in the Rain" (even if it's more than 60 years before Gene Kelly would do the same bit) - that they certainly make the rest of the material more bearable.

While physically proficient for the parts, Gillen and Yen otherwise come off as flat and less than memorable villains. Fann Wong ("YŁeliang de mimi," "Zhen xin hua"), on the other hand, seems poised to accept the martial arts baton from Michelle Yeoh. Aaron Johnson ("Tom & Thomas") and Thomas Fisher ("The Mummy Returns," "Firelight") are adequate as the two historical figures, even if the temporal and historical aspects about them are wrong.

Granted, nothing about the film is meant to be taken seriously. Yet, while the same was true for the first film that I rather enjoyed, this one just didn't do it for me. In fact, the most entertaining part of it was the outtakes during the end credits. Perhaps one day we'll get a movie consisting of just them. Until then, we'll have to put up with the passable, but rather disappointing "Shanghai Knights." It rates as just a 5 out of 10.

Reviewed January 23, 2003 / Posted February 7, 2003

If You're Ready to Find Out Exactly What's in the Movies Your Kids
are Watching, Click the Add to Cart button below and
join the Screen It family for just $7.95/month or $47/year

[Add to Cart]

Privacy Statement and Terms of Use and Disclaimer
By entering this site you acknowledge to having read and agreed to the above conditions.

All Rights Reserved,
©1996-2019 Screen It, Inc.