Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Leofwine_draca 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.

dglink Three years after teaming up in "Shanghai Noon," Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson returned as Chon Wang and Roy O'Bannon in the often hilarious sequel, "Shanghai Knights." Chon's father, keeper of an imperial seal, is murdered in China, and the seal stolen. Seeking revenge, Chon seeks out his old buddy, Roy, who has become a waiter and ladies' man in the American West. Roy has wisely invested his and Chon's money in Zeppelins, rather than dubious automobiles, which sends the penniless pair to London, where they uncover a plot to murder the Royal Family. Events unfold at a fast pace, each plot turn funnier and more implausible than the last. Owen taunts a stoic sentry outside Buckingham Palace, insults the British about their accent and loss of the American Colonies, is bewildered by spotted dick, and becomes the funniest Ugly American tourist in Victorian England.The physically adept Chan is often dazzling; his carefully choreographed martial-arts movements are almost balletic at times and recall Charlie Chaplin, who, played by Aaron Johnson, has a small but critical part in the film. But even beyond Chan, the film overflows with sight gags and slapstick; references to silent comedy emerge throughout, and a revolving fireplace and a wax museum recall Abbott and Costello routines. Chan and Wilson work together like a polished comedy team. Although Owen has most of the best lines and Chan most of the best action, Chan is more than a straight man and has some comedic moments of his own. While lovely Fann Wong as Cho's baby sister, not to be confused with baby sitter, and Tom Fisher as Artie Doyle, a would-be writer of detective novels, have their moments, the film belongs to Chan and Owen. The script by Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, who also wrote "Shanghai Noon," is full of priceless lines, and the score by Randy Edelman incorporates several pop songs that provide amusing background to the frantic action. Director David Dobkin maintains a frenetic pace that will hold viewers' attention throughout the nearly two-hour running time. "Shanghai Knights" is that rare film that will leave viewers sorry to see end and wanting more.

slightlymad22 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......

ToddTee Far too many people seem concerned that the author of a comedy set in the late 19th century - or any time, in fact - doesn't adhere to facts. Isn't that why it's fictional? Give us a break and stop reporting that the type of button on Joe Blow's shirt wasn't used until 1892 and this movie is "set" in 1878 and so the button can't be used. Try enjoying it as a comedy and not worry about this meaningless "stuff". Nobody but you cares about such minutia. The rest of the world is too busy laughing to care if Charlie Chaplin was really alive at the time of the movie, or the movie industry existed or Arthur Conan Doyle was ever a police detective for Scotland Yard. The movie was a blast, and these deviations from history are part of what made it so.