rde

Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Sun Dragon (1979)
4/10
Your average everyday ho-hum run-of-the-mill kung fu flick
1 March 1999
You may think that the secret to becoming a kung fu master is years of practise and dedication. But let me tell you; you'll never be truly good unless you see your family killed by evil kung fu men who laugh crapulently as they inflict that final blow on your dying father. Only after witnessing this heinous crime will you be able to study under the master who lives down the road, ultimately revenging yourself.

But I digress. What of the this film? Invoking standard kung fu plot #1, with a couple of minor variations involving American actors, Zhu zai xie lei (or Sun Dragons as my copy was called) could, on a generous day, be described as below average. I'm in such a generous mood, so I'll try to be kind regarding this film's myriad flaws.

Let's start with the dubbing. This won't be a problem for everyone watching the film, but if you see the same print I did you're in for a treat; the single worst dub in the history of cinema. Trying to encapsulate such awfulness in a few words is impossible, it really does have to be heard to be believed. Then there's the really bad editing. The dismal plot. And the kung fu.

If you're of the opinion that quantity will make up for quality, then this is the film for you. Containing as it does more than the average number of fights, you'll be reasonably happy as long as you like watching one guy beating the crap out of six people at a time. However, these scenes are too frequent and too long to hold the interest for long, and I found myself keeping an eye on the foot fodder in background, patiently waiting for another opportunity to get kicked in the face by one of our heroes.

The traditional bosses, who we would expect to give us a decent show, fail to do so. After the unremarkable fights leading up to the end, the viewer has the right to at least hope for something better; this does not happen.

Overall, the film is sufficiently cheesy and fight-filled to keep one watching, and it does have a tendency to fall into the 'so bad it's watchable' category occasionally.

This is a movie that's bad enough that it shows you how a movie shouldn't be made, but not sufficiently bad that you'll find yourself unable to stick with it.
2 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
It's no Drunken Master, but good fun nonetheless
24 February 1999
Look up 'Shameless ripoff' in the dictionary, and you'll find a picture of Donnie Yen practising tai chi. The startlingly original plot -- our hero gets beaten up and sees his family killed, forcing him to learn a new style of martial arts so he can defeat the evil killer -- is enhanced by... well, okay. Not enhanced. But there are a few slight variations from tradition in an effort to give this film some semblance of a plot, such as the evil baddie being a loving daddy. But let us gloss over such trivia as plot --as did the director -- in favour of the characters and the kung-fu, the two essential ingredients in any movie of this type. Plot? Pah!

Anyway, the Sam the Seed character is a drunken tai chi master (that's a master of tai chi who's drunken, not a master of drunken tai chi. If you you were expecting differently from the film's title, tough). There are no amusing styles, and the tai chi bears as much resemblance to the actual art as does real-life kung fu to its cinematic equivalent. Do I sound like I didn't like the film? I hope not, because I *did* enjoy it, while recognising that it hadn't a shred of originality or thought behind it. Most of the fight scenes were good fun, and the bits in between, while unfunny, weren't as painfully so as they usually are in this sort of film. Yuen Woo Ping's reputation was made by Drunken Master, and this film was his most obvious attempt to cash in. I'm inclined to blame the studio more than the director for this though; not that blame particularly needs to be apportioned. You won't come away from this film thinking it was a masterpiece, but you won't be grumbling and demanding your money back either.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Almost entirely without merit; irredeemably awful.
1 February 1999
As the movie starts, you rapidly become aware of the fact that it's supposed to be a comedy. Not from any perceived attempts a humour, but from the ridiculous faces that are pulled by our protagonist as he gets into 'wacky' situations. Plot? Well, not really. Our bearded hero goes through the traditional ritual of making friends, beating up some bad guys, watching his friends die horribly and revenging them in a long and tedious manner. The kung-fu, while not as stilted as it would be in, say, a Chang Cheh movie, is nonetheless unconvincing and unspectacular. Even by the lowest of standards this movie has nothing going for it, and it should be avoided at all costs.
1 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not Jackie Chan's best film, but still worth a watch
28 January 1999
The first thing I noticed about this film is that it seems to star everyone who ever made a movie in Hong Kong; I seemed to spend the entire movie going 'oooh, it's Yuen Biao!' (or whoever). Plotwise, it's typical early Jackie Chan; frenetic action sequences punctuated by high farce. As in a lot of his early stuff, the farce can be a bit excruciating, but not so much that you'll feel obliged to hit fast-forward. The action sequences, while interesting, aren't as spectacular as in his later movies; the movie seems to try to be more of a plot-driven movie (and much as I love Jackie Chan, these aren't really his strong points). If for some bizarre reason you aren't yet a Jackie Chan fan, you'll probably want to check out Armor of God or Project A first. If I'm preaching to the converted, you'll find Oiji merrily passes an hour and a half, but it's by no means a masterpiece. It's got Anita Mui, though. She always makes a movie watchable.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed