Movie Night: Project A

Year: 1983

Director: Jackie Chan

Production Company: Authority Films

Leads: Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung Kam-Bo

ProjectAOne thing Netflix does have a lot of is old Jackie Chan movies. I have to be careful to avoid the R-rated ones with Little Satis (it’s usually just for Chris Tucker‘s foul mouth), but there are plenty that are pretty much just harmless fun. A particular joy are those from the eighties before he moved to Hollywood, because some of them just don’t make any sense. We watched The Accidental Spy once (fair enough, that one’s from 2001), which is about a salesman who just happens to be a karate master. Fair enough.

At least in Project A Jackie Chan is an ex-cop turned sailor, so the martial arts is a little more explainable…maybe? Anyway, long story short, pirates are attacking the Chinese navy in Hong Kong, and despite all their efforts, they always seem to be one step ahead of the navy’s plans. The admiral, a kindly old man, is discharged, the ships abandoned, and naturally all the sailors become police officers. It turns out, however, that it was the police who were giving the information to the pirates in the first place. With the help of a shadowy, overweight kung-fu-chopping madman friend and a haughty police officer who nonetheless has his heart in the right place, our hero manages to fool the cops, bust an arms trade with the pirates, sneak into their island cove, duke it out with the super-badass pirate bad guy and escape just before it all blows to hell.

Frankly there isn’t a whole lot to be considered here. The whole thing feels a little bit like a Chinese James Bond film with martial arts. IMDB labels it as a “costume drama”, and the costumes certainly couldn’t be more dramatic. The pirates are wonderfully stereotyped, complete with swords and bare chests and pantaloons and drooping pencil mustaches:

535728-projecta_d

All in all, the main reason to watch this movie – the main reason to watch any Jackie Chan movie – is for the stunts, and of those there are numerous and spectacular examples. The cycling stunts through the back alleys of Hong Kong are splendid, and when Jackie Chan manages to climb to the top of a forty-foot flagpole, jump onto a roof and crash through a loft window, all with his hands manacled, my heart did actually do a little leap. Every fight scene is beautifully choreographed, which is simply a pleasure to watch. There is humor, but often the true laughs are at the attempts to deliberately be funny – the crudeness of the slapstick is itself amusing (for example, when Chan’s bicycle seat falls off without his knowing, and he sits down on the bare pole).

There was one thing about the film that stuck out to me, and it was something that I personally was very appreciative of. Unlike many of his more modern films (and unlike most films these days), the on-location filming in the streets and back alleys of Hong Kong lends a wonderful authenticity that is so often missing these days. No spectacular sets, no jumping out of airplanes or off skyscrapers; the story is a simpler one, and so the locations are simpler. It makes one realize that huge sets are very impressive and all, but it can actually take away from what you’re supposed to be impressed by: the actors, and the action.

★ ★ ★ ★ ☆

The Devil’s Details: Bryan Singer the Giant Slayer

jtgs10I’m rather looking forward to Jack the Giant Slayer. It’s my kind of movie – epic fantasy, more CGI than live action, and a plot that’s frankly just an excuse for two hours of visual excess. I thought it might be a remake of Jack the Giant Killer from back in 1962, which Little Satis and I watched a while back. It isn’t, really; it’s as different from the original fairytale as the first movie was.

In all of this, I honestly never gave a second thought to the cast and crew, and certainly not the director. Didn’t really know who Bryan Singer was – I’d heard his name somewhere, but couldn’t really associate it with anything. But, for some reason, he really, really wants me to know that he directed it:

jtgs10

I can’t recall ever seeing this on a movie poster before. I get the whole “from the director of” ploy: if you liked that, then you’ll love this. I remember this vividly from the previews of 10,000 B.C.; all I really saw was “from the director of Independence Day“. I recall wondering what on earth the two movies had to do with each other, and why the director made any difference. But, the big difference was that it was never pointed out who that director was (some dude called Roland Emmerich). Frankly, I didn’t care; even if the two were related in some way, it didn’t matter much to me who the director was – I knew it wasn’t Steven Spielberg or Ridley Scott.

10000bc-poster1

10000bc-poster1So why is it so important to Bryan Singer that we know he directed the movie? And of all things, why point out he’s the director of X-Men? Why not The Usual Suspects? That would tell me this guy is a masterful director. (Of course, it would also tell me Jack the Giant Slayer was a mind-bending crime flick with an ending twist to rival The Sixth Sense.)

Is it just me, or does this seem just a tad self-congratulatory? Have you ever seen this before?

Daily Photo: February 13, 2011

Aren't I a sweet husband? At least one day a year.

Aren’t I a sweet husband? At least one day a year.

I’m not sure how this happened to be the 13th of February, but it was that year’s Valentine’s Day breakfast. I didn’t have a mold for heart-shaped pancakes, so I made one out of paper and foil. It barely held together, and almost caught fire.