PDA

View Full Version : Rush Hour 2- fun, but painfully unoriginal


Tony Keats
23-12-2001, 14:52
I recently rented the (feature-packed) R2 disc and although I enjoyed the film in a brainless way, I think its fair to say that this genre is almost completely spent.

These formulaic 'buddy' flicks have been with us for a long while now and the novelty has well and truly worn-off for me. The Rush Hour films have the privelege of Jackie Chan's presence, so they aren't half as hopeless as they otherwise would be. This time round though I was really struggling to get excited about the story and calling it contrived would be an understatement. Obviously I realise that the main aim of this sequel was to be entertaining, but just inverting ideas from the original and having Tucker improvise in countless scenes isn't really enough to make it a memorable experience.

The action scenes are pretty impressive (on the whole anyway) and are definitely the highlight of the film. They don't go on for as long as maybe they should do IMO though and the traditional Chan pacing isn't really evident in the finished product. He did contribute lots of ideas to the scenes of course, but Ratner boils them all down to the essentials (largely just retaining a few high-spots) using his more western ideals and tight editing.

It's worth seeing if you like this kind of thing, but I wouldn't recommend it as a long-term purchase. The disc itself is very appealing though and does have some satisfying extra features including numerous featurettes, a commentary and deleted scenes with optional commentary (a DTS-ES track is also available for those who have the required equipment).

Basically, this is a real "seen it all before" film. It has a plot about murders/counterfeiting which is unbelievably old-hat and failed to engage me at all. If Tucker was hilarious then I wouldn't mind so much, but he's no Eddie Murphy (although he often plays this part as though he were!). There are too many loose scenes where Tucker is just talking rubbish (probably improvised) and Chan isn't really participating at all.

Still, the explosions sound suitably beefy and the fight-scenes are certainly worth your time (one viewing is probably enough though). Also, Lalo Schifrin provides a fitting soundtrack which came as a real surprise to me (I thought he was dead!). Anyway, it's probably exactly the kind of movie you expect it to be, but for some reason I expected more.

EDIT- An "official" review was posted simultaneously!

Robby
24-12-2001, 09:31
I know what you're saying Tony about the buddy genre is easily on it's last legs, but i do find Rush Hour to be one of the exceptions. Looking forward to seeing this one as the original has to be one of the most watched discs i have.

I think a lot of people are put off by Chris Tucker which is a shame, he is no Eddie Murphy, your right, but i do find him funny to watch all the same. I may be alone here!.

I have ordered this with ********* so i'll post what i think in the New Year.
:)

mr procter
24-12-2001, 19:07
Sat and enjoyed this movie today

having never seen Chris Tucker before I did'nt know what to expect

the guy is funny, and the movie has some stunts that I have never seen before.

It is virtually impossible to make a film these days that is Original,

but it wont stop me watching them. this has a really good sound track (DTS)

that Chinese bird Looks the part
mmm yummy

Grumpy
24-12-2001, 21:14
I have been a Jackie Chan fan for years and this is one DVD that will not be added to my collection.

P1
27-12-2001, 21:14
I have just completed watching Rush Hour 2.

It is better than the first one, more stunts and even Chris Tucker now seems to be funny rather than a pain in the butt.

But the buddy movie must soon die, nothing new in this genre has appeared in a long time.

utero
28-12-2001, 11:00
Rush Hour 2 is pretty enjoyable fluff worth watching purely for Chan's acrobatics. Personally I find tucker a bit annoying and he's no Eddie Murphy.

I think this summer should see Chan with a more enjoyable sidekick in The Tuxedo - Jennifer Love Hewitt :nuts:

Robby
11-01-2002, 11:25
Finally watched this last night. This film is a screeeeeaamm. I loved it. I can see it being just as watched as the original. I think the short running time has a lot going for it. I do find Tucker very funny and he seems to have a great friendship with Jackie. When those two are on screen (thankfully most of the time) it's a laugh riot (IMO;) ).

I'm not sure what i make of Brett Ratner. He seems a very able director, makes sure he's stars are never more than 5 minutes away. But there is something about these two films that make it feel and look like it was done in the Eighties.

Anyway regardless. I thought it was a great way to spend 90 minutes and i can't wait for the third. Great DVD too.

ChrisAllenFiz
11-01-2002, 13:46
Originally posted by mr procter


It is virtually impossible to make a film these days that is Original,



If I thought that was true then I would give up watching films forever. I saw many films last year that I thought were original (memento being one obvious example), or at least had some outstandingly original idea in them.

While I enjoy the more run of the mill fare such as rush hour 2, I would prefer it if hollywood made more of an effort to break out of the "if its new it may not sell" mould of filmmaking.

Chris

Tony Keats
11-01-2002, 18:24
Posted by ChrisAllenFiz

While I enjoy the more run of the mill fare such as rush hour 2, I would prefer it if hollywood made more of an effort to break out of the "if its new it may not sell" mould of filmmaking.
uuChris

I agree, but the lack of completely original concepts is only of concern because the established ones are so obviously running on empty (and there are exceptions). All the big-money movies seem to be modelled on something else (Pearl Harbor on Titanic, TFATF on Gone in 60 Seconds etc) they're not copies as such, they're just similar enough to establish the expected audience (for the studios benefit more than anything). 'Hollywood' is very reluctant to alter the boundaries of what they can offer because of the financial risks involved, but that won't change until the public vote with their feet (and they won't!).

Robby- I'm not in opposition to any of your comments either and I realise that simplistic entertainment is sometimes more than enough. I don't know why, but I was convinced that Rush Hour 2 would offer something new compared to the first one. I assumed there'd be one or two surprises just to spice things up a bit and it's a sequel which gives them a head-start in terms of character set-ups etc. Merely offering more of the same seemed like a wasted opportunity to me.

Also, too many things happened by chance and the plot was just a mish-mash of every other buddy flick there's ever been IMO. That's not necessarily a bad thing on its own, but the script was obviously wafer-thin and the actual dialogue didn't seem very important (and the featurettes show how line changes were made without a care). Before anyone starts, yes, I know there are different priorities with a film like this, but why can't we have the usual carefree enjoyment AND a good script?.

Like I said in my first post, I did enjoy it for what it was, but if they just keep things the same for the proposed sequels (Jackie's reportedly eager for more) I think the repetetiveness and formulaic feel will start to annoy everyone else eventually too.

Michael Mackenzie
12-01-2002, 10:02
Originally posted by Robby
I'm not sure what i make of Brett Ratner. He seems a very able director, makes sure he's stars are never more than 5 minutes away. But there is something about these two films that make it feel and look like it was done in the Eighties.I think he does well with the Rush Hour films, but I shudder to think what he'll do to Red Dragon...

Idle Child
12-01-2002, 12:58
Originally posted by Robby
I do find Tucker very funny and he seems to have a great friendship with Jackie.

i wouldn't have said so. i always get the impression when watching him that he has an air about himself like he's the bigger star, and if a lot is improv, i think it's actually quite rude or brash. i don't really buy their "buddiness" at all, but i think the film is worth a watch, and certainly better than the first one (where Tucker's character was just plain offensive to Chan's).

Goblin
13-01-2002, 15:44
chan and tucker worked well together...rush hour 2 was even better then the first! well recommended

simonb
14-01-2002, 11:03
Guess I'm the token member who didn't like it then! Painfully strained film I thought, and a tired retread of the first movie. Always beware the film where the outtakes are the best bit...!

(Thought Chan found a more able partner in Owen Wilson - thought Shanghai Noon was great!)

urruri
14-01-2002, 12:15
Saw it the other day and have to say that I thought it was awful IMHO.

dvdfan10
18-01-2002, 03:54
I"ve seen this movie 13 times so far . i like both still 2 is awsome the fight scene i like is were they were getting a masauge you know what i mean. that was a funny part to . you can tell im a rush hour fan ? can"t wait till 3 comes out jakie chan chris tucker played there parts ?

tpr007
18-01-2002, 10:35
Well,
you can read what I thought of Both RH's at Dragons Den (below) - as well as Chans superior films...