Charlie Chan e la maledizione della regina drago

Having just spent the last several days reviewing past Charlie Chan movies in series chronological order, not to mention previously reviewing Charlie Chan in Paris back in 2006, I decided to finally watch this spoof of the great Honolulu detective that I just bought on VHS from a used video store. In summary, this was a clumsy, jumbled slapstick mess that only rated a few chuckles from me due to some witty lines near the end. And Peter Ustinov is wasted as Chan as he sounds more like an Englishman impersonating a Chinese man than more convincing portrayals from the likes of Warner Oland and Sidney Toler (I have yet to rewatch a Roland Winters one that I haven't seen in 30 years). And how convenient to have his grandson Lee, Jr.'s (Richard Hatch) parents (one of whom is Jewish) be killed in a car crash so as not to have Keye Luke make an appearance. ("No. 1 Son" as a young man here is played by David Hirokane) The fact that he's not there nor is Earl Derr Biggers credited as creator here is just as well since this movie does nothing to honor their contributions. And the supporting cast of Hatch, Lee Grant, Rachel Roberts, Roddy McDowall, Brian Keith, and, in one of her earliest roles, Michelle Pfeiffer are just wasted as well, never mind Angie Dickinson as the Dragon Queen. Director Clive Donner seems to want to do a Mel Brooks-like parody down to the Blazing Saddles-like climax but there's nothing the least bit creatively funny here. So on that note, I'd only recommend Charlie Chan and the Curse of the Dragon Queen for anyone curious about the treatment of this once-iconic hero. P.S. Screenwriter David Axelrod is another of these film and TV members I'm citing as born in my birthtown of Chicago, Ill.

This is the perfect example of how not to make a Charlie Chan film--or any film for that matter! It was meant as a comedy--but it's not funny. The mystery is lame. The acting is awful. A good cast wasted by a terrible script! Peter Ustinov is better than this and should have said "No!" to this one. A big waste of time and money. Only for absolute Chan fanatics and then only so they can say , "Yeah. I saw it." To paraphrase from a much better Chan film, "Bad film like dead fish--can not stand test of time!" See any of the 20th Century Fox Chan films from the 30's and early 40's instead.

This is a blandoid tale of the famous inscrutable detective Charlie Chan (Sir Peter Ustinov) , this time he is called out of retirement to help a San Francisco police inspector (Brian Keith) to solve a mysterious series of murders. As Detective Charlie Chan helps resolve the many bizarre murders and along the way confronts his old nemesis , the Dragon Queen (Angie Dickinson) , who is the prime suspect , and, ultimately , reveals the true identity of the murderer . His clumsy grandson Lee (recently deceased Richard Hatch) , who's getting married , (to Michelle Pfeiffer) "helps" , while has something to do with convoluted family shenanigans . The premise is the following one : whether the Dragon Queen behind these grisly killings or other supect criminals are involved into the slaughters are happening in San Francisco ¿. .Murderer force victim to eat 10,000 goldfish . First time fish stuff man. Murderer who turn victim into human baked potato have real appetite for crime.

Fun but average and excessively silly comedy dealing with the adventures of Charlie Chan while is investigating a twisted criminal case . Here all roles result to be bungling , idiot or daft , as Chan has an adoring botcher half-Jewish as grandson who in turn has an adoring halfwit doll of a girlfriend . As Charlie Chan/Peter Ustinov is accompanied by his bumbling grandson Lee Chan, Jr. : Richard Hatch as his sidekick , who is about to marry Michelle Pfeiffer , along with the hysterical , shouting grandmother : Lee Grant , and an eccentric maid : Rachel Roberts and the sympathetic wheelchair-bound Roddy MacDowall , too . It packs farce , noisy action with diverting chase sequences , humor , slapstick , slapdash , amusement , entertainment , several scenes with no much sense and one-lines all fall mirthlessly through the bottomless script . It was a whole mess with staggering cost approx 9 million dollars.

However , it contains a moving and lively musical score by Patrick Williams . As well as colorful and brilliant cinematography by Paul Mohlann . The motion picture was regularly directed by Clive Donner . He was a good craftsman who usually directed for TV , such as : Charlemagne, le prince à cheval , Merlín and the sword , The Scarlet Pimpernel , To Catch a King Dead , Adventures of thief of Baghdad, Man's Folly , Rogue Male , Spectre , Francis Drake , Oliver Twist , Christmas Carol and occassionally for cinema , such as : Stealing Heaven , Some People , Nothing But the Best , The Sinister Man , Marriage of convenience ,Heart of a Child , The Nude Bomb , Vampira , The caretaker ,Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush , Alfred the Great and his greatest hit : What's New Pussycat.

There are various renditions about detective Charlie Chan , these are the following ones : Charlie Chan in Paris 1935 by Lewis Seiler with Warner Oland , Mary Brian . Charlie's Chan's secret 1935 by Gordon Wiles with Warner Oland , Charles Quigley . Charlie Chan at the opera 1936 directed by Bruce Humberstone with Warner Oland . Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum 1940 by Lynn Shore with Sydney Toler . Charlie Chan in Rio 1941 by Harry Lachman with Sidney Toler , Mary Beth Hughs , Victor Jory . Charlie Chan and the secret service 1944 by Phil Rosen with Sidney Toler , Moreland , Arthur Loft . Rating : 5.5/10 . Mediocre but with some funny moments .

If the A.F.I. decides to vote on the 100 best kisses in American Film, they have to put Richard Hatch's and Michelle Pfeiffer's kiss in the top ten. Not only are we talking tung, but a 45 second smooch that makes the viewers laugh as well as cry. Fast forward to this scene first, the rest of the film can wait.

This thing is no fun whatever.

Too bad, because it had a lot going for it.

First, there is the Charlie Chan legacy. It was something that walked with the movie-going public during that decade when our current notions of visual narrative evolved. It wasn't particularly influential except for the early notion that our on-screen eye differed from those around him in matters of cognition encoded visually by race. The explicit irony was the Chineseness of the man was deliberately bogus.

Second there's the appearance of Peter Ustinov. For this bit, you have to know the absolute importance of the fictional Hercule Poirot in how film discovery evolved. Ustinov had just played Poirot in the to-then most high budget detective story filmed. So when we see him (or did when this was new) as a similarly portly, pretentious, internally cogitating detective, it matters.

Third, someone involved was intelligent enough to set the thing properly. It begins with a faded black and white "old-style" Chan movie with our modern characters but a couple decades previously. The mystery shown bears on the one in our movie. Later, at the end of our movie, the action takes us to an old moviehouse in Chinatown where a Charlie Chan movie festival is being held. (No mention in our film that Chan has a film persona.) The trademarked end (copied from Poirot) where Chan gathers all the suspects and tells each one why they are the murderer, until revealing the real murderer (after a separately scripted false alarm) — this happens in the scenery loft of the theater where a Chan film is playing below.

Naturally the chase to catch the murderer takes each character in front of the giant screen where the audience applauds them.

But its the truest of parodies. Usually parodies put new life into old form by adding a new layer of reference. Its a mistake to think that the "new life" would be funny, or more entertaining in any way. This is true parody: it took something that was dead and added enzymes to the decomposition.

There's one joke I appreciated. The Chan films are generally pretty vile in how they handle race. One trick is to set the bottom racially so that Chan can drift at the top in some cerebral racial advantage. That meant that the black driver was nearly subhuman. Stupid, ignoble.

The driver here is a black man also. Poised, attractive, articulate. We learn some noble things about him at the end.

Oh, another small matter of interest. It has a very young Michelle Pfeiffer, very pretty — before she had all that work done on her face.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.