Too self-serious, too blunt, not nearly enough fun
Against all odds, there was a lot to like about 1991's 'Tiger claws.' Most substantively, its better qualities included an unlikely deft balance of over the top ham-handedness (especially in the acting) with some refined elements (especially music and choreography) more typical of more serious action-thrillers. Recognizing that the very premise of this 1996 immediately seems more patently ridiculous, one can't help but wonder how the second would compare with the first. I discern both similarities and differences - but when all is said and done, there's no mistaking that 'Tiger claws II' lacks the same certain finesse that its predecessor possessed.
Composer Varouje made a strong impression in 'Tiger claws' with a synth-driven score that amplified a measure of charged ambience while boasting tasteful flourishes of light percussion. I'm pleased to see that they lend their skills to 'Tiger claws II' as well, this time offering music that is often tinged with an industrial edge. Then again, the tunes here are noticeably less dynamic and varied than they were before, bearing an emphatic repetitiveness that discretely diminishes the value.
The acting in 'I' very much leaned into the more consciously tactless side of the feature - uncomplicated, direct, and playful - while also maintaining the fluidity and ease of the plot development. In 'II,' however, much of that deliberate gaucheness is lost, and so too is the fun that came with it. It's as though returning screenwriter J. Stephen Maunder, now also assuming directorial responsibility, tried to cultivate performances of greater nuance, arguably befitting the more serious side of what his previous screenplay presented. Yet at the same time that the cast excises the cheeky delivery from their retinue, they apparently missed the memo otherwise - because all the way down the list of credits, all I see are depictions that are rather blunt and lifeless.
Meanwhile, the 1991 film carried no pretense about its nature, and was decidedly brusque in its narrative advancement, its tongue-in-cheek levity, and its delightfully robust scenes of martial arts action. Whether it's Maunder's direction, the screenplay they concocted with co-writer Andreas Kyprianou, or both that are to blame, here we're treated to somewhat meandering exposition that fails to hold much sway at all, and a noted dearth of stimulating action until the last third of the length. What displays of martial arts we do get are much more staggered, and less actively engaging. And while the first film was strong enough in every other way that it could have been played as a serious action-thriller, eschewing the more wittily amusing bits - among other faults here, the languishing pace and definite lack of subtlety mean that the general irreverence is sorely missed. Very simply: 'Tiger claws II' is more self-important, and most certainly more stark and frank, but not nearly as much fun.
I'm glad that Cynthia Rothrock and Bolo Yeung return from the first film, along with most prominent star Jalal Merhi. Yet if one were to hope that a second go would elevate Rothrock above "second fiddle" or give Yeung more time on screen - well, that didn't happen. Technically we do see more of Yeung, but he's given even less to do here, I feel, than in the antecedent. Rothrock's role is actually reduced further, too, to the point that Linda Masterson is almost a bit part. And, why, even protagonist Tarek Richards (Merhi) seems flat and static, relatively uninvolved in the feature as the story lackadaisically moves along. Who or what is the star of 'Tiger claws II,' if none of these returning cast members? Believe it or not, I think it's the intangible air of crude, drab forthrightness that takes center stage here as it sheds all the flair that made the 1991 film so enjoyable. The exciting atmosphere provided in 1991, and boosted by Varouje's score then, is exchanged here for an oppressive atmosphere of dull, bland sobriety.
Every aspect of the screenplay feels altogether dispirited, apathetic, and colorless. To add insult to injury, scene writing and narrative alike seem disjointed and unconvincing, and at once forced and vague, as they build to a third act, climax, and unresolved ending that are at no time communicated with any of the urgency or vigor that one would expect of an action-thriller. It's as though Maunder and Kyprianou started out with some well-considered ideas, but ran out of steam well before the conclusion, and just threw together what they could to bring the picture to a close.
I began watching with mixed expectations - I liked 'Tiger claws,' but sequels are always dicey. My opinion was never very high throughout the runtime, and it has continued to fall after the movie ended. All the strength that the 1991 film bore is sapped from this follow-up, to the point that even if you're a particular fan of someone in the cast, I rather disbelieve that there's any compelling reason to watch it. True, you could still do a lot worse than 'Tiger claws II,' but whether you're judging it side by side with its predecessor or on its own merits, I very much think this just doesn't stand up. There's just no reason to seek it out - and even if you chance upon it, you can do a lot better.
Composer Varouje made a strong impression in 'Tiger claws' with a synth-driven score that amplified a measure of charged ambience while boasting tasteful flourishes of light percussion. I'm pleased to see that they lend their skills to 'Tiger claws II' as well, this time offering music that is often tinged with an industrial edge. Then again, the tunes here are noticeably less dynamic and varied than they were before, bearing an emphatic repetitiveness that discretely diminishes the value.
The acting in 'I' very much leaned into the more consciously tactless side of the feature - uncomplicated, direct, and playful - while also maintaining the fluidity and ease of the plot development. In 'II,' however, much of that deliberate gaucheness is lost, and so too is the fun that came with it. It's as though returning screenwriter J. Stephen Maunder, now also assuming directorial responsibility, tried to cultivate performances of greater nuance, arguably befitting the more serious side of what his previous screenplay presented. Yet at the same time that the cast excises the cheeky delivery from their retinue, they apparently missed the memo otherwise - because all the way down the list of credits, all I see are depictions that are rather blunt and lifeless.
Meanwhile, the 1991 film carried no pretense about its nature, and was decidedly brusque in its narrative advancement, its tongue-in-cheek levity, and its delightfully robust scenes of martial arts action. Whether it's Maunder's direction, the screenplay they concocted with co-writer Andreas Kyprianou, or both that are to blame, here we're treated to somewhat meandering exposition that fails to hold much sway at all, and a noted dearth of stimulating action until the last third of the length. What displays of martial arts we do get are much more staggered, and less actively engaging. And while the first film was strong enough in every other way that it could have been played as a serious action-thriller, eschewing the more wittily amusing bits - among other faults here, the languishing pace and definite lack of subtlety mean that the general irreverence is sorely missed. Very simply: 'Tiger claws II' is more self-important, and most certainly more stark and frank, but not nearly as much fun.
I'm glad that Cynthia Rothrock and Bolo Yeung return from the first film, along with most prominent star Jalal Merhi. Yet if one were to hope that a second go would elevate Rothrock above "second fiddle" or give Yeung more time on screen - well, that didn't happen. Technically we do see more of Yeung, but he's given even less to do here, I feel, than in the antecedent. Rothrock's role is actually reduced further, too, to the point that Linda Masterson is almost a bit part. And, why, even protagonist Tarek Richards (Merhi) seems flat and static, relatively uninvolved in the feature as the story lackadaisically moves along. Who or what is the star of 'Tiger claws II,' if none of these returning cast members? Believe it or not, I think it's the intangible air of crude, drab forthrightness that takes center stage here as it sheds all the flair that made the 1991 film so enjoyable. The exciting atmosphere provided in 1991, and boosted by Varouje's score then, is exchanged here for an oppressive atmosphere of dull, bland sobriety.
Every aspect of the screenplay feels altogether dispirited, apathetic, and colorless. To add insult to injury, scene writing and narrative alike seem disjointed and unconvincing, and at once forced and vague, as they build to a third act, climax, and unresolved ending that are at no time communicated with any of the urgency or vigor that one would expect of an action-thriller. It's as though Maunder and Kyprianou started out with some well-considered ideas, but ran out of steam well before the conclusion, and just threw together what they could to bring the picture to a close.
I began watching with mixed expectations - I liked 'Tiger claws,' but sequels are always dicey. My opinion was never very high throughout the runtime, and it has continued to fall after the movie ended. All the strength that the 1991 film bore is sapped from this follow-up, to the point that even if you're a particular fan of someone in the cast, I rather disbelieve that there's any compelling reason to watch it. True, you could still do a lot worse than 'Tiger claws II,' but whether you're judging it side by side with its predecessor or on its own merits, I very much think this just doesn't stand up. There's just no reason to seek it out - and even if you chance upon it, you can do a lot better.
- I_Ailurophile
- Mar 7, 2022