L'aigle de Shaolin

John Liu and Hwang Jang Lee once again star together in this Ming Dynasty kung fu epic film. The movie deals with a Ming General being framed for murder. He must fight off soldiers while looking for the real murderer. The movie was choreographed by Yuen Woo Ping (along with Corey Yuen and Yuen Biao) and the fights are great. Liu's kicks are awesome, simply delightful. Hwang Jang Lee mostly uses the eagle's claw technique and doesn't kick as much as he should. However, the choreography isn't as complex and drawn-out as many movies during that time period are. It's fast-paced and very fluid. Overall, a must see for kung fu fans. You won't be disappointed.

This has to be the Best martial arts/ Kung Fu movie of the era! It can be hard to follow though so you must pay attention. There are 3 major guys who look alike and have similar sounding names even and then there are 2, 3 or 4 old master types who all look identical and in fact 2 of them are brothers in the film... LOL. I have to rewatch it of course to see if I have exaggerated too much for this review but as far as bad guys go, this bad master is one of the toughest I've seen in these kinds of movies. There are many fight scenes and most of the fighting is pretty realistic if you can suspend your disbelief of course and all are well choreographed.

I saw this movie during the bus ride on a school fieldtrip, and couldn't stop enjoying myself. Don't get me wrong, this movie is a bad movie, but that is where it triumphs. The usual cheesiness of these kung fu films makes us wonder if people actually took them seriously sometime in the 1970s. Definately a film to be seen with a crowd, preferably under whichever influence you prefer, "Invincible Armour" contains all the non-stop action and unintentional laughs one would expect from a B-Kung Fu movie. The soundtrack is reminiscent of an early Nintendo Game and the English dubbing highlights the acting. "Invincible Armour" also has possibly one of the most side-splittingly funny (and abrupt) endings ever seen in its genre (including a great allegory which involves a pair of eggs and a fist).

I recommend this movie for anyone looking for a light-hearted laugh and something to talk about the next day with their friends.

I recently rewatched the Shaw Brothers classic Invincible Armour (1977) on Tubi. The storyline follows a young man falsely accused of murder by the Ming dynasty leadership. Forced into hiding, he meets a martial arts expert who teaches him the Invincible Armour fighting style. Once he masters the technique, he sets out to seek revenge and clear his name.

Directed by See-Yuen Ng (Secret Rivals 1 & 2), the film stars John Liu (Secret Rivals 1 & 2), Phillip Ko (Eastern Condors), Yuen Biao (The Prodigal Son), Corey Yuen (Fist of Fury), and Hoi-Sang Lee (The 36th Chamber of Shaolin).

This is another fantastic Shaw Brothers production, immersing you in its world with striking sets, authentic costumes, and a great variety of weapons. The villain is perfectly cast, setting the tone for the entire film. The choreography is top-notch, and the sound effects, especially the weapon clashes, always bring a smile to my face. There's clever and diverse use of weapons throughout, adding to the film's entertainment value. The dialogue brings some humor, and as always, anything Yuen Biao is involved in is a treat. The fight in the woods and the final showdown are martial arts gold, exemplifying the best of the genre.

In conclusion, Invincible Armour is an underrated gem in the Shaw Brothers catalog and a must-see for martial arts fans. I'd rate it 9/10 and strongly recommend it to fans of the genre.

Proliferate as martial arts flicks have been in cinema over the years, and especially in the 70s and 80s, not all are made equal. Some particular names are so famous and trusted that they easily command respect; titles falling outside the bounds of such exemplars are less certain to be worth our while. Even without taking into account dubbing which more than not tends to be not just awful but altogether painful, there are all too many ways in which a film might fall short, and many have. For better and for worse, scarcely any sooner than it begins one can start to form lasting impressions about 'The invincible armour.' It certainly stands much taller than the worst among some of its brethren; on the other hand, make no mistake that this is certainly no exemplar, and this is nothing one needs to go out of their way to see. It's enjoyable enough if you come across it, but only as something light and frivolous on a lazy day when you want to turn off your brain.

The trouble here is that it's far too easy too tabulate the flaws and shortcomings, and they stack up considerably against the advantages the movie can claim. It's not for nothing that I mention the dubbing, for while this instance isn't the absolute worst I've ever heard, it's surely not far off, and those who provided the voiceovers should frankly be ashamed of themselves. True, this is not a fault of the picture in and of itself, and I can only try not to hold it against filmmaker See-Yuen Ng; it's also conceivable that in addition to dubbing, the original was re-cut or otherwise manipulated in being prepared for markets outside the region. The latter is less likely, however, and one way or another there's no disputing the frailties as we see them. The editing is brusque and overly excitable, and in cases where the footage is sped up, just tawdrily cartoonish; it too often seems like if the camera weren't zooming in or out, it wouldn't be operating at all. The audio is less than pristine, and the effusive use of sound effects becomes tiresome after a point.

Both Ng's direction in general, and the acting specifically, raise a skeptical eyebrow at no few points; there were choices made for some shots and scenes, and for some performances, that simply do not come off well. I recognize that in part some of what comes off as flagrant tackiness can just be chalked up to differences in film-making sensibilities, and indeed there are some discernible commonalities with the more esteemed works of Shaw Brothers, Golden Harvest, or the like - yet even if we accept this, the doing here seems outrageous and dubious beyond reason. Worse yet is Lu Tung's screenplay. It's not that there is no value here; on paper the basic story is solid enough, and there are some good ideas. Yet as it presents the narrative is decidedly thin; even if we grant allowances (that may or may not be deserved) for changes made for international markets, the dialogue and scene writing are often much less than fully convincing. To be honest I just don't think this is very good about elucidating the plot in those key scenes that speak to it most directly.

None of this completely stripes 'The invincible armour' of all possible entertainment, but it's a lot for us viewers to bear, and our favor is necessarily diminished in some capacity. This is terribly unfortunate, because there really is a lot to appreciate here. The filming locations and sets are lovely, and so are the costume design, hair, and makeup. The props and weapons are splendid. Above all, if it's kung fu action you want, it's kung fu action you'll get, and the choreography and stunts here are broadly outstanding. In some examples it may be undercut by the editing or cinematography, but at its best the martial arts on display are wonderfully enticing, or in cases downright beautiful. It may also true that there's not entirely as much action as one would like, but even at that it's unquestionably the core strength of the feature. The visual presentation at large, in fact, is overall terrific.

Ah, but would that the same careful effort that had gone into the stunts and fights, and into the otherwise imagery, had been applied across the board. I see the potential in the writing, but the script is sloppy and flimsy as it is; the direction, acting, cinematography, and editing alike are all overzealous and overcooked. Yes, the display of martial disciplines is fantastic, but if this is the value that this title has to offer, it's not as if we can't get it elsewhere. What, then, is left for us to grasp onto in 'The invincible armour?' I repeat that it's suitably fun for a quiet day, and we get what we came for. Our desires are fulfilled at a cost, though, and there's a lot that just doesn't come off well; this feels longer than it needs to be, and the last twenty minutes are kind of just a dull, overdone slog. It's possible I'm being too harsh; it's also possible I'm being too kind. I do like this 1977 flick, and I'm glad for those who get more out of it; I just firmly suggest keeping your eyes on the prize, and try to abide the adjoining inelegance as best you can.