Iceman

Most negative reviews of the movie you can find on Internet are right. I don't know if it was the director or the writers but a lot in the story is downright terrible and makes absolutely no sense. The filmmakers took almost no time building up momentum for key scenes in the story and properly explaining the logic behind the characters' origins and motives and just jumps right away into the essential parts taken from the original 1989 movie ICEMAN COMETH.

The result is a hugely unfitting film with lots of nonsense humor (many "wtf moments from Wang Baoqiang, Yu Kang, and even Donnie Yen himself), incoherent acting performances, and obvious story loops. Unlike the original movie, the filmmakers also couldn't balance seriousness and comedy at all. Watching everything is like watching several types of movie genres rolled into one. It gets to the point where one would scratch the head thinking what the hell director Law Wing Cheong wanted to achieve and whether he lost it somewhere along the process of making the movie. Because the overall narrative is so confusing.

That being said, I think Donnie's action choreography is the saving grace. I especially enjoy the nightclub fight scene and the action finale on the bridge, which features creative ideas -- the concept behind Donnie's action direction forsakes the usual HK style exchanges of punches, kicks, blocks< because it's mostly situational and seeks dramatic tension -- wirework, and decent-looking CGI. All scenes, including the brief action sprinkles scenes, are shot and edited exceptionally well. And something that surprises me: It has the same sound design from SPL, FLASH POINT, and IP MAN quadrilogy giving the impact of the hits and blocks an edgier/meaty feel to it. However, unfortunately, they aren't in great numbers and, beside the ones I mentioned, they aren't lengthy either so what's present aren't enough to hold the whole movie.

Overall, it's yet another good example of bad remakes, and ending up as one of Donnie Yen's worst movies in recent years -- easily making SPECIAL ID look much better in comparison -- and ever (it's up there with CIRCUS KIDS and IRON MONKEY 2). This review has now given me little hope for the sequel being good in its' entirety, although I'm sure the action will be good. The bad reputation is very spot on!

Donnie Yen is in my opinion the best martial arts movie-star out there right now, especially since Jackie Chan and Jet Li have slowed down and Tony Jaa is only just now getting off to a shaky start with the poorly reviewed Tom Yum Goong 2.

That being said, it's a major disappointment that Donnie Yen's latest, "Iceman", is a miss for the now middle aged (not that you can tell) martial arts master.

Iceman is directionless, confusing, poorly paced, and makes very poor use of Donnie Yen's truly impressive and astonishing martial arts skills. The script is a fish out of water/man out of his time type story, that we've seen before, with nothing new to offer. Some other reviewers have drawn comparisons between this and the Marvel Comics character Captain America, and I can assure the only similarity is that both are frozen men who wake up in different time periods. Rip Van Winkle is the same story but is that also similar?

No, Iceman is in a league of it's own poor storytelling, a remake of a previous film with the same premise from the 80's, this rehash has totally juvenile humour that always misses it's mark, a contrived love story, and a main character capable of ridiculous things with little to no explanation. Captain America is at least explained to have a DNA altering serum in his body, learning Kung Fu doesn't make you superhuman.

They don't even make good use of the fish-out-of-water story and Yen's character adjusts to modern times with ridiculous ease and little incident. Granted, some of the humor may have been lost in translation for me, however I'll say that other foreign comedies, like those of the great Stephen Chow, are always great for a laugh in my book.

Absolutely don't go into this thinking you'll see Donnie Yen kick any kind of butt in major degree, the few fight scenes this movie does have are poorly constructed, filled with bad CGI, and nothing new or close to his potential.

Iceman is like the ice-age altogether, worth avoiding.

"Iceman" begins with a ship carrying what looks like three cryogenic tubes. Then, in a flashback, a Chinese officer is being accused of conspiring with the dreaded Japanese pirates back in the 17th century. However, when the Emperor of China's men try to apprehend him, his is transported to the present day Hong Kong--and you realize he's one of the guys in the cryo tubes. Here in the 21st century, he's out of place but also amazingly clever and helpful. I liked this part of the film. Soon, however, he's caught up in all sorts of intrigues and it all has to do with the Golden Wheel of Time and the god Shiva's penis (I am serious about this last part) and a bazillion cops trying to kill him. Can this visitor from the past take on a HUGE army of cops and win?

When "Iceman" began, it felt a lot like I'd seen this sort of plot in another film. The French film "Les Visiteurs" (remade in the US as "Just Visiting") is a silly film where the hero is magically transported many centuries into the future. Here in the present, the knight is completely out of his element and is a bumbler. The film is played strictly for laughs. Here with "Iceman", however, when the soldier is magically transported into the future, he inexplicably is like superman! Not only does he possess nearly god-like fighting and intellectual powers at times, but he also seems to magically understand technology--and he inexplicably uses the internet and destroys surveillance cameras! To me, none of this really made a lot of sense. How could a man from centuries before know how to do an internet search or understand what cameras are?! For me, this was a big problem with Iceman--it just didn't make a lot of sense. If a man is somehow transported to today from the distant past, the comical way "Les Visiteurs" handled it seems much, much more likely--with the guy drinking from toilets and getting into one problem after another. Instead, it goes from being a bit charming to being very confusing and very violent. Then, it becomes a huge, explosive finale where there are tons of explosions and violence and mindless mayhem. The charm just doesn't last very long.

So is it worth seeing? Well, if you have nothing better to do...sure. But as I mentioned above, quite a bit about the hero just didn't make a lot of sense in "Iceman". Instead, while I never loved "Les Visiteurs", I'd recommend you see it over "Iceman".

Judging from the cover I thought this was a period piece Martial Arts movie. But it does play in the modern times (that's in the 21st century). It might be convoluted and not good in its appeal to tell a story, but it does have Donnie Yen in it. And while he has done some way better movies (just the IP Man trilogy alone, but many more of course), he's always a pleasure to watch (fight).

Sometimes the comedy does work, though it's very plain to put it mildly. But while this isn't a masterpiece by any means, there have been worse movies. And I've seen a couple of them too. So this is entertaining to a degree, but if you don't watch too many movies, you may wanna skip this

Why is Donnie Yen doing something so idiot? Apart for some decent fight scenes, the plot is stupid, the acting is superficial, the comedy side is really low level, and the end, is it a joke? I never EVER in my all life saw ANY film ending worst than that! It makes absolutely NO SENSE at all. I cannot spoil it, but I at least warn you, because personally I can tolerate a mediocre film if at least the end makes a sense, and I can accept with sadness a good film which ends badly, but it makes me very angry if after losing time with a stupid movie I am given what probably is the worst end in the history of Cinema! Donnie Yen, if you have to keep going on like this, just stop acting and let us remember you for your good films.

EDIT: I have found out that they are supposed to make a sequel. 1) they could and should have made it VERY CLEAR since the beginning, that this was a movie in two parts. 2) nevertheless, there is NO WAY that this end can be acceptable. Under no possible excuse or circumstance.