Charlie Chan and the Curse of the Dragon Queen (1981) Reviews

• Character Actors Redeem Otherwise Uninspired Parody

  gftbiloxi2007-06-10

  During the 1930s Charlie Chan films were extremely popular with Asian American audiences; by the 1980s a later generation derided them for their use of Caucasian actors Warner Oland and Sidney Tolar in the title role. CHARLIE CHAN AND THE CURSE OF THE DRAGON QUEEN attempts to play to both sides of the coin, acting as both homage and parody of the original films. Not surprisingly, when released in 1981 it pleased neither. Set in San Francisco, DRAGON QUEEN finds Chan called out of retirement in Hawaii to uncover a serial killer whose trademark is "bizarre deaths;" he is assisted by his grandson, a bumbling Lee Chan Jr. who proves as much hindrance as help. Like most films that do not fulfill their promise, the problem begins with the script: it never really references the Chan films in any significant way, nor does it ever develop the fangs required of an effective parody. Nor are the two leads well suited to their roles: both Peter Ustinov and Angie Dickinson are wildly out of place as Chan and the Dragon Queen, utterly unfunny in every imaginable way. The saving grace of the film is in the supporting players. Perhaps the single most successful performer is Lee Grant in the role of Jimmy Jr.'s maternal and very Jewish grandmother. Grant aside, the always memorable Roddy McDowell and the brilliant Rachel Roberts jolt their every scene to life; Brian Keith plays against type as a hysterical and wildly profane police officer; and Richard Hatch is surprisingly good as Chan's bumbling grandson. Michelle Pfeiffer, in one of her earliest roles, is thrown in for good measure--and while the script gives her little to do beyond look pretty and giggle she does both extremely well. Even so, this is not enough to save the film, which slowly but surely dissolves into a morass of very obvious slapstick humor; when all is said and done, the end result is rather like THE GOOD EARTH MEETS THE PINK PANTHER. It has moments, but it is more awkward than amusing. Four stars for the efforts of Lee Grant, Roddy McDowell, Rachel Roberts and company, but--and in the words of the original screen Chan--most viewers should say "Thank you so much!" and pass along another way. GFT, Amazon Reviewer

• Comedy? Mystery? Neither!

  psionchronicles2012-08-01

  The short version: If you want to turn the sound off and look at Michelle Pfeiffer at some of her her dead sexiest shots, I'd give it a B. If not, it's a straight F, and I'm not talking the 59% kind of F--I'm talking the 0% kind of F. The long version: Waaaahooooo. Words fail me. I had to look long and hard to find a redeeming aspect of this movie, and the sole item I came up with is the casting of Ustinov as Chan. My girlfriend is a die-hard Charlie Chan fan and she was dozing blissfully halfway through. Writing: Did this picture even have writers? You know the game on Whose Line Is It Anyway where they all improvise a scene or musical on the spot? This entire movie seemed like that, as if they all loaded up on blow and improvised their over-the-top dialogue and gestures. If you repackaged "Rat Race" and called it a mystery, this might be what you'd end up with. Casting: This movie is a career low for virtually everyone in it. To outdo the miscasting in this flick, you'd have to have John Leguizamo as Moses. Richard Hatch in a Jerry-Lewis-type capacity simply doesn't work, especially after you've watched "Battlestar Galactica". Brian Keith's role as a cop with Tourettes makes his Hardcastle and McCormick days look like Oscar material. Why have Angie Dickinson even involved if you're not going to exploit her good looks? They could just as easily have used Cloris Leachman. I thought I'd seen the worst movie ever made after "Batman and Robin", but I may be rethinking that now. This flick was a pointless fart grenade.

• A sad attempt at making a Chan film.

  admjtk17012000-04-16

  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.

• Charlie Chan And The Curse Of The Dragon Queen (Clive Donner, 1981) *1/2

  Bunuel19762006-06-30

  Abysmal would-be spoof of the well-loved series of films featuring the Oriental detective, possibly made in the wake of (and a very long way from) the runaway box-office success of Neil Simon's MURDER BY DEATH (1976). The few bright moments provided by Chan's old flame Lee Grant and befuddled cop Brian Keith are completely sunk by the fatal miscasting of Peter Ustinov (who is truly terrible here and should have stuck to portraying Hercule Poirot), the painfully unfunny antics of his accident-prone son Richard Hatch and the absurd histrionics of Grant's faithful maid Rachel Roberts. The cast also features Angie Dickinson (underused as the Dragon Queen of the title), Roddy McDowall (as a wheelchair-bound and vaguely sinister butler), Michelle Pfeiffer as Hatch's fiancée and Johnny Sekka. Ironically, the film's story writer/producer Jerry Sherlock currently runs the Hollywood branch of The New York Film Academy; thankfully, I hadn't watched this mess before I embarked on their eight-week film-making program late last year! Besides, I suppose the fact that director Clive Donner had previously helmed the uncontrollable WHAT'S NEW PUSSYCAT? (1965) should have been fair warning against this one...

• Good Script, So-so Movie

  mcguffin20012004-05-27

  Although the script abounds with funny lines, the overall effect of this film is as though someone (Producer? Director? Studio?) took a deft Charlie Chan send up and stamped heavily on it, adding elements clearly inserted for commercial appeal rather than inherent value. These elements do their best to destroy what would have otherwise been an enjoyable hour and a half. As it stands, you'll want to see it for some stellar performances, and because you don't want to miss young Michelle Pfeiffer in one of her earliest roles. She lights up the screen. Peter Ustinov does his spiffy Warner Oland impression, and a talented cast does its best with the sparkly script but on-again-off-again plot.