Quick Movie Review: Rush Hour 2 (2001)

As a kid, you watch Star Wars and probably have no clue what it's really about. You know its film universe is amazing and you really wish lightsabers were real. Everything just looks cool while it's happening. Rush Hour 2 is the comedy version of that. Laugh-out-loud humor and killer action sequences with a premise that doesn't matter to us as kids. As an adult, I now see the difference between Star Wars and Rush Hour. Because I'm still not sure what Rush Hour 2 is about.

I mean, I get that Detective Lee (Jackie Chan) and Detective Carter (Chris Tucker) are together in Hong Kong and that they have to track down a criminal mastermind who keeps killing people. After Google got involved, I now know that they are trying to find out who killed two customs agents at the US Embassy. There's a gang leader, Ricky Tan, who they suspect is behind it, but they're unsure. We're also unsure. But it doesn't matter. It's all really funny.

In this one, Detective Carter isn't in the driver's seat. They're not in LA, but in Hong Kong, where Carter now has to abide to Lee and his set of rules. The premise utilizes the fish-out-of-water trope to propel most of its humor early on.

Rush Hour 2 uses the same basic formula as the first movie, except it cuts out the introductions of the characters in the beginning. This time it tries to give us a more intricate story within those confines when we don't want or need one. We're given a slower execution for a shorter movie.

The filmmakers try fishing for depth when there doesn't need to be any. Contriving unnecessary drama between Carter and Lee, which seems completely out of place. They're always teasing each other when the other one screws up, so making them actually upset at one another feels unrealistic. This is a farce. We're not that invested in the characters' depth.

Tucker isn't given as long of a leash here, which is odd because his freedom is what worked so well in this film's predecessor. Instead, Rush Hour 2 relies on inside jokes from Rush Hour 1.

Even still, the jokes work. If you just watched Rush Hour 2 by itself, you would think it's hilarious. And to a degree, it is. But viewing the movie immediately after watching the first one, you might think the comedy is a little forced.

With a step down from the first movie, Rush Hour 2 still holds up well. And just like Star Wars, I liked this movie before I cared what it was about. So why not still enjoy it now?

Twizard Rating: 79

Dirty Dancing?! More like.....Stupid Dancing....

The year was 1987, and I bet you will never guess what film was number 1 in the U.S. box office...I bet you're NOT guessing Three Men and a Baby. I sure know I wasn't. Some of you may have said Beverly Hills Cop 2 or even Lethal Weapon...but really?! I mean, it's a great movie--but REALLY?!?!  Ted Danson, Tom Selleck, and Steve Guttenberg adjusting to the hardships of fatherhood took the gold that year?!

Anyway,  I would like to say that fortunately, despite its "timeless" portrayal, Dirty Dancing didn't even make the top 10 during such a slow year. And I am in no way saying that box office performance determines the quality of a film--but it does make me feel better about humanity.

Some of you may be wondering why I even decided to take time off my busy schedule to watch this film when I haven't even seen Rocky yet. Welp, I can say with confidence that there is absolutely no rational reason why I did that.

So, let me tell you about the film. It takes place in 1963 and tells the story of a girl named Baby (Jennifer Grey) who is vacationing with her parents at a resort. She is very innocent and sees the world with a child-like view, and she is very close to her parents. However, while on vacation she meets this guy, Johnny (Patrick Swayze), whom she finds herself intrigued by. He is a dancer at the resort and she knows nothing about dancing or the ways of the world. Baby's parents don't like this Johnny guy or his "influence" on her. The story goes on with them falling in love and him teaching her how to dance and so on.

I was not impressed. Not once did I crack even a smile throughout the duration of this movie. It takes itself way too seriously, and it's predictable the whole way through. However, I do have to say that the character development was good and Swayze's performance was on par.

But now, moving on to the thing that REALLY irked me....the movie takes place in 1963--so it needs to stop playing music from 1987!! I wish this film would decide what decade it wants to be in! I mean, despite it being predictable and all that, I could have felt SOME sort of nostalgia while watching it if it actually made me feel like I was in a particular era! And I suppose I would have been fine with one or two 80's songs as part of the soundtrack, but they used at least 3 of them as actual source music! As in, they were DANCING to it!! In a film about dancing in the 60's and how the times were-a-changin' in the 60's, one would think that they wouldn't be dancing to 80's music! They should have just thrown in some disco to complete chronology!

So I did some research after I finished the film (as I usually do after watching movies) to see if other critics shared my sentiment about this whole music ordeal. To my surprise, I found no mention of it. I must be going crazy!

This movie was supposed to be released for one weekend only and then go straight to video. Why does this film have such positive reviews?! I don't get it. It makes me upset!

 Just don't let its "legendary" status fool you, folks!

And to those of you who love this movie, I guess I forgive you...