Skip to main content

Jackie Chan Proves Himself in The Foreigner


It’s been a while since we’ve seen a Jackie Chan movie. His last major English language film that I can recall was the 2010 remake of The Karate Kid. He used to be everywhere in the 90’s and early 2000’s, the face of martial arts around the world. But he’s in his sixties now, playing very much against type in The Foreigner, which while being a nice welcome back for his fans, is unlike any other Jackie Chan movie.
When a resurgent IRA group cause a bombing at a London bank, resulting in the death of his daughter (Katie Leung), Ngoc Minh Quan (Chan) makes it his mission to exact revenge on the people responsible. He targets Liam Hennessy (Pierce Brosnan), the Deputy Minister of Northern Ireland and a former IRA member himself for information. Hennessy, who’s having enough trouble trying to control the situation and cover his tracks, is unable to give Quan the names of the terrorists. But he doesn’t count on Quan’s history as a special forces soldier in the Vietnam War leading him to take drastic actions to repel and intimidate Hennessy until he gets the names he wants.
The first thing that needs to be said is that Jackie Chan is great in this movie. He’s always been an entertaining performer, through his impressive stunt-work and skill for physical comedy alike. But he’s never really stood out as a good actor necessarily. This film changes that, as he gives a really engaging performance as a grizzled man who’s been through his share of terrors, and after losing his third daughter is distraught to the point of taking violent action. And while the action scenes he performs are very good, they’re not all that frequent, Quan often resorting to other tactics, and even when we do see hand-to-hand combat it’s rougher than anything you’d see in Rush Hour or Shanghai Noon. Though he’s very skilled at what he does, you can definitely feel his age, and Chan plays it with believable weariness. I’d love to see him take on more roles like this. This film also reunites GoldenEye director Martin Campbell with Pierce Brosnan, who delivers a great performance as well. Admittedly, he is a little bit of a clichéd corrupt politician, but not exactly the villain, and Brosnan is given some very interesting facets of the character to play. The film is fairly evenly divided between the two leads, devoting a lot of time to Hennessy’s ties to the IRA and siphoning a lot of the political intrigue through the characters connected to him. These include his wife played by Orla Brady, his mistress played by Charlie Murphy, his army nephew played by Rory Fleck-Byrne, his accomplice played by Dermot Crowley, and an always threatening Michael McElhatton as his right-hand man, all of whom are perfectly serviceable.
The pacing is really good in this movie; it’s two hours, but doesn’t feel like it. And for the most part. the story is good. However the book it’s based on, The Chinaman, by Stephen Leather (a name Quan’s frequently referred to as), was written well into the Troubles, when the IRA was still a dangerous presence in the U.K. But setting this film in the modern day, there’s no explanation given for why the IRA have come back now. One could easily have been made believable, but without, it does leave the political conflict coming off a bit outdated and forced. For a good portion of the movie too, Quan is hiding out in a forest from Hennessy’s men whom he injures or incapacitates when they pursue him a la First Blood. But it does stall the drive of the film somewhat, confining him to just this one location. It was a lot more interesting when the cat and mouse game was more pronounced and Quan was evading and getting the best of Hennessy all over Belfast.
As far as I know, The Foreigner is the first Jackie Chan movie set entirely in the U.K. And it does address the racial tension he experiences as an immigrant, obviously from the offensive moniker, but also in more subtle scenes. Likewise it might be his first movie where his martial arts roots are relatively played down. And the movie benefits for it. It’s nothing great, but isn’t really disappointing either. It’s worth seeing for the performances, particularly Chan’s, and if you’re in the mood for a decent thriller.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more