This attempt to update Charlie Chan to the 1980s and give him a comic bent is highly uneven: there is a load of misplaced, unfunny slapstick in it, and some big names in the cast are terribly wasted. I am a fan of Peter Ustinov (who made this in between my two favorite Poirots) and he is delightful here, but he almost seems like a supporting actor in his own movie; too much of the screen time goes to the ineffectual Richard Hatch as his "number one grandson" (Brian Keith is also very annoying as a loudmouthed police chief). The film is more successful when it sticks closer to the spirit of the original Chan films: I am referring to the b&w flashback sequence and the "clue of the fork in the tea cup", as well as the climactic gathering of the suspects for the unmasking of the "Bizarre Killer", who is, indeed, rather well-camouflaged. But as a comedy, it has very few laughs; for a funnier take on a Charlie Chan-type of detective, see "Murder By Death". ** out of 4.
30 Reviews
Character Actors Redeem Otherwise Uninspired Parody
gftbiloxi10 June 2007
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
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
A twisted pastiche about the great and famed sleuth who faces a complicated case with a lot of suspicious people
ma-cortes15 July 2020
This is a blandoid tale of the famous inscrutable detective Charlie Chan (Sir Peter Ustinov) , this time he is called out of retirement to help a San Francisco police inspector (Brian Keith) to solve a mysterious series of murders. As Detective Charlie Chan helps resolve the many bizarre murders and along the way confronts his old nemesis , the Dragon Queen (Angie Dickinson) , who is the prime suspect , and, ultimately , reveals the true identity of the murderer . His clumsy grandson Lee (recently deceased Richard Hatch) , who's getting married , (to Michelle Pfeiffer) "helps" , while has something to do with convoluted family shenanigans . The premise is the following one : whether the Dragon Queen behind these grisly killings or other supect criminals are involved into the slaughters are happening in San Francisco ¿. .Murderer force victim to eat 10,000 goldfish . First time fish stuff man. Murderer who turn victim into human baked potato have real appetite for crime.
Fun but average and excessively silly comedy dealing with the adventures of Charlie Chan while is investigating a twisted criminal case . Here all roles result to be bungling , idiot or daft , as Chan has an adoring botcher half-Jewish as grandson who in turn has an adoring halfwit doll of a girlfriend . As Charlie Chan/Peter Ustinov is accompanied by his bumbling grandson Lee Chan, Jr. : Richard Hatch as his sidekick , who is about to marry Michelle Pfeiffer , along with the hysterical , shouting grandmother : Lee Grant , and an eccentric maid : Rachel Roberts and the sympathetic wheelchair-bound Roddy MacDowall , too . It packs farce , noisy action with diverting chase sequences , humor , slapstick , slapdash , amusement , entertainment , several scenes with no much sense and one-lines all fall mirthlessly through the bottomless script . It was a whole mess with staggering cost approx 9 million dollars.
However , it contains a moving and lively musical score by Patrick Williams . As well as colorful and brilliant cinematography by Paul Mohlann . The motion picture was regularly directed by Clive Donner . He was a good craftsman who usually directed for TV , such as : Charlemagne, le prince à cheval , Merlín and the sword , The Scarlet Pimpernel , To Catch a King Dead , Adventures of thief of Baghdad, Man's Folly , Rogue Male , Spectre , Francis Drake , Oliver Twist , Christmas Carol and occassionally for cinema , such as : Stealing Heaven , Some People , Nothing But the Best , The Sinister Man , Marriage of convenience ,Heart of a Child , The Nude Bomb , Vampira , The caretaker ,Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush , Alfred the Great and his greatest hit : What's New Pussycat.
There are various renditions about detective Charlie Chan , these are the following ones : Charlie Chan in Paris 1935 by Lewis Seiler with Warner Oland , Mary Brian . Charlie's Chan's secret 1935 by Gordon Wiles with Warner Oland , Charles Quigley . Charlie Chan at the opera 1936 directed by Bruce Humberstone with Warner Oland . Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum 1940 by Lynn Shore with Sydney Toler . Charlie Chan in Rio 1941 by Harry Lachman with Sidney Toler , Mary Beth Hughs , Victor Jory . Charlie Chan and the secret service 1944 by Phil Rosen with Sidney Toler , Moreland , Arthur Loft . Rating : 5.5/10 . Mediocre but with some funny moments .
Fun but average and excessively silly comedy dealing with the adventures of Charlie Chan while is investigating a twisted criminal case . Here all roles result to be bungling , idiot or daft , as Chan has an adoring botcher half-Jewish as grandson who in turn has an adoring halfwit doll of a girlfriend . As Charlie Chan/Peter Ustinov is accompanied by his bumbling grandson Lee Chan, Jr. : Richard Hatch as his sidekick , who is about to marry Michelle Pfeiffer , along with the hysterical , shouting grandmother : Lee Grant , and an eccentric maid : Rachel Roberts and the sympathetic wheelchair-bound Roddy MacDowall , too . It packs farce , noisy action with diverting chase sequences , humor , slapstick , slapdash , amusement , entertainment , several scenes with no much sense and one-lines all fall mirthlessly through the bottomless script . It was a whole mess with staggering cost approx 9 million dollars.
However , it contains a moving and lively musical score by Patrick Williams . As well as colorful and brilliant cinematography by Paul Mohlann . The motion picture was regularly directed by Clive Donner . He was a good craftsman who usually directed for TV , such as : Charlemagne, le prince à cheval , Merlín and the sword , The Scarlet Pimpernel , To Catch a King Dead , Adventures of thief of Baghdad, Man's Folly , Rogue Male , Spectre , Francis Drake , Oliver Twist , Christmas Carol and occassionally for cinema , such as : Stealing Heaven , Some People , Nothing But the Best , The Sinister Man , Marriage of convenience ,Heart of a Child , The Nude Bomb , Vampira , The caretaker ,Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush , Alfred the Great and his greatest hit : What's New Pussycat.
There are various renditions about detective Charlie Chan , these are the following ones : Charlie Chan in Paris 1935 by Lewis Seiler with Warner Oland , Mary Brian . Charlie's Chan's secret 1935 by Gordon Wiles with Warner Oland , Charles Quigley . Charlie Chan at the opera 1936 directed by Bruce Humberstone with Warner Oland . Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum 1940 by Lynn Shore with Sydney Toler . Charlie Chan in Rio 1941 by Harry Lachman with Sidney Toler , Mary Beth Hughs , Victor Jory . Charlie Chan and the secret service 1944 by Phil Rosen with Sidney Toler , Moreland , Arthur Loft . Rating : 5.5/10 . Mediocre but with some funny moments .
It is FUN!
skoyles3 October 2004
This is not a great movie, yet my wife and I laughed ourselves into pain. The great Peter Ustinov spins his previous role in oriental parody from "One Of Our Dinosaurs Is Missing"; Richard Hatch creates the most incompetent bumbler in decades of motion picture bumblers with some hilarious slapstick results; Lee Grant is a gorgeous grandmother; Roddy McDowell is the supercilious butler in a motorized wheelchair; and Michelle Pfeiffer is a ditzy Goldie Hawn clone - as well as being luminously beautiful and excellent at playing a brainless idealist just perfectly designed for the klutzy Lee Chan Jr. It is designed for fans of Charlie Chan, and it is a parody, but a loving one. The topical references are side-splitting; it helps to be old enough to have been an adult in 1981. The references to other movies abound, some subtle some obvious. The visual humour is on the level of slaps with a halibut but fun nonetheless. I gather the movie was a critical and box office flop. Even I missed it back then but I find it a guilty pleasure to disagree with almost everyone else on earth (except my wife, and that is what counts for more!): I enjoyed this idiotic little movie. And the dog deserved an Oscar.
A sad attempt at making a Chan film.
admjtk170116 April 2000
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 was a huge disappointment for me
tavm27 February 2010
Having just spent the last several days reviewing past Charlie Chan movies in series chronological order, not to mention previously reviewing Charlie Chan in Paris back in 2006, I decided to finally watch this spoof of the great Honolulu detective that I just bought on VHS from a used video store. In summary, this was a clumsy, jumbled slapstick mess that only rated a few chuckles from me due to some witty lines near the end. And Peter Ustinov is wasted as Chan as he sounds more like an Englishman impersonating a Chinese man than more convincing portrayals from the likes of Warner Oland and Sidney Toler (I have yet to rewatch a Roland Winters one that I haven't seen in 30 years). And how convenient to have his grandson Lee, Jr.'s (Richard Hatch) parents (one of whom is Jewish) be killed in a car crash so as not to have Keye Luke make an appearance. ("No. 1 Son" as a young man here is played by David Hirokane) The fact that he's not there nor is Earl Derr Biggers credited as creator here is just as well since this movie does nothing to honor their contributions. And the supporting cast of Hatch, Lee Grant, Rachel Roberts, Roddy McDowall, Brian Keith, and, in one of her earliest roles, Michelle Pfeiffer are just wasted as well, never mind Angie Dickinson as the Dragon Queen. Director Clive Donner seems to want to do a Mel Brooks-like parody down to the Blazing Saddles-like climax but there's nothing the least bit creatively funny here. So on that note, I'd only recommend Charlie Chan and the Curse of the Dragon Queen for anyone curious about the treatment of this once-iconic hero. P.S. Screenwriter David Axelrod is another of these film and TV members I'm citing as born in my birthtown of Chicago, Ill.
Comedy? Mystery? Neither!
psionchronicles1 August 2012
The short version: If you want to turn the sound off and look at Michelle Pfeiffer at some of 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.
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.
Peter Ustinov should have stuck with playing Belgian detectives.
bensonmum219 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I'm almost embarrassed to admit to having seen Charlie Chan and the Curse of the Dragon Queen in the theater during its original run. I hadn't seen it since and when I found the DVD on sale for less than the price of a rental, I decided to give it another chance. Big mistake! It's as bad as I remembered. I suppose that the movie was an attempt to cash-in the success of Murder by Death, another comedy featuring fictional but famous detectives as its central characters. By that's where the comparisons end. Murder by Death was brilliant. That movie was intelligent, witty, and filled with biting dialogue as its comedic base. In contract, Charlie Chan and the Curse of the Dragon Queen relies on juvenile slapstick to get a laugh. While there are a few moments that brought a smile to my face, as a whole, it's just not funny. And, there's nothing intelligent about any of it. What a wasted opportunity!
Confucius say, maybe stay away
bkoganbing26 March 2019
I guess because of the fact that back in the day Charlie Chan, Earl Derr Biggers
famous Chinese detective from the Honolulu PD was played by Occidentals like
Warner Oland, Sidney Toler, and Roland Winters it was OK to have Peter Ustinov do a
spoof. Maybe it could have worked in other hands with a better script and better
direction, but we've kind of grown past that kind of mimicry.
Charlie's come over to San Francisco from retirement in Honolulu for his grandson's wedding. Turns out that Lee Chan the number one son married a nice Jewish girl. His grandson however was raised by his Jewish grandmother Lee Grant who super doted on him. Now Richard Hatch as the grandson wants to follow in his grandfather's footsteps and become a detective. He's also marrying a nice Jewish girl in Michelle Pfeiffer.
Hatch maybe Charlie Chan's grandson, but he acts more like Inspector Clouseau in training. And there've been some random murders or seemingly random murders and looking good for it is Charlie Chan's arch nemesis the Dragon Queen played here by Angie Dickinson.
Hatch investigates, but of course it's Ustinov who solves it. Some others in the cast are Roddy McDowall as the butler and Rachel Roberts as the maid to Lee Grant. Best in this cast is Brian Keith a rather thick police chief who can't quite grasp the subtleties of Ustinov's mind and aphorisms.
This might have worked better if Ustinov spoofed his own character Hercule Poirot. But having us westerners play easterners just does not go over that well any more.
Charlie's come over to San Francisco from retirement in Honolulu for his grandson's wedding. Turns out that Lee Chan the number one son married a nice Jewish girl. His grandson however was raised by his Jewish grandmother Lee Grant who super doted on him. Now Richard Hatch as the grandson wants to follow in his grandfather's footsteps and become a detective. He's also marrying a nice Jewish girl in Michelle Pfeiffer.
Hatch maybe Charlie Chan's grandson, but he acts more like Inspector Clouseau in training. And there've been some random murders or seemingly random murders and looking good for it is Charlie Chan's arch nemesis the Dragon Queen played here by Angie Dickinson.
Hatch investigates, but of course it's Ustinov who solves it. Some others in the cast are Roddy McDowall as the butler and Rachel Roberts as the maid to Lee Grant. Best in this cast is Brian Keith a rather thick police chief who can't quite grasp the subtleties of Ustinov's mind and aphorisms.
This might have worked better if Ustinov spoofed his own character Hercule Poirot. But having us westerners play easterners just does not go over that well any more.
Charlie Chan And The Curse Of The Dragon Queen (Clive Donner, 1981) *1/2
Bunuel197630 June 2006
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...
May not age well
jared0760116 August 2018
100% awful...there is NOTHING positive I can say about this film...nothing!
planktonrules20 January 2011
This film begins with an awful introduction--with a song that just sucks. Little did I know that after this it only got worse!! I am not exaggerating when I say this film is 100% bad--with absolutely nothing to recommend it--nothing! And, if it were possible, I'd give a score lower than 1 because unlike the average bad movie, this one is so gosh-darn annoying! The film is supposed to be a parody of the Charlie Chan films. Now this idea COULD have worked--after all "Murder By Death" was all silly low-brow fun. But, unfortunately, the film never works thanks to ineptitude in every way. The director was apparently a chimp--who loved to instruct the 'actors' to over-act, fall down a lot and do pratfalls. The writer did not appear to have even watched any of the Charlie Chan film--as it never had any inside jokes or laughs. The producer was not even stupid (that would be an improvement), as they cast Richard Hatch (from "Battlestar Gallactica") as a half-Chinese grandson of Charlie Chan!!! And as far as the acting goes, I expected nothing form Hatch (and got it) and Michelle Pfeiffer is young so she can't be blamed. But, Lee Grant, Roddy McDowell and Peter Ustinov (an Oscar-winner!!) are just awful and should have known better. What possessed them?! All of the 'actors' behaved broadly--falling down, bumping things and just appearing like amateurs in bad community theater.
I notice one reviewer gave this film a 10. I just don't know what to say about this...all I know is I wouldn't even show this film to my worst enemy!! If karma and reincarnation are true, those who made this movie should all come back in their next lives as dung beetles.
By the way, although it didn't change my opinion about the movie overall (it couldn't be any worse), I was irritated to no end about the character played by Brian Keith. All he seemed to do was curse--and in ways that are bound to offend anyone who is the least bit religious. Is this supposed to be funny?! I am sure this would offend many out there and shows a complete lack of sensitivity towards the audience and their values. Now I am NOT saying that films must be sanitized--but this was ALL that Keith's character did and as a 'joke' it was of very questionable value and taste.
I notice one reviewer gave this film a 10. I just don't know what to say about this...all I know is I wouldn't even show this film to my worst enemy!! If karma and reincarnation are true, those who made this movie should all come back in their next lives as dung beetles.
By the way, although it didn't change my opinion about the movie overall (it couldn't be any worse), I was irritated to no end about the character played by Brian Keith. All he seemed to do was curse--and in ways that are bound to offend anyone who is the least bit religious. Is this supposed to be funny?! I am sure this would offend many out there and shows a complete lack of sensitivity towards the audience and their values. Now I am NOT saying that films must be sanitized--but this was ALL that Keith's character did and as a 'joke' it was of very questionable value and taste.
Scenes worth watching
caspian197812 October 2000
If the A.F.I. decides to vote on the 100 best kisses in American Film, they have to put Richard Hatch's and Michelle Pfeiffer's kiss in the top ten. Not only are we talking tung, but a 45 second smooch that makes the viewers laugh as well as cry. Fast forward to this scene first, the rest of the film can wait.
Charlie Chan satire sucks!
michaelRokeefe4 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This is a satire of America's favorite Hawaiian detective, Charlie Chan. You immediately know something is wrong when you notice Peter Ustinov is playing Chan. The famous detective is called out of a deserved retirement to solve a murder in San Francisco and confronts his old enemy the Dragon Queen(Angie Dickinson). Another plot is saving the life of his Jewish-Chinese grandson(Richard Hatch). A pretty good line-up of stars take part in this movie that just is not any good. Among the cast: Lee Grant, Brian Keith, Michelle Pfeiffer, Rachel Roberts and Roddy McDowall. Calling this a witty satire is stretching actuality.
Angie Dickinson made me view this Film
whpratt115 October 2005
Taped this film years ago and never watched it and decided to see how young all these veteran actors were in 1981. Brian Keith played the role of a Police Chief Baxter who managed to have a car chase with a horse and buggy driven by the sexy and over dressed Dragon Queen, Angie Dickinson,"Dressed to Kill"; who over played her role and acted real nuts, but after all she had to make a living and live up to her contracts. Peter Ustinov,(Charlie Chan), looked like he was straining himself trying to speak with a Chinese accent and could never compare to the old classic B Movie Charlie Chan films of the 1930's and 40's. The entire picture gave me a headache and I wonder why it was ever made in the first place. Decide for yourself, after all, it was made in the 80's.
What was THAT?!
Mort-313 February 2001
Funny: Peter Ustinov is well-known as Hercule Poirot, the best detective in the world. Here, he played Charlie Chan, the best detective in the world.
Let me not waste too much time on this film: It wants to be funny, but it has no good gags. The crime plot is so unrealistic (as is the solution in the end) that I think it was supposed to be a parody. The acting performances were unconvincing, also young Michelle Pfeiffer's, unfortunately. Maybe there are many inside jokes for Charlie Chan fans. But for an ordinary public, this film holds no attraction.
Let me not waste too much time on this film: It wants to be funny, but it has no good gags. The crime plot is so unrealistic (as is the solution in the end) that I think it was supposed to be a parody. The acting performances were unconvincing, also young Michelle Pfeiffer's, unfortunately. Maybe there are many inside jokes for Charlie Chan fans. But for an ordinary public, this film holds no attraction.
Some laughs, mostly pain.
dpalmer-211 April 2000
Not a good movie. Has a few laughs but mainly nothing a real Chan fan would like to see. It is a spoof, but just doesn't work. Too silly without real slapstick. No real inside jokes for Chan fans. And wouldn't work as a regular comedy, even without the Chan link.
Chop Fuey
chris-428007 December 2022
Just awful on every level. This is an attempt to revive the classic Charlie Chan character using parody and enough broad humor to make the Keystone Kops jealous. Waste of a great cast that are all miscast. Everyone overacts to a terrible script that feels more like an unfinished outline. The plot is paper thin with zero character development. The worst acting is between Brian Keith and Rachel Roberts. Angie Dickinson, as The Dragon Queen, weakly delivers her lines with little conviction. The incessant slap stick is done poorly and is not funny. The direction is dreadful too. If you are a whodunnit fan stay far away from this disaster.
Oh no!!!
valstone5217 July 2019
This was the worst,movie. Parody or not, growing up I loved Charlie Chan movies. I didn't care who played him. Bad enough there were great actors in it, they must have needed the money. I watched about two minutes, then went to something else.
Nice and neat fun little film that blends laughs and suspense.
blanbrn6 May 2012
I just recently watched this film mainly I checked it out to see some early work of beauty Michelle Pfeiffer, yet aside from that this film has a pretty good connected plot and story true it's funny and a little far out still it blended suspense and feel good fun to make it an interesting watch. Plus "Charlie Chan: And the Curse of the Dragon Queen" has appearances from legends Angie Dickinson and Roddy McDowall.
The theme and plot of the story is connected to the past it involves the curse and work of an evil mysterious Dragon Queen(Angie Dickinson)who brought about a murder on the Chan family. Only this curse has never died she and the curse has followed the Chan family to the city of San Francisco, California. Never fear enter the great detective himself Charlie Chan(Peter Ustinov)who arrives to match skill and wits with his old rival the Dragon Queen. It's critical the protection must be given to Chan's klutzy grandson Lee Chan Jr.(Richard Hatch)and his beautiful wife to be Cordelia(the beautiful Michelle Pfeiffer)as these two young lovers must be safe.
Overall this film is full of laughs and along the way the chase is a feel good time and the beautiful Michelle even has a damsel in distress scene as she's tied up and gagged. Thru it all a secret murder mystery is revealed so the film has both style and substance. Nice little B movie film to watch it's fun and interesting.
The theme and plot of the story is connected to the past it involves the curse and work of an evil mysterious Dragon Queen(Angie Dickinson)who brought about a murder on the Chan family. Only this curse has never died she and the curse has followed the Chan family to the city of San Francisco, California. Never fear enter the great detective himself Charlie Chan(Peter Ustinov)who arrives to match skill and wits with his old rival the Dragon Queen. It's critical the protection must be given to Chan's klutzy grandson Lee Chan Jr.(Richard Hatch)and his beautiful wife to be Cordelia(the beautiful Michelle Pfeiffer)as these two young lovers must be safe.
Overall this film is full of laughs and along the way the chase is a feel good time and the beautiful Michelle even has a damsel in distress scene as she's tied up and gagged. Thru it all a secret murder mystery is revealed so the film has both style and substance. Nice little B movie film to watch it's fun and interesting.
An INSULT to the memory of a GREAT series
profh-110 April 2022
Charlie Chan arrives in San Francisco via helicopter, exactly 24 minutes into the film. If they'd CUT the first 24 minutes, it would have VASTLY improved the film. Tragically, the next hour-plus isn't much better.
32 minutes in was the first-- no, make that ONLY-- time I laughed. "We're going to get married!" "Curse working already."
In the late 70s-early 80s, there were a whole stream of really wretchedly-awful films doing terrible, unwatchable revivals of classic characters. Among them, "DOC SAVAGE THE MAN OF BRONZE", "THE LEGEND OF THE LONE RANGER", "TARZAN THE APE MAN", "THE WILD WILD WEST REVISITED", "STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE" (yes, really), "THE RETURN OF MAXWELL SMART" / "THE NUDE BOMB", and this. The best thing I can say about this is, it's nowhere near as ghastly as "THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU".
I had to look up Jerry Sherlock to find out who in the HELL he was. The whole time I was watching, I wanted to get my hands around his throat and squeeze. Apparently he was the producer and came up with the story. He had a very skimpy career in Hollywood, and frankly, I'm shocked he was also involved with something as good as "THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER".
Stan Burns & David Axlerod are known for sitcoms and variety shows, but this must be a career-bottom for both of them. How do you do a "comedy" that JUST-- ISN'T-- funny???
Clive Donner's had a mixed resume. I've enjoyed his work on "DANGER MAN", "WHAT'S NEW PUSSYCAT", "VAMPIRA", and "A CHRISTMAS CAROL" (1984). But he also did the 1st "GET SMART" revival, the worst of the 3 CBS Poirot films with Peter Ustinov, "DEAD MAN'S FOLLY", and this atrocity. Maybe he didn't know how to say "no" to worthless scripts.
A remarkable cast is wasted on every score. Lee Remick, Brian Keith, Roddy McDowell, Johnny Sekka, Michael Fairman... they even managed to make Angie Dickinson look UN-attractive. Peter Ustinov seems to be in a completely-different movie from every other actor here, but that incessant loud grunting sound he kept making was totally out of place.
The centerpiece of all that's wrong is the idea that Lee Chan, who always was attracted to cute Chinese girls, would marry a Jewish girl, and have a son who was a total klutz, who would stroll obliviously through life creating chaos like that seen in a Harold Lloyd film. I don't think Richard Hatch had much of a career after "THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO" and "BATTLESTAR GALACTICA", but even for him, this must be a career bottom. And why is Michelle Pfeiffer doing a Goldie Hawn impression?
Never mind the plot, half of which is a series of utterly-unfunny chaotic chase scenes. The wrap-up of the mystery almost could have saved this, if the entire rest of the film hadn't been so completely-painful and unwatchable on every single level. Honestly... this makes the Monagram Roland Winters Chan films look great by comparison. This even makes the awful 1971 unsold pilot "THE RETURN OF CHARLIE CHAN" look competent by comparison.
And considering the reported controversy when this came out, why, WHY didn't this or the 1971 film cast Keye Luke as Chan coming out of retirement? Then again, good for him for not being in either of these bombs.
32 minutes in was the first-- no, make that ONLY-- time I laughed. "We're going to get married!" "Curse working already."
In the late 70s-early 80s, there were a whole stream of really wretchedly-awful films doing terrible, unwatchable revivals of classic characters. Among them, "DOC SAVAGE THE MAN OF BRONZE", "THE LEGEND OF THE LONE RANGER", "TARZAN THE APE MAN", "THE WILD WILD WEST REVISITED", "STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE" (yes, really), "THE RETURN OF MAXWELL SMART" / "THE NUDE BOMB", and this. The best thing I can say about this is, it's nowhere near as ghastly as "THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU".
I had to look up Jerry Sherlock to find out who in the HELL he was. The whole time I was watching, I wanted to get my hands around his throat and squeeze. Apparently he was the producer and came up with the story. He had a very skimpy career in Hollywood, and frankly, I'm shocked he was also involved with something as good as "THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER".
Stan Burns & David Axlerod are known for sitcoms and variety shows, but this must be a career-bottom for both of them. How do you do a "comedy" that JUST-- ISN'T-- funny???
Clive Donner's had a mixed resume. I've enjoyed his work on "DANGER MAN", "WHAT'S NEW PUSSYCAT", "VAMPIRA", and "A CHRISTMAS CAROL" (1984). But he also did the 1st "GET SMART" revival, the worst of the 3 CBS Poirot films with Peter Ustinov, "DEAD MAN'S FOLLY", and this atrocity. Maybe he didn't know how to say "no" to worthless scripts.
A remarkable cast is wasted on every score. Lee Remick, Brian Keith, Roddy McDowell, Johnny Sekka, Michael Fairman... they even managed to make Angie Dickinson look UN-attractive. Peter Ustinov seems to be in a completely-different movie from every other actor here, but that incessant loud grunting sound he kept making was totally out of place.
The centerpiece of all that's wrong is the idea that Lee Chan, who always was attracted to cute Chinese girls, would marry a Jewish girl, and have a son who was a total klutz, who would stroll obliviously through life creating chaos like that seen in a Harold Lloyd film. I don't think Richard Hatch had much of a career after "THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO" and "BATTLESTAR GALACTICA", but even for him, this must be a career bottom. And why is Michelle Pfeiffer doing a Goldie Hawn impression?
Never mind the plot, half of which is a series of utterly-unfunny chaotic chase scenes. The wrap-up of the mystery almost could have saved this, if the entire rest of the film hadn't been so completely-painful and unwatchable on every single level. Honestly... this makes the Monagram Roland Winters Chan films look great by comparison. This even makes the awful 1971 unsold pilot "THE RETURN OF CHARLIE CHAN" look competent by comparison.
And considering the reported controversy when this came out, why, WHY didn't this or the 1971 film cast Keye Luke as Chan coming out of retirement? Then again, good for him for not being in either of these bombs.
True Parody
tedg26 April 2007
This thing is no fun whatever.
Too bad, because it had a lot going for it.
First, there is the Charlie Chan legacy. It was something that walked with the movie-going public during that decade when our current notions of visual narrative evolved. It wasn't particularly influential except for the early notion that our on-screen eye differed from those around him in matters of cognition encoded visually by race. The explicit irony was the Chineseness of the man was deliberately bogus.
Second there's the appearance of Peter Ustinov. For this bit, you have to know the absolute importance of the fictional Hercule Poirot in how film discovery evolved. Ustinov had just played Poirot in the to-then most high budget detective story filmed. So when we see him (or did when this was new) as a similarly portly, pretentious, internally cogitating detective, it matters.
Third, someone involved was intelligent enough to set the thing properly. It begins with a faded black and white "old-style" Chan movie with our modern characters but a couple decades previously. The mystery shown bears on the one in our movie. Later, at the end of our movie, the action takes us to an old moviehouse in Chinatown where a Charlie Chan movie festival is being held. (No mention in our film that Chan has a film persona.) The trademarked end (copied from Poirot) where Chan gathers all the suspects and tells each one why they are the murderer, until revealing the real murderer (after a separately scripted false alarm) this happens in the scenery loft of the theater where a Chan film is playing below.
Naturally the chase to catch the murderer takes each character in front of the giant screen where the audience applauds them.
But its the truest of parodies. Usually parodies put new life into old form by adding a new layer of reference. Its a mistake to think that the "new life" would be funny, or more entertaining in any way. This is true parody: it took something that was dead and added enzymes to the decomposition.
There's one joke I appreciated. The Chan films are generally pretty vile in how they handle race. One trick is to set the bottom racially so that Chan can drift at the top in some cerebral racial advantage. That meant that the black driver was nearly subhuman. Stupid, ignoble.
The driver here is a black man also. Poised, attractive, articulate. We learn some noble things about him at the end.
Oh, another small matter of interest. It has a very young Michelle Pfeiffer, very pretty before she had all that work done on her face.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
Too bad, because it had a lot going for it.
First, there is the Charlie Chan legacy. It was something that walked with the movie-going public during that decade when our current notions of visual narrative evolved. It wasn't particularly influential except for the early notion that our on-screen eye differed from those around him in matters of cognition encoded visually by race. The explicit irony was the Chineseness of the man was deliberately bogus.
Second there's the appearance of Peter Ustinov. For this bit, you have to know the absolute importance of the fictional Hercule Poirot in how film discovery evolved. Ustinov had just played Poirot in the to-then most high budget detective story filmed. So when we see him (or did when this was new) as a similarly portly, pretentious, internally cogitating detective, it matters.
Third, someone involved was intelligent enough to set the thing properly. It begins with a faded black and white "old-style" Chan movie with our modern characters but a couple decades previously. The mystery shown bears on the one in our movie. Later, at the end of our movie, the action takes us to an old moviehouse in Chinatown where a Charlie Chan movie festival is being held. (No mention in our film that Chan has a film persona.) The trademarked end (copied from Poirot) where Chan gathers all the suspects and tells each one why they are the murderer, until revealing the real murderer (after a separately scripted false alarm) this happens in the scenery loft of the theater where a Chan film is playing below.
Naturally the chase to catch the murderer takes each character in front of the giant screen where the audience applauds them.
But its the truest of parodies. Usually parodies put new life into old form by adding a new layer of reference. Its a mistake to think that the "new life" would be funny, or more entertaining in any way. This is true parody: it took something that was dead and added enzymes to the decomposition.
There's one joke I appreciated. The Chan films are generally pretty vile in how they handle race. One trick is to set the bottom racially so that Chan can drift at the top in some cerebral racial advantage. That meant that the black driver was nearly subhuman. Stupid, ignoble.
The driver here is a black man also. Poised, attractive, articulate. We learn some noble things about him at the end.
Oh, another small matter of interest. It has a very young Michelle Pfeiffer, very pretty before she had all that work done on her face.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
No fan of the Ustinov Chan.
mark.waltz13 March 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This parody of the classic 1930's and 40's detective series features a great cast but obviously is taking so much pride in its "cleverness" that it doesn't realize how funny it ain't. Chan, having been hysterically spoofed as one of the detectives in "Murder By Death" (with a name change), tries to take Peter Ustinov into another mystery series after the success of "Death on the Nile". Ustinov's all right, but the story is ridiculously silly, poorly written and only has a few moments that can be called knee snapping funny.
What is there is one of the oldest plot lines in mystery: who killed the patriarch of a wealthy family, leaving behind widow Lee Grant (who still talks to his ashes as if he could hear her), an evil mistress (Angie Dickinson in the ugliest wig and makeup imaginable), some weird servants (Roddy McDowall as a hovearound riding butler who deliberately defies orders) and Rachel Roberts as the neurotic maid. Then, there's Richard Hatch as honorable grandson #1, a product of the marriage of Ustinov's son and Grant's daughter seemingly deceased or traveling the world, but lucky not to be included in the script.
The film concentrates mainly on farce, showing a scene where Hatch unknowingly destroys all of San Francisco's Chinatown, and a wild ride through Golden Gate park with idiotic cop Brian Keith chasing Dickinson. A young Michelle Pfeiffer plays Hatch's floozie girlfriend whom grandma Grant despises. This one is so bad it has to be seen to be believed, but I must admit that for all its incredible awfulness, I found it surprisingly watchable. But then, I also enjoyed the huge bomb "Haunted Honeymoon" with Dom De Luise in drag, so what do I know?
What is there is one of the oldest plot lines in mystery: who killed the patriarch of a wealthy family, leaving behind widow Lee Grant (who still talks to his ashes as if he could hear her), an evil mistress (Angie Dickinson in the ugliest wig and makeup imaginable), some weird servants (Roddy McDowall as a hovearound riding butler who deliberately defies orders) and Rachel Roberts as the neurotic maid. Then, there's Richard Hatch as honorable grandson #1, a product of the marriage of Ustinov's son and Grant's daughter seemingly deceased or traveling the world, but lucky not to be included in the script.
The film concentrates mainly on farce, showing a scene where Hatch unknowingly destroys all of San Francisco's Chinatown, and a wild ride through Golden Gate park with idiotic cop Brian Keith chasing Dickinson. A young Michelle Pfeiffer plays Hatch's floozie girlfriend whom grandma Grant despises. This one is so bad it has to be seen to be believed, but I must admit that for all its incredible awfulness, I found it surprisingly watchable. But then, I also enjoyed the huge bomb "Haunted Honeymoon" with Dom De Luise in drag, so what do I know?
Every "idea" lifted from a better movie
charlesadamek24 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Incredibly bad given the quality of the cast. Brian Keith, for example, is put in a position where he needs to chew the scenery and over-act in every shot
It does lift all the standard Charlie Chan memes. But what's worse, is it essentially copies other films, in particular "What's Up, Doc?" Both filmed in SF and both use the same locations for a ton of chase scenes. Count the number of "jokes" that were directly lifted from that much better film. You knew what was going to happen to the cop on the ladder, didn't you? And the glass window repair truck - also a "big surprise."
Please do not bother with this one unless you are collecting really bad films with big name casts for a list of some sort.
It does lift all the standard Charlie Chan memes. But what's worse, is it essentially copies other films, in particular "What's Up, Doc?" Both filmed in SF and both use the same locations for a ton of chase scenes. Count the number of "jokes" that were directly lifted from that much better film. You knew what was going to happen to the cop on the ladder, didn't you? And the glass window repair truck - also a "big surprise."
Please do not bother with this one unless you are collecting really bad films with big name casts for a list of some sort.
Good Script, So-so Movie
mcguffin200127 May 2004
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.
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
