7/10
Jackie kicks it where the others missed it every time, historically inaccurate.
15 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The only people who should feel insulted by this posting are the two college bred guys I was making fun of the other day because they were using points from this movie to try to win an argument.

Even a history fan such as myself can enjoy the thing.

To point out historical inaccuracies, I will have to ruin the movie but only slightly, I won't offer any major plot points.

The year is 1886, the Statue of Liberty is almost completed and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is about to publish his first Sherlock Holmes story.

The year is 1902, Charlie Chaplin is thirteen and there is an automobile with a steering wheel available.

The year is 1837 and the Artful Dodger(who for no reason I can understand is also Charlie Chaplin) is wandering the streets of London hoping to meet Oliver Twist but winds up with Xion Uang and Roy O'Bannon and gets to go to America with them at the end, though Charlie Chaplin was not an orphan. He was actually an actor from the age of five and did not get to America until he was 21 in 1910.

The year is 1888, and Jack the Ripper is wandering the streets of East London, hunting down prostitutes(and Xion Lin for some reason)to mutilate.

The year is 1862 and Richard Gatling has just invented the Gatling Gun of which of which the Chinese assassins have a prototype.

Aside from the immense historical inaccuracies, Jackie Chan is incredible, the gags are brilliant, the Singing in the Rain fight sequence will make you say ooh and ow, Owen Wilson makes the most evil insult to orphans everywhere. I recommend seeing it but don't use it as a historical guide for anything.

You will like it and your kids WILL love it.
25 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed