Inadvands Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

Spoonixel Amateur movie with Big budget

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

countvasquez I am amazed about the fairly high ratings this rather boring picture got. As far as James Bond spoofs go this one is forgettable. It suffers partly from being a JB parody - JB is in itself a parody - and more from an uneven script which can't decide if the main hero is a kind of Uber James Bond (with knives) OR kind of stumbling wannabee (Get Smart, Austin Powers).The suits remember more (bad taste) gangsters of the 70s than Secret Agent "dressed to kill"-code. For better spoofs from Hong Kong try "Magnificent Warriors" (Indy Jones "coveress").Rating 3.5/10

brasco-5 I think Stephen Chow is the most genius director and actor in Hong KONG,China. The way he demonstrate something is first class in Hong Kong. After seen all 9 comments i want to say something about the "gore" and something else that make some people feel uncmofortable.Actually this film has criticism to Hongkong films through the contrast of two kinds of performance,make-up,consum and other things. You can find the different way to perform violence.The shot of the robbery in the mall has nearly no blood but only with the way criminals eat,silence and few words the horror can be felt.And the next scene is the usually way diretors used in Hongkong,two people was stabbed with knives in their body and one people was sliced off his fingers.But this scene cant be compared to the previous one with respect to convulse in the audience. There is another example.The bullet removal scene nearly don't have any detail about the wound.They haven't shot the wound since they begin to work but the pain can be still strongly felt. That is what i talk about, Stephen Chow want to say performance is the best way to impress audience.The excessive detailed scene without decent performance backfired. Watch carefully,the difference of two rhythms of conversation, ways they make up, switches of scenes can be found in the movie.

moviemaniac2002 Caught this on DVD the other day...and I was laughing and smiling until the shopping mall sequence...where it abruptly shifted gears and positively reveled in cruelty and heartbreak...and then went back to being a goofy(but still blood-soaked) spoof. Well , I guess that 's part of the craziness of Hong Kong cinema that we all love....and I'm still smiling about the hilarious weapons and gadgets...the "solar flashlight" is priceless. Well worth seeing. Bond fans will love the riotous imitation of Maurice Binder's main title visuals...opening action sequence is as good as anything you'd see in a Bond film and Anita Yuen makes an adorable foil/adversary/partner for Chow. (But as I said, it is pure Stephen Chow nutball fun...like the guys who made "Shaun Of The Dead" and "Hot Fuzz", Chow takes no prisoners when he's out to bend a genre inside out and backwards.)

chrichtonsworld As many of Stephen Chow movies this movie is some sort of parody. This time James Bond has to answer. The way Stephen Chow makes fun of the perfect Bond is something you have to see for your selves. In stead of being a skilled shooter Stephen Chow is skilled in using a butcher knife. He has all sort of gadgets which aren't very useful. As a spoof it isn't entirely perfect. Most of the jokes were lost to me since you have to know Chinese to understand. The subtitles that came with the movie weren't good translations. The comedy in this movie isn't as visual as most of Stephen Chow's work but it is still funnier than other movies like this. There are some brilliant scenes that are typical of Stephen Chow's talent (as a comedian). This movie is nice enough but not quite up to the level of Chows's usual work. (I give this 6,5 out of 10)