For starters, Owen Wilson is actually funny in it, which is certainly a plus in a comedy. Chan is always entertaining to watch, no matter what the movie, and in this film, his love of classic screen comedy really comes through. In Shanghai Knights, he pays tribute to a number of his screen heroes... including Gene Kelly (his favorite choreographer), Buster Keaton (his favorite physical comedian/stuntman), Charlie Chaplin, and even Harold Lloyd. Chan, of course, makes each of these elements his own--

as he mimics Buster Keaton gags...

as he draws Kelly's Singin' in the Rain choreography into his own fight choreography...

and as he imperils his characters on the minute hand of a huge clock tower (Big Ben???) in a clear tip of the hat to Harold Lloyd...

In addition to all the comedy-tribute hijinks, Singapore-Chinese actress Fann Wong is a real "find" for American cinema. And Aiden Gill brings out all the charm, all the malevolence, and all the gentlemanly love of a good swordfight in his portrayal of the tensely smirky evil Lord Rathbone.

And then there's Donnie Yen (star of Iron Monkey and featured martial artist in a wealth of Hong Kong movies starring the likes of Michelle Yeoh and Jet Li). I mean, can you believe that Jackie Chan has the self-assurance to put Donnie Yen in the movie... and let Yen actually win the Kung Fu fight on the barge??? (Chon Lin, of course comes to the rescue before Yen's evil Wu Chow dispatches her brother, but she wins only by... "cheating").

At any rate, this is, I believe, the first American Jackie Chan movie featuring another major Hong Kong martial arts star, and Chan makes the most of it. In choreographing the fight, Chan gives Donnie Yen the animal Kung Fu styles and uses a more frenetically hybrid (Americanized?) style himself.

Kung Fu battles between major wushu artists are a staple of Hong Kong cinema, but I can't remember seeing them in very many American-produced martial arts films... at least, not since Bruce Lee dispatched Chuck Norris in Return of the Dragon!

THE BAD: Okay, the criticism I'm about to make doesn't bother me too much, but some people might think it really hurts the film... i.e. the plot is ludicrous and uses anachronism quite heavily. As for me, hey, I majored in English and learned way back in undergrad and grad school that realism and plausibility are actually latecomers to literary and performance art. Shakespeare is never very particular with the continuity of time (I mean, he's got medieval lords in ancient pagan Britain, for goodness' sake!), nor is he very particular with the plausibility of his stories (Midsummer Night's Dream, anyone?), so why should Jackie Chan be--especially in a comedy? Still, anachronisms involving real historical personages can be a little bit unsettling. I mean, Charlie Chaplin was born in 1889... the year after the Ripper murders. He certainly would not have been running around London stealing stolen pocket watches at that time!