mark.waltz 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?

MARIO GAUCI 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...

skoyles 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.

mcguffin2001 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.