jimbo-53-186511
Chandler Jarrell (Eddie Murphy) is an expert at finding lost children. Jarrell learns of a case where a missing Tibetan child known as The Golden Child has been kidnapped and is asked to assist in rescuing the child. The Golden Child is no ordinary child and is the sole person responsible for ensuring peace will remain on Earth, but evil sorcerers lead by Sardo Numspa (Charles Dance) intend to use the child for their own evil purposes and in order to appease their evil god.I'm prepared to commend this film because despite some of its weaknesses it is a fairly original story and for that reason it is very easy to get involved with the film. This film of course has Eddie Murphy in it from a time back in the 1980's when he was very much still in his prime. Part of the reason that this film works is Murphy himself - he brings his usual energy to the table and the fact that he also plays a good guy who's fairly likable also helped to keep me invested in the film.This film is also pretty funny - I liked it at the start where Murphy is trying to make an appeal about his search for a lost kid and the talk show host is talking over him and tries to change the subject or discuss more trivial matters. It's funny because it's believable and I assume it meant to act as some sort of satire on arrogant and self-absorbed talk show hosts. What the writers were trying to say here didn't really matter to me (the fact that I found it funny was more important). The humour here was also surprisingly clean for a Murphy vehicle and it's even more surprising given the dark plot that the writers serve up here. All these aspects work well to create an entertaining and original film but....I've applauded the film for having a fairly original story, but sadly the development of the story is quite poor and is never really fleshed out enough to make this aspect work. There was also a random section where it's as though Murphy and the evil sorcerers are on a film set with a live audience which I never really understood. It kind of goes from interesting & refreshing to bizarre and strange - the final sequence is ridiculous and mildly embarrassing. I also felt that because the bizarre story dominated so much of the second half of the film that it almost undid all the humour and intrigue that had been built up in the first half.This film is far from perfect, but Murphy's energy, the original story, and the reasonable number of laughs that you get here do make it watchable. Dance isn't given much to do, but he is effective in his scenes and actually makes a good villain (albeit his character is a little thin). Lewis is more than a pretty face and actually holds her own well here and the chemistry between her and Murphy isn't bad.This film has an IMDb rating of 5.8 and I think that the IMDb community have got it about right; it's not great enough to stack up against some of Murphy's better vehicles, but it isn't bad enough to render it unwatchable.
richieandsam
THE GOLDEN CHILDI like this movie.It has been a lot of years since I last watched this film, and even though it was still very good... it was not as good as I used to think it was.Eddie Murphy is a legend. I love his movies from the 80s. He was so funny. Don't get me wrong... he still is, but he is more family friendly now. I thought he was funnier when he was swearing etc... his stand up gigs (Delirious and Raw) were brilliant.The Golden Child was funny, but not as good as some of Eddies others.There were a lot of special effects in this. They were great at the time, but these days they look pretty weak. The story was good though. I liked the idea of the knife and the way Eddie has to get it. The bad guy, played by Charles Dance, was awesome. I loved the way he was so British and calm through the whole film. He played the part really deadpan. I also loved the creature he turned into near the end. The only thing I am slightly disappointed about, was they killed him off too quickly. They could have stretched the ending out a bit. It seemed to end very quickly.But I love a lot of 80s films... I honestly believe they were brilliant. The look of them, the stories, the effects and the soundtracks were great. You can almost always tell an 80s movie from the background score of a film.I will give this film 7 out of 10.A great movie, but not as good as Coming to America, Beverly Hills Cop, Trading places etc...For more reviews, please like my Facebook page:http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ordinary-Person-Movie- Reviews/456572047728204?ref=hl
MaximumMadness
Ah, the 80's, how I love thee.There's just something about that decade. Whether it be for better or for worse, the 80's just had such a distinct style and character, and its one that I grew up with, despite being a 90's kid, as I watched my parents and older sister's favorite films of the 80's and experienced their love for the decade second-hand. I was born in '88, but I wish I had been born a few years prior, so I could have actually had memories of those years first-hand.And amongst those years, was Eddie Murphy. Now, I know that Murphy has been around since, with a slew of hit comedies in the 90's, and a few recent glimmers of hope at a career revival. But the 80's was the era of Eddie. It's where he reached his prime in classics like "Beverly Hills Cop", "Coming to America" and "Trading Places.""The Golden Child" is not one of Eddie's classics. It's arguably one of his worst films both plot and production wise, to be honest. It is, however, for all intents and purposes, a fun piece of fluff that literally oozes the 80's vibe, and has enough likability to actually function well as a brain-dead piece of dumb-fun.Murphy stars as our lead, Chandler Jarrell, a wise-cracking guy who works as... well, he works. I really didn't get what his character was supposed to be. At first, it's implied he's a cop or a detective, but then other scenes seem to suggest he's a social worker (which I've seen mentioned as his profession on other websites)... Yet he also is allowed onto the scene of a murder where he combs through evidence. Perhaps he's a cop who interns at a social work center?Anywho, Chandler is approached by a pretty young woman named Kee Nang, who informs him that he is the "chosen one", who must save the "Golden Child"- a child with magical powers, whom was kidnapped from Nepal by the villainous Sardo Numspa (Charles Dance), a demonic figure with magical powers of his own.Chandler, hesitant at first by Kee's bizarre claims, is eventually dragged into the fight to rescue the child when he realizes her claims are true. And so, a struggle to reclaim the magical boy and a mystical dagger begins from the clutches of Numspa begins.Before I start in on what's wrong with the film, first let me address what is right about it, and why I gave this film a few courtesy points. Eddie Murphy and the cast are enjoyable, and save the film. Murphy, though annoying, does illicit a lot (and I do mean a LOT) of giggles and chuckles throughout the film. Charlotte Lewis, who portrays Kee, is pretty and completely likable as Chandler's guide and potential love interest. Dance is a bit of fun as the villain. And supporting characters portrayed by the likes of Victor Wong, James Hong and J.L. Reate (the eponymous Golden Child, who is actually played by a girl) are a lot of fun. The cast is likable.Also, the effects in the film are fantastic for the 80's. A lot of stop-motion animation, miniatures and optical effects are utilized (and provided by Industrial Lights and Magic), and they are among the best of the decade. Particularly the stop motion in two sequences (the "dancing Pepsi can" and the big demon creatures who shows up), which are so well- done I completely forgot they were even effects, and thought they were somehow shot in-camera for real. Wonderful effects and animation work.Now, let's get started on what doesn't work. First, the script, by Dennis Feldman. It barely functions within a storytelling capacity. I already mentioned above the the film is barely able to establish what Chandler's profession is, and it doesn't stop there. The first few scenes are actually well-written, including a cool opening that establishes the Golden Child before he is kidnapped in a cool little heist, and a great comedic scene introducing Chandler. But from there, it falls apart. Almost no attention is given to character development. Chandler is the same character throughout the film- he doesn't grow or become more responsible. Nobody in the film at all has any sort of character arc. And the script seems unable to focus in on the story at all. Scene after scene is jumbled, and nothing is established properly. It's a very poorly written film.The direction by Michael Ritchie and the editing by Richard A. Harris (both established talents in film) are the other big problem. Ritchie, who is actually a decent filmmaker, seems lost with the material. Shots are very bland and boring, and a lot of them are poorly framed. It felt like his heart wasn't in it at all. And the editing is jarring, foul and creates an uneven pace that will practically give you whiplash. Not only that, but the jarring nature of the editing also creates a lot of continuity problems. It's a poorly crafted film from the directorial and editing perspective.Also, there are a lot of weird little problems within the film. From wonky costume design, to bizarre inconsistencies within the logic of the filmmaking (including the treatment of Kee, who is alternatingly sexualized and made to look "hot" before suddenly being dressed uber- conservatively and un-sexualized, which happens repeatedly)... It felt like the crew was unaware and unsure of what type of film to make, and kept second-guessing themselves."The Golden Child" is a bizarre little film. The performances and the imaginative effects make it worth checking out, but the storytelling and direction is offensively bad. I'd say give it a shot, you might like it, you might not. An average 5 out of 10 for the good which just slightly outweighs the bad.
