The Shaolin Avengers [1976]

[NoKUNGFUforYU]

I am going to have to disagree on Shaolin Avengers with Cold Bishop. My reasoning is probably more based on having seen Men From the Monastery when it was released in San Francisco in 1974, and everyone, including the SF Chronicle, reviewed it and recommended it highly. It was one of the first and had a huge emotional impact. I have always wished I could have studied Hung Gar (for fun, I don't consider it that practical compared to Muay Thai, Judo, or, honestly, even Choy Lay Fut) but I never got to study much pure kung fu, besides a stint in Wing Chun and 3 or 4 years ruining my spine in Wu Shu.

To me, Shaolin Avengers is a dull remake, and as I said, no Hung Hsi Kwan (Chen Kuan Tai's full contact credentials always helped the films). Some of the fights are good, but as I said, some of it just put me off (I thought the whole whips scene was silly and the "acting" was pretty horrible, and I am a die hard Fu Shen fan).

Watched Showdown at the Cottonmill, which took a sliver of a story and stretched to 90 minutes, and doesn't even make sense as in the original story Hu Wei Chuan gets revenge, THEN battles the Ching's etc. Of course, they are all pretty much fictional characters and stories- if the Ching's wanted to wipe someone out, they aren't going to send one guy, they send the army, and a temple would not be able to withstand flaming arrows, 1000's of swordsmen and spear-men. Heck, they probably had muskets as well. I mean, they can't even find an actual Shaolin Temple in Canton or south China, the only one that is historically verified is in the north. Now, Tan Tao Liang looked great in the Showdown at the Cottonmill, and if you are going to kill someone, why not hit him when his back is turned? He's an assassin, right? Anyway, my two cents.

[Killer Meteor]

I am going to have to disagree on Shaolin Avengers with Cold Bishop. My reasoning is probably more based on having seen Men From the Monastery when it was released in San Francisco in 1974, and everyone, including the SF Chronicle, reviewed it and recommended it highly. It was one of the first and had a huge emotional impact. I have always wished I could have studied Hung Gar (for fun, I don't consider it that practical compared to Muay Thai, Judo, or, honestly, even Choy Lay Fut) but I never got to study much pure kung fu, besides a stint in Wing Chun and 3 or 4 years ruining my spine in Wu Shu.

To me, Shaolin Avengers is a dull remake, and as I said, no Hung Hsi Kwan (Chen Kuan Tai's full contact credentials always helped the films). Some of the fights are good, but as I said, some of it just put me off (I thought the whole whips scene was silly and the "acting" was pretty horrible, and I am a die hard Fu Shen fan).

Watched Showdown at the Cottonmill, which took a sliver of a story and stretched to 90 minutes, and doesn't even make sense as in the original story Hu Wei Chuan gets revenge, THEN battles the Ching's etc. Of course, they are all pretty much fictional characters and stories- if the Ching's wanted to wipe someone out, they aren't going to send one guy, they send the army, and a temple would not be able to withstand flaming arrows, 1000's of swordsmen and spear-men. Heck, they probably had muskets as well. I mean, they can't even find an actual Shaolin Temple in Canton or south China, the only one that is historically verified is in the north. Now, Tan Tao Liang looked great in the Showdown at the Cottonmill, and if you are going to kill someone, why not hit him when his back is turned? He's an assassin, right? Anyway, my two cents.

The Tan Tao-Liang character is also in Two Chapions of Shaolin, where he is played by Lu Feng. They even do the whole up-rooting tree trick, only in Two Champions it is Tung Ti-Chin (Lo Meng) who is trapped doing this, rather then Hu Huei-Chien (Chiang Sheng).

[Cold Bishop]

My reasoning is probably more based on having seen Men From the Monastery when it was released in San Francisco in 1974, and everyone, including the SF Chronicle, reviewed it and recommended it highly.

You know, you're not the first person I've heard mention that this film was a big deal in SF, but I just don't get it. Was Chang's "heroic bloodshed" still novel enough at the time to U.S. audiences? Did the Revolutionary theme still play well for a city not far removed from its radical heyday? Certainly the film itself isn't that great.

I love Chen Kuan-Tai, but not enough to overlook his lack of character arc. I'm still not sure if Shaolin Avengers is a great film - as I said, it's waiting a rewatch - but it certainly does an all-around better job telling the same story.

[NoKUNGFUforYU]

Almost everything else that was out were bashers, or anti Japanese films such as Hapkido/Lady Kung fu, and the studios were looking for the next Bruce Lee. The classical shapes were not seen by audiences out here (the never saw Wong Fei Hung movies) so it was a stark contrast to movies such as Duel of the Iron Fist, etc. Couple that with the quality of film, color, etc, and the Shaw Brothers movies looked like Pop art. The thing with shapes is that they are elegant, though impractical, and you don't have to try and look eclectic like Bruce Lee. You also have to remember, it was San Francisco, so they probably thought Fang Shih Yu's death was "interesting". This was a long time ago, 1975, and it looked fresh. Movies took about a year to make it from HK to SF.

[Killer Meteor]

Almost everything else that was out were bashers, or anti Japanese films such as Hapkido/Lady Kung fu, and the studios were looking for the next Bruce Lee. The classical shapes were not seen by audiences out here (the never saw Wong Fei Hung movies) so it was a stark contrast to movies such as Duel of the Iron Fist, etc. Couple that with the quality of film, color, etc, and the Shaw Brothers movies looked like Pop art. The thing with shapes is that they are elegant, though impractical, and you don't have to try and look eclectic like Bruce Lee. You also have to remember, it was San Francisco, so they probably thought Fang Shih Yu's death was "interesting". This was a long time ago, 1975, and it looked fresh. Movies took about a year to make it from HK to SF.

I think that's why "From China With Death" (AKA Wits to Wits) stood out to early US based kung fu fans/critics: it was a comedy.

[NoKUNGFUforYU]

I saw that when it (From China with Death) came out at the old Lux theater in Oakland, and I really enjoyed it! I was 14, so go figure. Still, the fights were decent and I was amused. Wu Ma is one of those guys that is underrated. I think he could do movies as good as anything CC was doing, he just did not get the budget and control. Sounds like he was into getting better performances out of his actors. Ah, the old days.

[Tex Killer]

Funny how quickly Fu Shengs character agrees not to get involved with girls because training kungfu requires to be virgin. Sure sign of gay:tongue:

I prefer men from the monastery over shaolin avengers. White avengers has better fights I hate that flashback concept...

[Chinatown Kid]

Well I imagine being a Virgin also means not taking it up the ass either. I'm sorry but people reading this fag stuff into movies I think means they must have buried homo tendices themselves. I don't think Chang ever had such underlying motives and I believe him at his word that he wasn't gay. He liked to show macho blood and guts stuff but that's along way from wanting to bed down with another man!

[KUNG FU BOB]

What the hell ?! (I haven't seen the film where that happens so... it sounds a bit surprising)

Supposedly Fong Sai-Yuk went through a medicinal process to create "Iron Skin" and make himself invulnerable to blades. He did this by soaking in a huge pot of special herbs. Since a person's anus typically stays closed tight when not defecating, the concoction did not get in there. Thus Fong's anus was his only vulnerable spot. This is why his enemies want to stab him there to kill him.

Must be my morbid curiosity, but I'd be into checking out this one - that also goes for Men From The Monastery actually, even if it sounds like a bad one.

Though MEN FROM THE MONASTERY may be considered low on the totem pole of Chang Cheh's films by a lot of fans, in my opinion it is far from a bad film. As far as classic kung fu movies go, I regard it as a classic. If you haven't seen this or SHAOLIN AVENGERS, they're both definitely worth seeing.

You know, you're not the first person I've heard mention that this film was a big deal in SF, but I just don't get it. Was Chang's "heroic bloodshed" still novel enough at the time to U.S. audiences? Did the Revolutionary theme still play well for a city not far removed from its radical heyday? Certainly the film itself isn't that great.

I am going to have to disagree on Shaolin Avengers with Cold Bishop. My reasoning is probably more based on having seen Men From the Monastery when it was released in San Francisco in 1974, and everyone, including the SF Chronicle, reviewed it and recommended it highly.

I have to agree NoKUNGFUforYU. Remember guys, when this came out it was still very fresh, exciting stuff. There weren't countless kung fu films available in the States at that time, and stories of these Chinese heroes and the Shaolin Temple were still quite exotic and bold. So MEN FROM THE MONASTERY was not just another in a sea of similar films when we first saw it.

To me, Shaolin Avengers is a dull remake, and as I said, no Hung Hsi Kwan (Chen Kuan Tai's full contact credentials always helped the films).

Though I don't feel the same way as you regarding SHAOLIN AVENGERS, I do agree that Chen Kuan-Tai being in MEN FROM THE MONASTERY was something that made me enjoy the film a whole lot. His very real kung fu skills blew my mind when I first saw them (though not nearly as long ago as those that had the pleasure of seeing them in the theater), and elevated the movie's action to a whole different level than it could have achieved without him.

I love Chen Kuan-Tai, but not enough to overlook his lack of character arc. I'm still not sure if Shaolin Avengers is a great film - as I said, it's waiting a rewatch - but it certainly does an all-around better job telling the same story.

Granted, when Chen first hit the scene acting was not his most bankable skill. He's come a long way in that department (just check out GALLANTS to see), but back then his roles were showcasing his more impressive physical skills. I think that each of the films has it's merits and flaws, but that they're both great kung fu flicks. Let me put it this way- It would be sad times indeed for any fool that tried to snatch either of them from my collection.

Almost everything else that was out were bashers, or anti Japanese films such as Hapkido/Lady Kung fu, and the studios were looking for the next Bruce Lee. The classical shapes were not seen by audiences out here (the never saw Wong Fei Hung movies) so it was a stark contrast to movies such as Duel of the Iron Fist, etc. Couple that with the quality of film, color, etc, and the Shaw Brothers movies looked like Pop art. The thing with shapes is that they are elegant, though impractical, and you don't have to try and look eclectic like Bruce Lee.

Yes, seeing these types of films within their own historical context has a lot to do with people's perception of them. I recently showed my niece and nephew (11 and 9 years old respectively) Bruce Lee's action scenes from ENTER THE DRAGON (their parents would not be cool with them seeing the whole movie). They were not impressed at all. They sort of looked at me quizzically like "Am I supposed to like this?" They both study Penjat Silat (quite seriously), so since they have knowledge of martial arts I thought they'd find it fascinating. But to them Bruce's movements weren't anything that different than what they'd seen their instructor do. However, Jackie fighting "The Jet" from DRAGONS FOREVER got their attention, and Tony's antics in ONG-BAK had them clapping with excitement. Can we compare something like Wang Yu's swordfights in BEACH OF THE WAR GODS to Jet Li's "inn fight" in FEARLESS?

[OpiumKungFuCracker]

Well I imagine being a Virgin also means not taking it up the ass either. I'm sorry but people reading this fag stuff into movies I think means they must have buried homo tendices themselves. I don't think Chang ever had such underlying motives and I believe him at his word that he wasn't gay. He liked to show macho blood and guts stuff but that's along way from wanting to bed down with another man!

Hahhahahaha! Oh man I love this movie so much!!!

[Secret Executioner]

Great post there, KUNG FU BOB. While checking out the trailers for the films, I noticed there was an insistance on Fu Sheng's character's "weakness". And thanks for the advice, though I had already planned to check them out - guess I'll just need to try and find them now.

[Tex Killer]

guess I'll just need to try and find them now.

^dddhouse has them both. I don`t think either CC was gay but some his movies have kind of gay moments.F e in magnificent ruffians venoms run away from girls and I think there is some slap to butt also between guys(can be wrong, has been years since last view), in golden swallow lo lieh admires how handsome silver roc is...

[Cold Bishop]

He liked to show macho blood and guts stuff but that's along way from wanting to bed down with another man!

A lot of people were doing macho blood and guts stuff that era, but nobody else's films drip with as much homoeroticism. Perhaps we're all reading it into his films.... but that doesn't change the fact that there something in his films, beyond anyone else's, that leaves itself open to such reaction.

[OpiumKungFuCracker]

The flashback scene where Fu Sheng's brothers were bathing him in that steaming bathtub was pretty homoerotic but I didn't think too much of it but who knows maybe I should now, thanks to some of the posters here, hint.......hint.......hint......

[Chinatown Kid]

Sorry guys I posted after having a few drinks and probably responded to harshly lol. If people read the gay stuff into Cheh's movies that's their business and have a right to it. I just never read that into his films.

[Chinatown Kid]

The character Lam Ching plays in Prodigal Son seems obviously gay but I never see anybody talk about it. The English dubbed voice is real effeminate and he acts so sissy even though he can kick ass with his Wing Chun.

[KUNG FU BOB]

The character Lam Ching plays in Prodigal Son seems obviously gay but I never see anybody talk about it. The English dubbed voice is real effeminate and he acts so sissy even though he can kick ass with his Wing Chun.

Yes, I've always assumed this character was supposed to be gay. Sammo's character even makes a bunch of derogatory comments in regards to Lam's character being homosexual.

As far as Chang Cheh goes, I've read that stuff about "homo-erotic underpinnings" in his films and such in a bunch of places. If he was gay I doubt his life would've been very tolerable had he publicly admitted it in Honk Kong in the '70s or '80s, which is sad. Certainly this director's sexual preference for either men or women doesn't have any effect at all on how I enjoy his films. I don't care either way.

As for his choices in portraying men- if I'm going to see a bunch of dudes on screen fighting, I'd prefer to see cool looking, muscular ones that look like they could actually do what they're being depicted doing. The bloodier the better. There were definitely some outfits in the later Chang Cheh films that I wouldn't feel comfortable wearing, but to each his own.

Regarding his lack of women in his films... After being weened on (mostly terrible) US action films that wasted a lot of screen-time on who-gives-a-shit romantic plotting, instead of getting to the action, I had no complaints. In fact, I watched kung fu films for quite a few years before suddenly thinking "Hey, I wonder why there aren't any women in this film?"

[Cold Bishop]

I don't think anyone could argue that Hong Kong doesn't have a thing for (usually offensive) gay caricature... it's kind of a big part of the Cantonese Comedy. Chang Cheh's thing is something else entirely. It's almost entirely built around repression/sublimation. Certainly, the stuff he's dealing with is basic action-film fundamentals - muscle men, violence, camaraderie - and perhaps not queer in itself. It's the way everything is exaggerated to their chintzy, homosocial, sadomasochistic extremes. And there's the sheer repetition of it all: it's borderline fetishistic. I think Roger Garcia once described Chang Cheh's "heroic bloodshed" narrative as a ritual that constantly needs to be repeated and reenacted; revived with fresh blood, so to speak. And he does, in film after film. You could call it laziness, but that doesn't explain the general high quality across films.

To me, getting to the heart of this repetition is getting to the heart of Chang Cheh the auteur. And while homosexuality/homoeroticism doesn't need to be the only thing, it does provide a pretty compelling key to the whole filmography.

And its not that Chang Cheh simply ignores female characters: his films, for much of his career, has plenty of them. He just seems to have no idea what women are actually like, and most of the time can't be bothered to learn. Even the most fascinating female characters in his film comes as result of this confusion. (e.g. Ching Li in The Blood Brothers).

[Chinatown Kid]

Guess he was homosexual then, never paid much attention to that stuff you point out lol.I'm like bob in that doesn't really bother me, I still like his kickass films. His private life was his business.

[Cold Bishop]

Hey, like I said, homoeroticism isn't the only takeaway from his films. There's plenty else to mull over and enjoy there, that you could probably ignore that aspect most of the time. But seeing film after film after film of his (I've been slowly working on watching and writing up his whole filmography) certain patterns are unavoidable.

In fact, that Garcia quote had nothing to with homoeroticism. Instead, he was trying to point out some proto-fascist implications in his work (which I also think are there).

Which generally makes me wonder if Chang Cheh was aware of Yukio Mishima's work, as Chang was something of a Nipponophile and the two do share a lot in common. Especially as Mishima redirected his youthful homosexuality into a seemingly sexless guise of ultra-macho patriotic honor, typically suicidally violent in nature. Which is a good description of Chang's "heroic bloodshed".

[NoKUNGFUforYU]

Wow, Mishima reference! Pretty cerebral. You can kind of see the female characters disappear in his movies, and the choreography, etc lean more towards acrobatics, etc. I would say Chinatown Kid (the movie) had some strong female archetypes, the good girl, whore and dragon lady (Wang Lung Wei's female companion, who I am still a little confused is supposed to be- girlfriend or old sister), but after 5 venoms, it really gets to be a sausage fest. And for me, the choreography got really silly and dancy. I liked Crippled Avengers, and considering they were all handicapped, I can't imagine there would be a lot of women around anyway, so the lack of females would be understandable. One thing that doesn't seem to come up much is that fact that through many of the periods these films were set in there was footbinding. The reality is that I doubt there would be many female experts in Kung Fu, especially in the Ming and Ching Dynasty, and even the Republic. It really was a disgraceful practice, born out of incredible male insecurity, from what I can tell. So, I would imagine the reality would be most women would be at home, barefoot and pregnant. It never occurred to me until recently. Anyway, Chang made some great movies and some stinkers. I have to agree in a sense that having a bunch of mushy scenes in action movies doesn't make much sense- you could accuse Sergio Leone of the same thing, if you didn't see his later films with Claudia Cardinale and so on.

[peringaten]

I think that opera the Boundary Gate Pass reimagined over & over & over & over again is key to CC's work more than anything.

[OpiumKungFuCracker]

[Cold Bishop]

I think that opera the Boundary Gate Pass reimagined over & over & over & over again is key to CC's work more than anything.

No doubt: Vengeance! makes that abundantly clear (and that opening 15 minutes might be my favorite stretch in any Chang Cheh film). But the question is: Why go back to that narrative model repeatedly and obsessively? It's like a mantra he has to repeat over and over. I think you have to get to the bottom of that if you want to get to the bottom of Chang's body of work.

[Killer Meteor]

No doubt: Vengeance! makes that abundantly clear (and that opening 15 minutes might be my favorite stretch in any Chang Cheh film). But the question is: Why go back to that narrative model repeatedly and obsessively? It's like a mantra he has to repeat over and over. I think you have to get to the bottom of that if you want to get to the bottom of Chang's body of work.

Jess Franco repeatedly returned to the same characters, names, situations - blind fiends, characters called Orlof, characters named Morpho. He also had his muses - Soledad Miranda, Lina Romay - who frequently are naked and die in bloody manner.

Laziness? Obbsession? It's one way to get a filmography of 200 movies!

It's interesting that some of Chang's later films explicity draw on previous works. The Flag of Iron is The Duel, Kid With The Golden Arm is Have Sword, Will Travel, etc

Having recurrent homoerotic imagery doesn't mean the filmmaker is gay (unless Stallone wants to tell us something?). And for that matter, being gay doesn't stop you making great pictures about women (George Cukor comes to mind).

In general, kung fu films seem to not have great romantic relationships. That kiss between Bruce and Nora in Fist of Fury stands out like the Monolith in 2001 - I can think of no other like scene like it. Half the time, the heroines might as well be the little sisters or cousins - and, in The Big Boss, they are both! It seems a lot of the filmmakers went for the Madonna/Whore concept. If you want to see passion, it'll be from a girl who won't make it to the end of the movie!