The Shaolin Avengers [1976]

[reason108]

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.

I would guess that the main reason he kept going back to it was because it was formula that made the Shaws very wealthy men. I would bet that if musicals or love stories made more money than kung fu then perhaps he would have been making those kinds of movies instead. And, perhaps the Shaws would not allow him any other options once he became such a success. Why mess with a proven success? And, there is a lot of nationalism in those movies. I don`t think that the Chinese audiences were thinking that they were buying tickets for gay kung fu cinema. I think that they saw the values of self sacrifice for one`s country or what defines a hero in battle, etc... And, if CC was sneaking in some hidden agenda in there then good for him cause he found a way to make it work without getting himself in trouble.

And, I do not care whether he was gay or straight or whatever but I realize that there could have been many reasons why he did what he did. I thought that his actors talked about him being married and they would spend time with him and his wife at their home. But, just because someone is married does not mean that they cant be gay and living a secret life.

Until some insider writes that tell-all book, I guess that we shall never know.

[NoKUNGFUforYU]

[quote=

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!

[Killer Meteor]

It's true. The heroes never have consensual sex in most of these movies, if they do, the girl usually dies, or both. I can only think of a few where the hero (lo lieh) has sex and does not die. I always thought the rape scenes were a way to have nudity in the movies, as the hero would never have unwed sex, etc. Pretty creepy, actually. Lots of hangups. Of course, that started to change in the late 70's and 80's. Maybe they saw the reviews and said, uh oh! Everyone thinks these movies are gay. My understanding is that by the late 70's that is what the critics were saying about Chang Cheh. Anyway, he seemed to run out of ideas. That is why I stopped watch Shaw Brothers movies after a while. I mean, listen to the interview with Chi Kuan Chun- "He would tell me use Expression 1, 2, or 3"!

Ch Kuan-Chun is very wooden, but to be fair the characters he played were often stolid and remote. Nice abs though

[NoKUNGFUforYU]

I tend to agree that he was wooden, and cut, but if you watch the interview on the Showdown at the Cottonmill disc, it's not like he got any training whatsoever at Shaw's/Cheng Cheh. He remarks that Wu Ma's was the first director to help him out in that department, while Chang was very intimidating, and obviously disinterested. Maybe he got there when they cut back the drama part of the program, or they just didn't put him in it.

I think Chang saw the venoms and said, "buffed, already trained- they're in, you're out". Like I said before, as the Venoms got to be in more and more movies, I got less and less interested. I think that puts me at odds with most fans.

I remember people telling me "I saw this movie on TV called 5 Venoms and it was great!" While that movie was basically the first nail in the coffin. The last was "the Daredevils". I walked out of the Great Star and said, "That's enough of that". A few years later someone told me Fu Sheng had died. An Era passed.

[Cold Bishop]

I always found it fascinating that, for all the crap the Venom films received from HK critics - that it was Chang scraping the bottom of the barrel, etc.- that it was really a flipside to everything Yuen Woo Ping, Sammo Hung and Jackie Chan were doing with the Kung-Fu Comedy: the reintroduction of Operatic and Acrobatic martial-arts to the genre after a solid decade of the genre running away from it as quickly as it could.

Of course, the "Comedy" directors were much more seamless in mixing the genre with the perceived "authenticity" of Shapes, while Chang Cheh openly embraced the pageantry and artifice of the Peking Opera. Which is all the more shocking considering how disparaging Chang Cheh was of the Opera's influence on martial-arts cinema in the late '60s: it was a complete about-face, and I don't feel people give enough credit to this when they write off the period as lazy or simplistic.

[NoKUNGFUforYU]

Here's the thing. They were doing comedy, and, lots of other groundbreaking things were happening- more contact, more modern settings, better slapstick, photography and budgets. Chang did some great movies, then he shot his load, so to speak. If Scorcese had to crank out 5 or 6 movies per year, he'd burn out as well. I'm not saying Chang Cheh is Scorcese, just that an artist has so many things in him. Tarantino has said that he takes his time, and I am sure part of that is that he would run out of ideas, and movies to "borrow" from.

As a personal point of reference, I saw Young Master at the Pagoda Palace at about the same time that the Venoms were going strong. I was blown away. The story was not much better in those movies, but everything else was. They spent a long time making that movie, and it shows. Compare that to any of Chang Cheh's movies at the time.

Anyway, no one wins an argument.

[Killer Meteor]

Here's the thing. They were doing comedy, and, lots of other groundbreaking things were happening- more contact, more modern settings, better slapstick, photography and budgets. Chang did some great movies, then he shot his load, so to speak. If Scorcese had to crank out 5 or 6 movies per year, he'd burn out as well. I'm not saying Chang Cheh is Scorcese, just that an artist has so many things in him. Tarantino has said that he takes his time, and I am sure part of that is that he would run out of ideas, and movies to "borrow" from.

As a personal point of reference, I saw Young Master at the Pagoda Palace at about the same time that the Venoms were going strong. I was blown away. The story was not much better in those movies, but everything else was. They spent a long time making that movie, and it shows. Compare that to any of Chang Cheh's movies at the time.

Anyway, no one wins an argument.

I think the storytelling in Chang Cheh (and Lo Wei and other old-school directors) became increasingly bland. Characters recite chunks of exposition, standing in line like a proscenium arch. The stiff Mandarin dubbing didn't help. Most of the Venoms pictures didn't get a Cantonese release

By comparison, Jackie, Sammo and the Yuen's had a very mercurial, improvisational approach to their films. Their films seem alive, spontaenous.

One problem I have with some of Chang's later films is they have way too many leading men. It's not just the Venoms pictures. I swear in Shaolin Temple, the camera has to slowly pan to a dozen actors in turn just to get a reaction to a single event.

Jackie, and Bruce before him, frequently went for films where they are the sole heroes, and it is much better focused. It's hard to get quite the same handle on a story where we have to focus on so many leads.

I think Chang Cheh is a great director and a great example of an auteur. It's a pity he was creatively exhausted by his workload, but even in the 80s, some cracking films shine through.

[Killer Meteor]

I tend to agree that he was wooden, and cut, but if you watch the interview on the Showdown at the Cottonmill disc, it's not like he got any training whatsoever at Shaw's/Cheng Cheh. He remarks that Wu Ma's was the first director to help him out in that department, while Chang was very intimidating, and obviously disinterested. Maybe he got there when they cut back the drama part of the program, or they just didn't put him in it.

I think Chang saw the venoms and said, "buffed, already trained- they're in, you're out". Like I said before, as the Venoms got to be in more and more movies, I got less and less interested. I think that puts me at odds with most fans.

I remember people telling me "I saw this movie on TV called 5 Venoms and it was great!" While that movie was basically the first nail in the coffin. The last was "the Daredevils". I walked out of the Great Star and said, "That's enough of that". A few years later someone told me Fu Sheng had died. An Era passed.

Yes, i though Chi was a lot better in Showdown At The Cotton Mill and Eagle's Claws.

I wonder if Chang clearly favouring Fu Sheng over Chi, and before that David Chiang over Ti Lung, caused tensions? It probably explains why indie stars like Meng Fei and Lee Yi-min didn't last long with Chang.

I enjoy the Venoms, but they were competing against each other, I feel. It's interesting that of all of them, only Wei Pei got a lot of attention (and better studio offers), which is weird because he's the weakest of them. I feel they would have benefitted from more solo work and working with other directors, like when Ti Lung bloomed under the careful direction of Chor Yuen.

[Cold Bishop]

I think the storytelling in Chang Cheh (and Lo Wei and other old-school directors) became increasingly bland. Characters recite chunks of exposition, standing in line like a proscenium arch. The stiff Mandarin dubbing didn't help. Most of the Venoms pictures didn't get a Cantonese release

Oh, I completely agree. The "Comedy" directors had their pulse on what was going in the mainstream of cinema; the whole cycle of films was undoubtedly a response to the Hui Brothers and the return to Cantonese.

Yet, to me, the very barebones and impoverished elements of Chang's Venom Mob films are very much part of their aesthetic. His films are borderline experimental in the way they strip back and down everything they can from popular narrative cinema and openly embrace the artificiality of Peking Opera. Na Cha the Great and Heaven and Hell are probably terrible films, but as mission statements, they make clear that Chang was trying to do something with these films, not simply fill contract quotas.

Does that mean every film is good? Absolutely not, although I'm surprised at the general quality of the films I've seen. It does, however, prevent me from writing them off as dumb action films. Chang was attempting something. Maybe it got away from him, but I have no doubt he still had enough clout he could have slowed down or tried something different. That he didn't should say something.

Jackie, and Bruce before him, frequently went for films where they are the sole heroes, and it is much better focused. It's hard to get quite the same handle on a story where we have to focus on so many leads.

However, I think that's very deliberate a clear progression in Cheng Cheh's philosophy. His career starts with studies of solitary "angry young men" who have some implacable impulse within them that doesn't allow them to exist in society with other people. Then you have the "Iron Triangle" films which are all about friendship and devotion between two men, who are nonetheless assailed on all sides the way his lone heroes use to be. And then in his final stretch, he embraces the "Super Group" concept, which allows him to mount these paeans to almost utopian communities of male camaraderie.

While I think the "Super Group" was initially driven by pure star power and box-office potential (Come see all these superstars!) the fact he stuck with them even after a lot of his more famous collaborators took off tells me it struck a chord with him.

It probably explains why indie stars like Meng Fei and Lee Yi-min didn't last long with Chang.

I enjoy the Venoms, but they were competing against each other... I feel they would have benefitted from more solo work and working with other directors, like when Ti Lung bloomed under the careful direction of Chor Yuen.

I thought one aspect of the Chang's Film Co. was to bring in some of that indie talent that was so popular in Taiwan. I don't think any of these people were intended to stay with the company; it was just to give the films a "bump" from film to film. E.G. Carter Wong's one-off in Marco Polo. Meng Fei was already somewhat popular due to Prodigal Boxer, and I wouldn't be surprised if Five Shaolin Masters was partly sold as the meeting of the Fong Sai-Yuk's.Li Yi-Min it seems was the only one with a contract. Chang probably just wanted another "hook" to bring in Taiwanese audiences (and its interesting to note that all the Chang's Film Co. films were pretty much considered under-performers, if not failures by Shaw) and he really had no interest in keeping and cultivating them.

As for the second point: I'd agree. Even Philip Kwok, who was the most favored Venoms, had a greater range and star potential than anyone ever gave him credit for. I know most of Chang's "discoveries" had contracts stipulating they could only work for him, and after seeing so many of his former stars having moved on, I wonder if he wasn't somewhat protective. Frankly, I'm sure he could have benefited from working with some other people as well.

Chang did some great movies, then he shot his load, so to speak. If Scorcese had to crank out 5 or 6 movies per year, he'd burn out as well. I'm not saying Chang Cheh is Scorcese, just that an artist has so many things in him.

I've always called Chang Cheh "Kung Fu's Fassbinder".... but now we're back to the whole "homoerotic" thing:tongue:

[Killer Meteor]

Oh, I completely agree. The "Comedy" directors had their pulse on what was going in the mainstream of cinema; the whole cycle of films was undoubtedly a response to the Hui Brothers and the return to Cantonese.

Yet, to me, the very barebones and impoverished elements of Chang's Venom Mob films are very much part of their aesthetic. His films are borderline experimental in the way they strip back and down everything they can from popular narrative cinema and openly embrace the artificiality of Peking Opera. Na Cha the Great and Heaven and Hell are probably terrible films, but as mission statements, they make clear that Chang was trying to do something with these films, not simply fill contract quotas.

Does that mean every film is good? Absolutely not, although I'm surprised at the general quality of the films I've seen. It does, however, prevent me from writing them off as dumb action films. Chang was attempting something. Maybe it got away from him, but I have no doubt he still had enough clout he could have slowed down or tried something different. That he didn't should say something.However, I think that's very deliberate a clear progression in Cheng Cheh's philosophy. His career starts with studies of solitary "angry young men" who have some implacable impulse within them that doesn't allow them to exist in society with other people. Then you have the "Iron Triangle" films which are all about friendship and devotion between two men, who are nonetheless assailed on all sides the way his lone heroes use to be. And then in his final stretch, he embraces the "Super Group" concept, which allows him to mount these paeans to almost utopian communities of male camaraderie.

While I think the "Super Group" was initially driven by pure star power and box-office potential (Come see all these superstars!) the fact he stuck with them even after a lot of his more famous collaborators took off tells me it struck a chord with him.

I thought one aspect of the Chang's Film Co. was to bring in some of that indie talent that was so popular in Taiwan. I don't think any of these people were intended to stay with the company; it was just to give the films a "bump" from film to film. E.G. Carter Wong's one-off in Marco Polo. Meng Fei was already somewhat popular due to Prodigal Boxer, and I wouldn't be surprised if Five Shaolin Masters was partly sold as the meeting of the Fong Sai-Yuk's.Li Yi-Min it seems was the only one with a contract. Chang probably just wanted another "hook" to bring in Taiwanese audiences (and its interesting to note that all the Chang's Film Co. films were pretty much considered under-performers, if not failures by Shaw) and he really had no interest in keeping and cultivating them.

As for the second point: I'd agree. Even Philip Kwok, who was the most favored Venoms, had a greater range and star potential than anyone ever gave him credit for. I know most of Chang's "discoveries" had contracts stipulating they could only work for him, and after seeing so many of his former stars having moved on, I wonder if he wasn't somewhat protective. Frankly, I'm sure he could have benefited from working with some other people as well.I've always called Chang Cheh "Kung Fu's Fassbinder".... but now we're back to the whole "homoerotic" thing:tongue:

I'm on record as rather enjoying Heaven And Hell.

Interesting the Chang's Films underperformed. Were the likes of Heroes Two popular at least? I know Fantastic Magic Baby was a box-office disaster.

[Cold Bishop]

Pretty much. I think it was a situation where Shaw Brothers had so much money riding on the company that anything less the record-breaking blockbusters would have been seen as underwhelming.

When Chang started using the company on confounding experimental works (Na Cha, Magic Baby, the constantly halted and reconfigured The Hell) or genuinely expensive epics (Boxer Rebellion, Seven Man Army), then it became a genuine problem.

Lau Kar-Leung's even stated it as a reason for his disillusionment and break with Chang Cheh: he felt he was expending too much effort on films that didn't make money.

[Tex Killer]

I'm on record as rather enjoying Heaven And Hell.

It`s quite OK, some crazy stuff in hell and decent fights on "earth scenes"...

I am not able to tell do I like more venoms era or films before that. I love both but in different way. Obviously CC had more money to use and actors were more charismatic before 5 deadly venoms....On the other hand I enjoy greatly storylines in venom flicks and incredible choreography....When someone asks me what my fav CC film is I always name 2, masked avengers and 5 shaolin masters. Both are flawless masterpieces for me in different way, 1st is comic book like and 2nd more serious movie.

Daredevils which NKFFY dislikes I would take any day over young master(fine movie) even as it does not have that much action I like story how venoms set up military men into warehouse for terrific end fight.

[peringaten]

Lau Kar-Leung's even stated it as a reason for his disillusionment and break with Chang Cheh: he felt he was expending too much effort on films that didn't make money.

Source?

...

[Cold Bishop]

Cahiers du cinema

Besides, at the time when I departed from Chang Cheh, kung fu movies began to tire themselves out. When I returned to Shaws, I intended to terminate my contract with them. Because, despite our best efforts -- as much in the filmmaking as in the fights -- our movies didn't sell.

[Killer Meteor]

Cahiers du cinema

it's the same in the 1974 book Cinema of Vengeance. Kung fu films were losing their hold on local audiences. Probably explains why Golden Harvest went down the kung fu/sexploitation flicks like The Association. It seems Shaw's main martial arts revival was with the Gu Long/Chor Yuen films?

[Cold Bishop]

Well, Sex Films and Comedies were major moneymakers during that period (Historical Films also saw a revival) but the whole period was probably too schizophrenic to describe any dominant genre, outside the Cantonese Comedy. People remember how succesful the industry was in the early '80s they over look that it was practically in a free-fall during the mid-to-late '70s, with lots of people pessimistic about there even being a future Hong Kong industry.

Certainly Chor Yuen's films were a reliable money maker and revived the wuxia pian, which was nearly dead at the studio for two years, but even that audience was quickly chipped away by television, which adapted the same books in much longer form. While it had its stray blockbusters, the majority of those films weren't that much more successful than your average Venom Mob film.

Lau Kar-Leung's film, of course, were typically big moneymakers for the studio. But, he made films slower and less often. And even his films began being dwarfed by the Cantonese Kung-Fu films.

That describes the late '70s: it wasn't necessarily that Shaw couldn't make money, it's simply they were stuck in a situation where they couldn't cash in on the growing Hong Kong audience. Shaw's method could be described as making lots of films, aimed largely at the Chinese diaspora outside of Hong Kong: small profit-margins, lots of overhead. The big names of the Cantonese Revival/New Wave made less films, but they made more money by aiming square at local audiences: less overhead, bigger dividends.

That's really why Shaw Bros. closed it doors. They undoubtedly still had enough capital they could have reinvented and kept the studio going. But it would meaning razing the entire business model from the ground up, and I don't think Run Run was willing to do that.

[Killer Meteor]

Yes, I feel Shaws output is more "Chinese" than "Hong Kong."

[Cold Bishop]

I finally rewatched all the Shaolin Cycle, so here is my ranking:

1. Disciples of Shaolin (1975) - Simply put, one of the best films of Chang's career. Not only a great kung-fu film, but a superior melodrama, bringing a real pathos and class-consciousness to the genre. Tragedy in a pair of brand new shoes.

2. Shaolin Martial Arts (1974) - Maybe it was just lowered expectations, but this movie bowled me over. The first proper fully-formed Shapes Film, the fingerprints of Lau Kar-Leung are all over this film. Despite first looks, it's also much more than a simple iteration of the lose/train/fight/win "kung-fu cycle". The cycle actually plays out twice, with a mid-film plot-twist that anticipates both Executioners from Shaolin and Five Element Ninja, bringing the focus on innovation and pedagogy as much as revenge and brotherhood. People need to see this movie.

3. Shaolin Temple (1976) - It took all 8 films, and being scooped by both Joseph Kuo and Ulysses Au-Yeung Jen, but Chang Cheh finally makes a film set in the Temple. It's one of his most cohesive and handsome epics. Okay, it's not particularly complicated, and lot of the training doesn't reach the heights of sadomasochistic daring later Shapes would (surprising for Chang). But the film has a solid feel of a "hangout film", turning the Temple into a sort of college campus, Shaolin Academy if you will, with the all-star cast bringing all their charm. And when the final half-hour throwdown comes, it's filled with plenty of classic fights (favorites being the Wing Chun sparing between Ti Lung and Johnny Wang, and some proto-Venom acrobatics between Philip Kwok and Lu Feng).

4. Five Shaolin Masters (1974) - It's not the masterpiece people make it out to be, nor is it even the shapes landmark many claim it is (see above), but 5SM is a solid middle-entry. Appropriate given that it's a film of two very distinct halves, in both goals and qualities. The first half, where each character goes their separate ways, does a better job of balancing multiple narratives than its predecessor, but it's still largely dull: despite all the melodrama, only Fu Sheng's dimwitted brat has any sort of character, the rest of the cast seemingly relying on their simple star power. But we all know why we're here, and that's the second half, where our five decide to finish their training at the ruins of Shaolin, then square off with their five rivals. This is a Shapes extravaganza, set amidst the beautiful Taiwanese locations, and well worth a look. Only if the first half was as strong, and if Chang and Ni Kuang could have generated some real characterization and tension, this could have been a real contender.

5. Shaolin Avengers (1976) - As if admitting Men from the Monastery was mostly lousy, Chang allowed himself to remake that film merely two years later. There's no getting around that this is generally an all-around better film: sharper choreography, better widescreen cinematography, greater locations and sets. Nonetheless, it suffers some of the pitfalls of raking over tired material. Namely the Hu Huigan story, which is a scene-for-scene reshoot of the last film: it undoubtedly looks better, but it brings the film to something of a halt. Much better is Fang Shiyu's bout with Tiger Lei, which the film completely reimagines and retcons as a mini-training-for-revenge narrative. Those who thought I was being snide with my "death by sexual penetration" comment need only look here, a narrative which makes many of the Freudian connotations even more pronounced: you have sexual repression and sublimation (Fang's prerequisite virginity), castration anxieties (the death of the father, the training by the mother), the sexual immaturity of the anal-retentive stages (the film's explanation of Fang's weakspot) and some good ol' family sadomasochism (Fang's bedside whipping). Of course, this is only half the film, and the rest is much less bizarre. The final showdown may not be as strong as its predecessor, but its not lacking either, and narrative coherence goes a long way of making this preferable of the two.

6. New Shaolin Boxers (1976) - The mop-headed stepchild of the Cycle, this film is set far-and-away from the troubles of Shaolin, the early 20th century in fact, being really another opportunity for a Fu Sheng star-vehicle. Nonetheless, this movie trades in Hung Gar for Choy Lay Fat, and the result is a pretty solid Shapes film, with Fu Sheng training and taking revenge on baddies. I largely suspect Wu Ma did most if not all the directing here: the film bears Wu Ma's casual approach. It's not a comedy, but the film has a lightness which we typically associate with the genre. But when the blood starts flowing, it's able to slip into "heroic bloodshed" mode seamlessly: the final gut-spilling showdown between Fu Sheng and a claw-wielding, faux-leather-jacketed Johnny Wang is well worth the wait. The film doesn't aim for anything but the conventional, but it does more than a solid job with its aims.

7. Heroes Two (1974) - Chang Cheh at his most average and inoffensive. It's not one of his bad films, but there's nothing particularly outstanding going on here either. It's prison-break narrative brings to mind Water Margin... and I'm not fan of that film. By far, my favorite part of this is the "Three Styles of Hung's School Kung Fu", which IS part of the film. As for the rest, it shows all the tiredness of the basher circa the mid-'70s, but not nearly enough of the much-needed shapes innovation. The film briefly comes to life near the end, when the two heroes decide to join their Tiger and Crane, but that's too little to late. A solid diversion if you've seen most of the classics, but keep your expectations low.

8. Men from the Monastery (1974) - While the Shaolin folklore is compelling material, this is a slog of a film, one of the worst I've seen from Chang Cheh. It's essentially a three-part anthology film, and that's the problem: this approach could have worked in an epic, but here, it's both crowded and hollow, each story never getting below the surface level of its narrative. Shaolin Avengers would lose one of the main characters and be all the better for it. Fu Sheng fighting through Luolan Hall is interesting (and radically different from Shaolin Temple) and the final chapter, on its own merit, is a great Chang Cheh bloodbath. But by that point, I can care less about these three, Shaolin, or the Han and Manchu people. San Francisco, what were you thinking?

[Secret Executioner]

Great post, Cold Bishop. I wasn't too sure what movies qualified as "Shaolin cycle" (I would have thought Invincible Shaolin would have been part of it for instance) but that looks like a very nice bunch of films, despite some flaws here and there.

[Cold Bishop]

It's been discussed ad nauseum, but the cycle is definitely Heroes Two, Men from the Monastery, Five Shaolin Masters, Shaolin Avenger and Shaolin Temple since they all deal squarely with Shaolin folklore and the events surrounding the Burning.

Shaolin Martial Arts takes place a few generations later, but people generally include because of its thematic focus on the proliferation of Shaolin arts. It's interesting to note that the heroes and villains choice of fighting styles essentially mimic the conflict between Hung Hsi-Kwan/Ng Mui and Pai Mei, history repeating itself in their disciples.

In all honesty, Disciples of Shaolin and New Shaolin Boxers don't belong there, taking place well after the central conflict, and mostly forming a new trilogy, alonside The Chinatown Kid, of Fu Sheng tragedy. But they have historically been included, so there you go.

Showdown at the Cotton Mill wasn't made by Shaw Brothers, but it was planned by Chang Cheh, only being abandoned after Chang's Film Company ended and Chi Kuan-Chun decided to stay in Taiwan. Nonetheless, it was made by co-director Wu Ma and I believe produced by Chang, so it's arguably included. Just not here.

Invincible Shaolin, Shaolin Rescuers and Two Champions of Shaolin are typically excluded, despite some arguements to the contrary, as they're not part of the Chang's Film Company era.

Some go as far as to include Executioners from Shaolin (Chen Kuan-Tai as Hung Hsi-Kwan) and 36th Chamber of Shaolin, but that's crazy. Especially since you'd also have to include their respective sequels.

[Cloud Hands]

Very nice post Cold Bishop, enjoyed reading your thoughts on these. Personally I like Men From The Monastery more than you - primarily for Chi Kuan Chun, who is a BOSS in that film, and probably for nostalgia reasons.

[Secret Executioner]

It's been discussed ad nauseum, but the cycle is definitely Heroes Two, Men from the Monastery, Five Shaolin Masters, Shaolin Avenger and Shaolin Temple since they all deal squarely with Shaolin folklore and the events surrounding the Burning.

Shaolin Martial Arts takes place a few generations later, but people generally include because of its thematic focus on the proliferation of Shaolin arts. It's interesting to note that the heroes and villains choice of fighting styles essentially mimic the conflict between Hung Hsi-Kwan/Ng Mui and Pai Mei, history repeating itself in their disciples.

In all honesty, Disciples of Shaolin and New Shaolin Boxers don't belong there, taking place well after the central conflict, and mostly forming a new trilogy, alonside The Chinatown Kid, of Fu Sheng tragedy. But they have historically been included, so there you go.

Showdown at the Cotton Mill wasn't made by Shaw Brothers, but it was planned by Chang Cheh, only being abandoned after Chang's Film Company ended and Chi Kuan-Chun decided to stay in Taiwan. Nonetheless, it was made by co-director Wu Ma and I believe produced by Chang, so it's arguably included. Just not here.

Invincible Shaolin, Shaolin Rescuers and Two Champions of Shaolin are typically excluded, despite some arguements to the contrary, as they're not part of the Chang's Film Company era.

Some go as far as to include Executioners from Shaolin (Chen Kuan-Tai as Hung Hsi-Kwan) and 36th Chamber of Shaolin, but that's crazy. Especially since you'd also have to include their respective sequels.

Thanks for clarifying this. And sorry for bringing this up again - to be fair, I don't recall reading about this before but it's possible it was already discussed long ago in other threads.

[Cold Bishop]

The comment wasn't directed at you, just pointing out that there's probably a better discussion of the what's and why's of the Cycle elsewhere on the forum. If anyone doesn't want to take my word for it...

[QueMuchita]

Great post Cold Bishop! Makes me want to go and watch these in the order you mentioned In fact, I think I might do that starting tonight.

[Killer Meteor]

Were people gagging for a THIRD Chi Kuan-Chun trashing a cotton mill movie? That's like Rocky III being about Rocky vs Apollo Creed.