MovieChat Forums > The Golden Child (1986) Discussion > Wasted opportunity

Wasted opportunity

posted 18 years ago by JohnCage
6 replies | jump to latest

The sad thing about this movie is that it could have been really good.

I read somewhere that John Carpenter was originally supposed to direct, he would have done an infinately better job than Michael Ritchie (check out Big Trouble in Little China, for example). Nothing against Ritchie or his work per se, but his direction is all wrong and he obviously has no real idea of how to handle the material. For most of the time the film feels and looks like a cheap "Beverly Hills Cop" knockoff. There's no suspense, no sense of any urgency or wonder and even when some action is thrown in it's let down by the flat direction. Actually, there's a couple of directors who could have handled this better, Robert Zemeckis, Joe Dante , Ivan Reitman, John Landis, to name just a few.

The music score is another problem. Not that it's a synthesised rock score, that can work (again see "Big Trouble"), just that it's so cheesy and at odds with the type of film they are supposedly trying to make.

Eddie Murphy is actually quite well cast here, and his charisma and wit go a long way towards making the film more watchable than it deserves to be, but he needed to add a smidgen of seriousness as well. If he dosen't care about his mission, then why should the audience? Again, the two can be balanced, look at Bill Murray's performance in "Ghostbusters".

The Tibet detour is a complete distraction (yes, I know it's essential to the plot, the script would need a major rewrite to be any good), and the last act is so lackluster you authentically wonder why anyone bothered.

However, the dancing pepsi can scene, Chandler's dream sequence and the scene where Charles Dance communicates with the devil all work really well and give a glimpse of what this movie could have been.

Different director, different script, a big special effects budget, a different music score. "The Golden Child" would need all of those to be anywhere near good.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kissthechaos 17 years ago

It would have been really interesting had John Carpenter taken the job and as a fan of BTILC, I know he would have done it justice. In fact Chandler Jerrell reminds me a lot of Jack Burton. Anyway, I think the film succeeded as is. I think the directer did a great job with the dynamic of humor and serious parts and Eddie Murphy was the perfect transition for it. The cheesy parts are what made the movie fun, imo.

[–] JohnCage 17 years ago

Fair enough.

Actually, subsequent viewings have softened my opinion of the film somewhat.

That said, BTILC had both humour and action, but it fused them together much more effectively and was a much more exciting film overall because Carpenter has a feel for the material. My point is that that is what GC is lacking, the pacing is too relaxed.

Also, Sardo is too ineffective a villan. Granted he glowers brilliantly, but dosen't actually do much else. Take the scene at the airport, granted it's a funny scene, but afterwards SN does absolutely nothing! He just sort of goes back to his mansion and assumes things will work out.

What they should have done (hopefullly illustrating my point here) is have Chandler leave after the airport scene, but SN tracks him. Have him stop at a gas station or diner or something, at which point have SN reappear and take the dagger by force. Any of you seen "Howard the Duck" (now there's a guilty pleasure!)? There's that scene where Jeffrey Jones character (possessed by the dark overlord at this point), uses his newfound powers to completely wreck a diner in order to retrieve some object Howard has that he needs. It makes him a credible villan and is a cool display of special effects mayhem. They needed to have SN do something similar, in fact they could basically do exactly the same scene.

Also, it's a small point, but the script should make it a bit more obvious that Chandler is able to go to Tibet only because the villans aren't trying to stop him, because they need the dagger and are setting a trap. The way it is they just look irrelevant.

Yes I know. I should get a life.

[–] vihenchman 17 years ago

I just watched it for the first time the other day and tend to agree with you johncage. I found that the mix of action and comedy/fantasy didnt mesh together very well.. it was kind of hard to follow at times and i just got the same impression that it could've been a much better movie. You've done a good job of explaining it in detail and i generally agree. An okay flick but not one of the better Eddie Murphy films imo.

[–] charcoalchicken 15 years ago

I agree the movie could have been better it was boring in parts when it shouldn't have been and they seemed to rush it at the end, the movie had potential it seems it was a wasted opportunity, it was decent but could have been better.

[–] James_Jerome 15 years ago

While some criticism of this film is legit, I think most of it is too much nit-picking in retrospect. It was made in 1986, and was pretty good for a film of that era. I look back at most of the tv shows I enjoyed decades ago, and I think they are kind of lame by today's standards, but that is just the point. We are where we are today in movie making because we have evolved from those earlier films. Sure, some larger budget films of that era might have exceeded expectations, but this was simply a funny comedy with some fantasy action.

It is like the films that Elvis Presley used to make. When someone commented to him that his movies could be better, he just scoffed and said that the reason he made them was for the fun of it and because they had a good time making them. This movie satisfies the less critical eye of most movie goers, and really doesn't need to be judged by today's standards. However, I'm all for one of today's top director's remaking this film with an all new cast, and some modern special effects - - might be a great re-make at that!