Formula For A Murder

CW: pedophilia, sexual assault.

I "enjoyed" Death Carries A Cane so much that I decided to find another giallo film

Formula For A Murder (1985) is about a paralyzed women bravely overcoming her disability to participate in the Paralympics and also there's a guy in black clothes killing people with a razor.


It starts with the man in black giving a young girl a doll. My first problem with the movie is less than ten second in.

Who buys these creepy dolls for young girls?

The young girl flees up the stairs and the man in black follows. The man in black grabs the doll and tosses it down the stairs, causing its head to fall off. The first murder!


I have to give the movie credit for getting to the plot right away. and not showing the sexual assault

Best last name for a composer?

A church gets phone calls asking for Father Peters. That is one way to introduce a character's name.

Deaf did a great job because the music is awesome.

The man in black rings the doorbell to the church. I assume all giallo films have a man in black as the killer. Not a good sign when you can recognize tropes after one movie.

The man in black, whom I assume is the same man who assaulted the girl, goes to confession and admits he must kill a man.

Father Peter claims that that is a terrible thought and he must repent. It's not his fault- it's in the script.

Then Father Peters asks to speak the name of the man he wishes to kill. The killer replies "You, Father", reaches in, slits his throat, and puts him into a body bag.

That makes a cool scene, but is it really necessary? Like, why couldn't he reach in before Father Peters responded?

A woman drives up to a store and sends her friend in to get something for her. She stares at a mannequin in a robe. Creepy music implies that this has some significance.

Having seen a giallo film, I'm guessing that this is the woman who was assaulted as a young girl in the opening scene.

Her friend returns with the robe. Through some clunky dialogue, we learn that this women is named Johanna is paralyzed, married to a man named Craig, and training for the Paralympics.

Some people may consider this good representation for women with disabilities for a 1985 giallo film.

Then we learn that she is only doing it for her husband.

Then you realize that you are looking good representation of women with disabilities in a 1985 giallo film called Formula for a Murder.

Cut to Johanna practicing fencing with her husband, Craig. In the background, other people in wheelchairs practice basketball.

Craig: Good Girl

Again, great female representation for 1985 giallo

A man named Dr. Surnage stares creepily at Johanna. He's the killer. 90% sure

Next up is archery. Johanna gets pretty close to the bullseye.

I like to point out clunky exposition. But I also understand that it is necessary sometimes. There is no excuse for the following exchange, however:

Craig: Keep it up and you have Staten Island in the bag

Johanna: Especially since you're coaching me. Me and no-one else.

Craig: Well, you've earned it. I mean, it's thanks to you that they build this place. That is, that's to you and your money.


I try not to quote too much dialogue, as that feels like cheating. However, the following monologue is so amazing that I have to write it out verbatim so you understand the full...impact:

"The hardest part was convincing the patients that being in a wheelchair doesn't exclude them from life. After I convinces myself of that, I decided to invest most of my money into an institute for  paraplegics. I also have to convince them to search for a cure, no matter how improbable it may sound, and not to give up on life. Nothing's easy. After the accident, my life because an uphill run. The last thing I want is pity."

I could spend the rest of this entry analyzing this paragraph, but I'll just summarize my thoughts.

1. This a giallo movie called Formula for a Murder. I've heard more subtle monologues in inspiration porn.

2. It feels like the Paralympics wrote that. Is this giallo movie the best place to advertise the Paralympics?

3. Ending the monologue with "the last thing I want is pity" give conflicting messages.

4. Ten minutes into a giallo film and there have been zero topless women.

Johanna's friend, Ruth, drives her home as the other paraplegics try the javelin throw. The music wouldn't be out of place in a movie like Radio (2003).

Ruth has changed the hours of the maids to coincide with her time at the gym.

Ruth tells Johanna that her accountant called about deductions for donating to charities and that she should talk to her lawyer.

Johanna replies that her lawyer talked to her at the sports center and it is strange that Ruth didn't see him.

...As far as I can tell, this wasn't shown on-screen. And it's played off as ominous. I am so, so confused.

Johanna and Ruth go into the sauna.I am so disappointed in Formula For A Murder (1985). It takes 15 minutes to get to a semi-nude scene.

Father Davis comes to talk to Johanna. Ruth tells him that Johanna can't talk because she is in the sauna and sends him away.

Ruth goes back to the sauna and massages Johanna's back.

She tells Johanna that she doesn't like Father Davis. Also, when Johanna tells Ruth that Craig asked her for marriage, Ruth reacts...negatively.

This is when the lesbian subtext becomes lesbian ... text.

Dr. Surnage tells Craig that Johanna was paralyzed falling down the stairs when a false priest chased after her and assaulted her.

He tells him this in the middle of the training field. I would think that this kind of information is confidential.

They go into the hospital to talk, but people are still walking through the halls in earshot.

Dr. Surnage also tells Craig that Johanna has suppressed this memory and could have a heart attack if she remembers it.

Craig: So there's a chance that making love to her, she could get carried away, and it might trigger the wrong reaction? Is that what you're worried about doctor?

Dr. Surnage: No. Not if it is an act of love.

Johanna and Craig have sex while "here comes the bride" plays. The camera lingers on a white wedding dress.

If you put these two clues together, you can infer that they had a wedding off-screen.

I am so disappointed in Formula For A Murder (1985). It takes 23 minute to get to a sex scene.

Ruth walks up the stairs. Johanna screams in pleasure/agony/pleasure. Ruth walks back down jealously.

Johanna comes downstairs on a chairlift and says goodbye to Ruth, who is leaving for good now that Johanna is married.

Ruth puts on a record with appropriately dramatic music. She hears someone coming down the stairs.  It's the man from the beginning carrying the decapitated doll. Except now the head is on the doll, with a bloody neck.

The doll sings the following song, I think.

Sing a song of sixpence

A bag full of rye

Everyone is happy today

'cause someone's going to die.

The first lines are incoherent. I'm assuming that the director thought having those two lines muddled would make it creepier. However, it just makes the sequence sillier.

Let's analyze the logic of the song

1. Everyone is happy today because someone is going to die. (assertion)
2. Every day, at least one person is going to die.
3. Not everyone is happy every day.
4. Therefore, this movie is ridiculous.

Johanna screams and slumps over in shock at this cliche. The man disappears and Craig calls Dr. Surnage.

Of all the people to call...

He should probably call her doctor. But why is this guy her doctor? Why is this guy a doctor.

Dr. Surnage comes over and proves my point with two statements.

1. There is nothing to worry about.
2. She had a hallucination.

Craig was so worried that having sex with Johanna would trigger her repressed trauma. Dr. Surnage assures him that that won't happen as long as the sex is "an act of love"

Craig had sex with Johanna and it triggered her repressed trauma. Dr. Surnage assures him that is nothing to worry about because she had a hallucination.

Why. Is. This. Guy. A. Doctor?

Dr. Surnage explains that that the doll is a projection of Johanna's image of herself as a child without any traumatic significance.

Why. Is. This. Guy. A. Doctor?

He sound only marginally less competent than the psychiatrist in Psycho (1960) and comparing Hitchcock and "Alberto De Martino" saddens me.

Craig doesn't want Johanna to stay at the house while he goes to the sports center. Johanna convinces him that the whole hallucination thing was a one-time deal, and Craig believes her.

A man in a black helmet approaches the house and Johanna opens the door to let him in. There's even a flashback connecting him to the image of the hallucination descending the stair.

Why. Does. Everyone. In. This. Movie. Act. Like. This?

This is Father Davis. He tells Johanna that she can sign the paper for her donation to the church next week. Johanna says she is in  New York  next week, and Father Davis says he wil try to get the papers to her before he leaves.

It's this type of detail that really adds engaging conflict to the movie.

Seriously though, the entire point of that scene is add suspicion to Father Davis.

Which the next scene immediately negates. The man in black enters the church to kill Father Davis. The suspenseful scenes in this movie are so, so much better than Death Walks With A Cane. The man in black kill Father Davis with a shovel and we see his face.

This is Craig.

shyamalan.jpg

Ruth enters as Craig is storing the body and reprimands him for taking a risk.

In this movie's signature clunky exposition, we learn that Craig and Ruth want to kill Johanna to inherit her money and that's why they killed Father Davis. To prevent the donation.

The reason Ruth went up to listen to the Johanna and Craig having sex? She wanted Craig to kill Johanna to make it look like she died from a PTSD episode.

This movie is a little over a fourth of the way over and already I'm lost.

Craig and Johanna start to have sex but the movie cuts away to Johanna sitting in a park...somewhere.

Her wheelchair locks The Man in Black (not Craig) approaches and pushes her out of the way.

She drops her sunglasses and somehow the wheelchair runs them over.

This movie has some interesting shots that actually serves purposes. This is shot is surreal to indicate that this entire sequence is a nightmare.

The man in black accuses her of faking her paralysis. He tries to stab her. Johanna stands up and attacks the man in black with a knife. She runs away and wakes up.

If this wasn't a nightmare,I would complain that no doctor at the sports center noticed that she wasn't paralyzed. I know they are incompetent, but there is a limit.

Craig and Johanna travel to the competition. Johanna worries that she won't be able to compete because of the hallucination.

They get on a ferry to Staten Island and Johanna sees the man in black holding the blood-soaked doll and singing.

Sing a song of six pence

a pocket full of rye

everyone is happy today 

'cause someone's going to die.

This time he has the white sock over him. And we know he has a ticket, because it is Craig.

Oh wait, it actually is Craig. I thought it was a hallucination.

This movie is a lot more coherent that Death Walks With a Cane, but there had better be an explanation for how Craig got the same doll as when Johanna was a child, why nobody else hears him, and why he  thinks this is the best way to kill her

Johanna is incredibly undisturbed in the next scene as Craig pushes her around New York.

Craig and Johanna decide to go back the next day instead of entering Johanna in the competition. Craig says he will bring Johanna someplace quite where she can relax.

In New York City,

He brings her outside the city right the edge of a cliff. And waits.

This is a great scene, despite some of the....blatant dialogue.

Craig: There's always next year. Right now, I'm more worried about your health.

also

Johanna: Ruth told me to remind you about something you have to do for me.

also

Craig: Well, I guess you're not going to get much sleep tonight

Johanna: That sounds like a threat

Craig: It's not threat, Johanna. It's a promise.

It's the kind of dialogue someone writes thinking it's really clever.

Johanna and Craig fly back. He could have saved money on a plane ticket if he had just killed her.

Ruth admonishes Craig for not killing Johanna. These two lines are in the same conversation

Ruth: Does it give you a kick knowing you can kill her by making love to her?

and

Ruth: I can't wait any longer. Do what you have to do or I will.
Craig: We'll do it together.



They decide to do it tomorrow. "It" refers to the murder.

Ruth and Johanna talk about donating the money to the parish. Ruth awkwardly talks about Father Peter.

Then Johanna attempts to convince Ruth to not go to Philadelphia and live alone. And for a few lines, the movie passes the Bechdel test. Formula For A Murder (1985) is officially a feminist movie. Ruth insinuates that she will kill Johanna.

Craig's lower half approaches Johanna menacingly. He grabs her...gently and picks her up.

Craig lays Johanna down in a sunbed. Johanna tells Craig to go inside and make an appointment with someone named Mary to the sports center.

Craig meets Ruth inside. Ruth reveals (to the audience) that Craig moved Johanna away from the wheelchair so she can't come into the house.

This movie has a huge problem with characters telling each other things they already know.

Ruth wants to stay in Craig's bedroom and watch Craig kill Johanna by having sex with her.

I mean, if she's into that sort of thing...

There's a definite irony to a husband plotting to get with his mistress by remaining faithful to his wife. I think.

Ruth hides in the bathroom while Craig goes downstairs to get Johanna and lies her on the bed, A man in a yellow raincoat walks up the stairs and opens the bathroom door. He slits Ruth's throat.

It's Craig!

I definitely did not see that coming.

Describing the gore effects never truly captures them. Click to reveal gore:

Craig washes up, and puts Ruth in a body bag. Mary calls and Craig suggests that she come over tomorrow instead of today.

This is clearly a reference to Alfred Hitchcock's classic A Little Piece Of Heaven (1960)

The attempt at suspense is 'Can Johanna get to her chair before Craig carries Ruth's body downstairs?'"

Craig loads the body into the car. Why am I choosing so many Psycho-esque movies?

He props her upright so she will be easier to see.

Note that she is leaning into the seat.

 Johanna comes out and practices archery. Craig suggests putting the sharp weapons away so he can kill her with sex.

Johanna says she wants to wait because anticipation makes the reward better. A fitting line for a 96 minute movie in which not a lot happens between murders.

The first infuriating thing happens

The corpse somehow hit the button that opens the door despite leaning against the backseat.

Okay, maybe she was kind of leaning into the door,

I've never been in this situation, but I'm struggling to suspend my disbelief that the corpse could open the door, especially since it took so long. Maybe 1985 cars were different.

Johanna points the bow towards Craig.

This is a really bad advertisement for the Paralympics.

Some more stellar dialogue.

Craig: Wait, stop! She wanted to kill you.

Johanna: You both wanted to kill me. For my money.

Craig: it was something I did to begin with. But things changed, Johanna, when I realized I could never hurt you.

Johanna doesn't believe him. She holds him at bowpoint and tells him to call the police. She drops the bow.

Craig grabs her, puts her into a room, and locks the door.

A room with all the fencing swords.

Craig is incredibly incompetent.

The door unlocks by itself. Johanna grabs a sword, pulls open the door, and sees a figure that looks nothing like Craig, so she decides to kill him.

The music is intense here, but once Johanna moves to kill the figure, the music stops and all you hear is her wheelchair motor. I think the film speeds up as well.

I find this hilarious. To go from an intense musical climax to just the wheelchair motor.

Johanna uses all the fencing she learned earlier in the film to...hold the sword out

She stabs the figure, who is Father Davis.

But it's okay! She didn't kill him. Craig already slit his throat.

She back up into Father Peters, who is also dead.

Finally Craig walks downstairs holding the doll.

Sing a song a six-pence

A pocket full of rye

Everyone is happy today

'Cause someone's going to die.

Craig explains that he did all of this just to help Johanna remember what happened to her.

So, despite Johanna having repressed this traumatic experience, Craig knew the exact type of doll the priest gave her, bought another model, recorded his own song and put it in the doll (unless that was Johanna's imagination).

And if this is true, why could nobody see him on the boat?

And why not just have sex to kill her? Seems easier.

Craig reveals the truth to Johanna. Johnna doesn't die from the shock.

Instead, she grabs a poker from the fireplace and throws it like a javelin into Craig's leg.

Johanna tries to go up on the stair lift, but Craig turns the power off. She is stuck in the middle of the stairs.

How dare this 1985 creepy doll movie steal a scene from the 2017 creepy doll movie!

Johanna crawls off the lift and attempts to ascend the stairs. Craig tries to climb up but can't because his leg is hurt from the poker.

I assume they were going for some kind of thematic point with Craig losing the use of his legs.

Johanna calls Doctor Surnage. not the police.

Johanna takes out some scissors as Craig manages to get up the stairs and collapses.

Some parts of this movie seems unfair with how they play with space and time. Johanna goes to the stairs and Craig comes up behind her, despite having collapsed on the stairs.

Anyway, Johanna stabs him in the hand with a pair of scissors and it's awesome.

Slit necks don't bother me but getting stabbed in the hands or feet does.

Dr. Surnage finally picks up the phone, hears nothing, and sets it down. Odd place for humor.

Meanwhile, Craig runs out a window while pushing Johanna. Craig falls but Johanna SOMEHOW manages to hang onto the window.

She gets back in and scrambles down the stairs to the phone. She calls Dr. Surnage. His daughter answers and tells her that Dr Surnage was worried about her and is coming over.

The door opens. In the most pointless extension of tension ever, Craig comes in, grabs Johanna, and dies.

Dr Surnage enters and carries Johanna out.

The movie ends with a repeat of the nightmare scene, except we aren't sure whether this is a nightmare or not.

PSA: Don't push someone in a wheelchair without their consent unless you are trying to murder them to get their money.

Formula For A Murder is certainly the most entertaining promotional material I've seen for the Paralympics!

It also has several advantages over Death Carries  A Cane, such as a coherent plot, although the lack of gore and naked women may disturb some viewers.

The Crippled Masters

The Crippled Masters (1982) is actually one of the first movies I tried watching, but I thought Ineeded a thorough understanding of the tropes and themes of the acquired-disability-revenge genre.

The Crippled Masters is a fairly popular exploitation movie to cover because it is pretty much the greatest thing ever. I'm not even going to summarize it because you have to experience all the twists with me.

I dislike how so many people complain that movies about disabled people not casting disabled actors. You don't have to watch them! You can seek out any number of fine cinematic masterpieces in which disabled actors play disabled people. Like The Crippled Masters (1982).

I bought the DVD because of the awesome special features

I hate it when menus aren't interactive.

Chapter Names aren't too descriptive

Some things to look out for as I analyze this movie within the wider context of the acquired-disability-revenge genre:

• Time of acquired disability. Usually they show life before the acquired disability. Sometimes it takes over half the movie, Sometimes it's fairly early on. Sometime it's only a few minutes, 

• Training scene. This is either immediately after acquiring the disability or after the first defeat after acquiring the disability. There's usually a mentor with specific knowledge.

• Two villains. I shall call the the one who inflicted the disability the personal villain and the one in power over the personal villain the indirect villain.

I don't know the exact spelling of some of the characters names, and different online sources give me different answers. That's the problem with dubbing.

After ten seconds of shots of Hong Kong, a man screams and his arm falls to the floors.

Now this is how you make an acquired-disability revenge film. Get straight to the point. I didn't put in a movie called The Crippled Masters to watch able-bodied masters for half the movie.

A man called orders his other arm to be cut off. Then he tosses the armless man out. The armless man (Lee Ho) warns that Tang will have his just deserts. Guards throw him out.

Hold on,

His arms were amputated, yet the actor has vestigial limbs.

I take it back. This actor can't accurately portray an amputee because he has vestigial arms. They are completely different and actors can't portray things they are not. What an awful movie.

The master congratulates Tang for amputating the arm and pours him a cup of tea. Tang hesitates and the master admonishes him.

A lesser movie might have Tang explicitly tell another character that he doesn't trust the master. But The Crippled Masters exercises subtlety and just has Pao glance at the tea as if it is poisoned.

Lee Ho wanders around town until a restaurant owner yells at him to get out, thinking he is a begger.
Lee Ho corrects him and says he has money, so the owner lets him in.

Lee Ho struggles to drink the tea from the pot, and the other patrons run out.

A running theme throughout The Crippled Masters (1981)  is really bizarre scene transitions. I have trouble orientating myself into the narrative. The waiter appears to just move through a bead chain through the restaurant, but it is also a way to transition in nighttime. Everything darkens, and the music changes. I think that the restaurant is just one room, and the transition flipped it.

These stylistic choices are indicative of the main character's state of confusion.

The waiter brings him some chicken and taunts him with it.

This makes sense because the Disability Discrimination Ordinance in Hong Kong passed in 1995, and this movie takes place before that.

Lee Ho bites the waiter and another man beats him up. .

An old man asks the fourth wall why people have to work so hard if everyone is going to die some day. The Crippled Masters grapples with nihilism.

This is another example of The Crippled Master's awkward transition reflecting the character's confusion,

Lee Ho man wakes up beside him and asks where he is.

Chin, the coffin maker, says he went to pick up dead bodies and saw Lee Ho still alive, so he saved him instead of making money. The Crippled Masters grapples with basic morality.

Chin means gold, and everyone calls him Chin  because gold makes him happy. This is an example of a retroactive character arc. Chin picking up Lee Ho instead of collecting coffin money seemed like an obvious choice at first. We later learn that this holds special significance because Chin is obsessed with gold.

Lee Ho explains that he is an escort, but Lin Chang Cao, the master, betrayed him. A lesser movie would waste time showing this before the amputation, but The Crippled Masters knows that it is more efficient to just tell, not show.

The dialogue in this movie is quite amazing

Chin: I've heard people say the the master, Lin Chang Cao is very kind-hearted. But I know better. in fact, my information is that he is very cruel and evil.

This is dubbed in English. Maybe that line sounded fine in Manderin and something went wrong in transation. I think so.

His information is that he keeps buying coffins. If I were an evil king, I would order coffins from different places. And this town probably has more than one coffin maker, due to the demand. (I took Economics 101) Even if there was only one coffin maker, I would just destroy the bodies instead of burying them.

Lee Ho wonders how he could have been so blind to Lin Chang Cao's cruelty, clearly a meta-genre reference to  blindness subgenre of the  acquired-disability-revenge genre

Pao suddenly appears to buy coffin and is surprised that Lee Ho is still alive, so he sends Tang and another man to attack.

The fighting in this movie is by the best and most interesting across all of these acquired-disability-revenge films. I mean, the bar is extremely low.

Chin maybe dies, maybe lives. He tells Lee Ho that his future will get better but he should leave.

Immediately cut to Lee Ho next to a river. The Crippled Masters demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the acquired-disability-revenge genre structure and streamlines the detail to focus on broader themes and symbolism.

Lee Ho attempts to drink the water, but falls over and is sucked into the stream. This nail-biting scenario culminates in Lee Ho successfully drinking from the stream but is once again sucked int the river.

The Crippled Masters uses geese in flight to symbolize Lee Ho's desire for freedom

When Lee Ho exits the stream, he chases after grounded geese, symbolizing that he lack of arms leave him metaphorically "grounded"

The most famous shot from The Crippled Masters is the iconic rice shot. With a stab of music, the camera zooms in a few grains of rice in a bowl. This cinematographic flourish emphasizes Lee Hos hunger.

Lee Ho enters a pig sty. The pigs look down upon him eating from their trough, no doubt directly comparing the poltical struggles of Lin Chang Cao's empire with the themes of Animal Farm.

Potential Wise Mentor #2 appears and asks whether Lee Ho is a man or a ghost.

 "I don't know what I'll say, but if I don't die, I will be a success."

I'm going to assume that this made sense in the Original Manderian.

Cue training montage with whimsical music.

This is better than most of the other training montages because it comments on the exploitation of disabled people's labor as "training."

Seriously, he's taking care of the entire farm and entertaining the kids.

Sudden cut to Lin Chang Cao's men attacking Tang.

And I mean sudden cut. Sudden cuts are a hallmark of director Joe Law. As well as pan ins.

Lin Chang Cao pours some acid on Tang's legs, withering them. And I'm just wondering what kind of system Lin Chang Cao uses to determine punishments in his kingdom. Is it arbitrary? Why is it arms for one guy and legs for the other?

Tang threatens Lin Chang Cao.

Lin Chang Cao: All I know is that those against me, like you, die

Philosophically sound. As everyone dies, everyone who stands against Lin Chang Cao also dies.

A lesser movie might go for the cheap "Those who stand against me" joke.

"You knew too much. We were forced to get rid of you," 

Say the man who doesn't get rid of him at all.

Anyone who claims that this is ableist because the disfigured man is the villain has to reread the title of the movie.

Lin Chang Cao goes back to town and attacks a school teacher to transform his school into a casino.

See how expertly The Crippled Masters crafts it's villain?

Lin Chang Cao collects "rent" from an antique shop owner.

Tang falls down the cliffs and lands next to Lee Ho. Joe Law's direction shines here as he chooses to do a series of rapid pans in to both of their faces.

Lee Ho ties a sling around Tang and drags him a cave and we have probably one of the greatest and most influential scenes in cinematic history. Lee Ho and Tang fight. Joe Law chooses to position Lee Ho ABOVE Tang for two purposes. Firstly, it makes sense within the context of the movie. Lee Ho is more used to his disability than Tang. In addition, the lack of arms does not influence his ability to stand. Secondly, it has thematic significance. Lee Ho is expressing his moral superiority to Tang and Tang is accepting it. The positions of the two actors illustrate the dominance of Lee Ho over Tang.

A noise alerts Lee Ho to a basket in the corner. A man asks for help getting out of the basket.

So....this guy was in the basket the whole time? He claims that he is only hiding because of the two men. He got scared from the fighting, and went to the basket.

"I have been listening to your conversation and now I can understand why you're fighting with each other."

Potential Mentor #3 suggests that they forgive each other. Maybe they got off on the wrong foo.

"I think the both of you really are a good couple..."

Queerbaiting existed in 1982 exploitation films.

"...one without arms and one without legs. if you combined together,you could beat Lin Chang Cao"

I understand the "specialization" argument, but I think that they would be better off with two four-limbed people than two two-limbed people.

On a strictly logistical level.

Once again, The Crippled Masters demonstrates mastery and control of the tropes and themes of the acquired-disability-revenge genre to construct it's narrative. Usually there is a personal villain and an indirect villain. In the opening, it appears that Tang is the personal villain and Lee Chan Cao is the indirect villain. However, The Crippled Masters subverts this dynamic when Lee Chang Cao cripples Tang, giving him his own personal villain. Thus, the personal and indirect villain become one and the former personal villain becomes a hero. The movie also hints that Lee Ho was at one point a villain, indicating that this is a cycle.

Cue Training Montage. Like everything else, The Crippled Masters follows all the beats but does them so much better than the other acquired-disability-revenge films.

Suspenseful music as Tang uses his arms to walk across the sticks

This is called "adaptive training"

Other activities follow. Tang does hand-stands on bricks. Lee Ho tosses rocks at raw eggs with his feet. Both do some form of martial arts. Then the master uses a ball of yarn to train them.

Unlike so many others in the genre, The Crippled Masters weaves humor into the narrative seamlessly.

Finally it's time for the big confrontation. Lee Ho will finally get his revenge...

...against the restaurant. This was before Yelp.

The waiter attempts to taunt Lee Ho with chicken, but Lee Ho slaps him.

Character Arc complete.

Tang offers a deal: five dollars for every kick Lee Ho gives to the waiter. The waiter agrees.

The first kick is light. The second is hard. A fight breaks out. Lee Ho and Tang defeat the guy who beat up Lee Ho at the beginning of the movie.

Another genius narrative construction of The Crippled Masters. A low-stakes, comedic b-plot conflict to parallel the main conflict. It provides a more believable escalation to the main conflict with Lin Chang Cao.

The waiter never gets his dollar.

Speaking of Lin Chang Cao, his men report that some men from Ching Ho stole some jewelry. His men are literally called White and Black. Lin Chang Cao orders them to steal the jewelry.

Joe Law's sharp cutting misdirects the viewer often. As White and Black leave, the waiter steps into frame. I originally through that the waiter was working for Lin Chang Cao, but it was just a cut to the restaurant.

Lee Ho and Tang follow Lin Chang Cao and his men to a river, where the thieves count jewelry. The thieves argue how much of the treasure each of them deserve, a parallel to the power dynamics in Lin Chang Cao's empire.

Lin Change Cao suggests simply giving him all the jewelery. He and his men fight the criminals and Black eventually wrests the jewelry away.

As they leave, Tang, wearing a hat, grabs them from the bushes and Lee Ho. attacks.

Even those familiar with the acquired disability revenge genre may not realize that this scene is a delightful satire of Crimson Bat 3: Watch Out, Crimson Bat (1963). The most memorable thing about that disappointing third entry in the Crimson Bat entry is the use of hats to denote the morality. Tang actually takes his hat off and uses it as a weapon to indicate his heightened morality. These little touches make The Crippled Masters worth rewatching over and over.

This fight scene is incredible and shows both crippled masters using different fighting skills. They defeat the villains and find Pao crawling away

Lee Ho tears Pao's pants and tells him to warn Lin Chang Cao

Lin Chang Cao is somewhat upset that Pao came back alone without defeating the Crippled Masters. He declares the Crippled Masters his greatest enemies and gives Pao three days to track them down.

Maybe it's a small thing, but The Crippled Masters really makes an effort to make the antagonism between the parties reciprocal

People come to Pao's place for some festival. Pao asks a women whether she has seen two men with no arms or legs.That is a really poor way to phrase it.

"I saw one man with no arms and another man with no legs. But I did not see two men with no arms or legs"

There's a brief scuffle with a man on a bridge. This man defeats all of Lin Chang Cao's men.

Pao suggests using this man to beat the Crippled Masters.
\

"Pao, you are normally very stupid, but this time, you have devised a very good plan."

The Crippled Masters makes economical use of its dialogue. From a single line, we learn three things

1. Lin Chang Cao usually thinks Pao is stupid
2. Lin Chang Cao thinks this plan is good
3. Lin Chang Cao approves of Pao in this situation

Pao goes up to the man, named Al Pao.

Pao jokes that this is a good name. The Crippled Masters expertly weaves humor into it's story without losing narrative focus.

Lin Chang Cao tests Pao out on some of his men. Event the non-crippled kung fu fighting stands out.

Lin Chang Cao asks Al Pao his price and laughs.

Now, this movie is already fantastic in it's deconstruction of some of the tropes in the acquired-disability-revenge-genre. But The Crippled Masters goes further and pulls a brilliant twist as it nears it's third act.

The wise old master didn't teach Lee Ho and Tang kung fu for some noble cause. He wants them to steal eight jade horses back from Lin Chang Cao.

Whoever did the English dubbing for the old master messed up here:

"In fact the eight jade horses were discovered by me, but then some time later, Lin Chang Cao shamelessly..........stole them from me."

The pause is a few seconds long. Maybe this is a deliberate choice by the English dubber.

I don't think the eight jade horses were mentioned previously. It'a brilliant device because all the other mentors in this genre tend to have no motivation besides the good of their hearts. The Crippled Masters challenges the audience to question this trope by subverting it and giving the master a selfish motive.

Al Pao eats peanuts and drinks tea. Apparently he was hired to guard the Jade horses that were never mentioned before. Al Pao decides to relax. Lee Ho and Tang infiltrate the house using skills specific to what the master taught them. It seems like such a simple thing, but acquired-disability-revenge films don't often show the protagonists using specific skills.

The Jade statues are in a red case on top of a she;lf. Tang jumps on top of Lee Ho to reach it.

This arouses suspicious. Al I-Should-Have-Been-Doing-My-Job Pao chases the Crippled Masters out and a fight scene over the jade statues ensues. This is pretty fantastic. All the fight scenes are fantastic.

Al Pao tosses the suitcase to Tang. He claims that the eight jade horses depict special kung-fu techniques. However, he thinks that even if they all teamed up, they couldn't beat Lin Chang Cao.

Joe Law makes another daring directorial decision. Al Pao fights the Crippled Masters in the forest during the night. He immediately leaves the forest and it is the middle of the day. A more cynical viewer may think that they filmed scenes out-of-order without caring about the time of day continuity. However, the darkness represented Al Pao's dark allegiance to Lin Chang Cao. The daylight represents his redemption.

Lin Chang Cao is right outside and ready for a fight. Which they have. Joe Law's delicate hand indicates that Lin Change Cao is a difficult foe. A metallic CLANG reverberate whenever Al Pao hits Lin Chang Cao's back, a subtle way to show that he has armor. Lin Chang Cao beats Al Pao.

Back at the old master's hut, Lee Ho tells Tang that he went into town to get town and ask. He learns that Al Pao is in trouble and mmay be killed unless he gets the Jade horses

I thought that Lee Ho was wanted in the town? He could just walk in with no arms  and ask questions.

Al Pao is chained up and being tortured. Suddenly a basket is tossed into the room. The following dialogue exchange is one of the many where The Crippled Masters (1982) makes the audience question the  line between intentional and unintentional humor.

                                                Pao (Pao, not Al Pao):What's all this?

                                                Man: A basket

                                                Pao: Fool, anyone can see that. But what's inside it?

                                               Man: Inside it? I don't know 

                                               Pao: You fool. Why don't you open it?

                                               Man: Uh...

                                               Pao: Useless! I'll do it.

Is this supposed to be humorous? Is it unintentionally hilarious? Is it serious in Manderin but the English dubbing made it funny? These kinds of questions make The Crippled Masters (1982) a classic worth revisiting over and over.

The master pops out of the basket. Le Ho and Tang come in from an open door.

If they could just walk in, why bother with the basket?

After another fight, they rescue Al Pao, trap Pao in the basket, and escape. Lin Chang Cao orders someone to follow them.

This narrative has been full of twists that cleverly subvert the audience's expectations of a typical acquired-disability-revenge film. ready for another one?

Al Pao was sent by a providential government to investigate Lin Chang Cao steal the eight jade horses. So he was actually against Lin Chang Cao the entire time.

Why are the eight jade horses so powerful?

"It is said that the eight jade horses hold many secrets. If one could only understand them, and use them, a man could create unbeatable kung fu."

Al Pao figures out the secret.

So are the other six jade horses just decoration?

If this were any other movie, I would complain that this it is ridiculous that nobody could conceive of "standing on top of each other" without the eight jade horses.

Especially since they did so in order to get the eight jade horses.

But this is The Crippled Masters (1982), so I trust it.

Al Pao ablesplains the secret of the eight jade horses to the crippled masters

Master: Funny, I sleep in a steaming basket. Most People sleep in beds,

Lin Chan Cao: And now you'll sleep in a coffin.

Al Pao: With respect, you're both crippled, but you're both very useful. The worst possible thing is to be crippled in your mind. 

My only complaint about this movie is that all the young mentally disabled kids watching it will internalize this message.

Al Pao, Lee Ho, and Tang find the master gone and place destroyed. Yet he was able to leave a message

"As you see, because of the eight jade horses, disaster was brought upon us"

The coffin master from the beginning of the movie, whom I guess didn't die, delivers two coffins to town and says they are for Lin Chang Cao.

Al Pao fights his way through the town and fights Lin Chan Cao.

I am so sick of this narrative where the able-bodied savior swoops in at the last minute and...

Just kidding, Lee Ho and Tang pop out from barrels and fight, in another fantastic sequence. My only complaint is that, for all the talk about combining their powers, they fight individually.

Outside, Pao runs into Al Pao (confusing) and The Crippled Masters makes a references the Crimson-Batsian influence on the meta of the acquired disability revenge genre

Pao: You blind?

Al Pao: I'd still kill you even if I were blind.

The main fight between the Crippled Masters and Lin Chan Cao parallels the fight between Pao and Al Pa.

Some critics call the next scene a "mistake". I disagree and think that people don't appreciate Joe Laws directing style.

The fight inexplicably moves from the town to the master's hut. This isn't because they filmed it at the hut and couldn't think of a way to get them from the town to the hut. It is Joe Law's experimentation with surrealism.


The fight scene is utterly amazing and possibly the greatest scene of anything I've ever reviewed. Eventually, Tang JUMPS ONTO LE HO'S BACK IN SLOW MOTION AND ATTACHES HIMSELF to it.

The ancient Jade horse technique

Lee Ho and Tang defeat Lin Chang Cao. and the movie ends on a blurry  still-shot.

Another excellent choice by The Crippled Masters. So many acquired-disability-revenge films linger past the defeat of the antagonist. This one ends it on a high note.

What else can I say? The Crippled Masters (1982) is the quintessential acquired-disability-revenge film. It lives up to all the hype and I am glad I have the DVD with the special features like Interactive Menus.

There are two sequels..,

I made some inspirational wallpapers using quote from the movie: