MovieChat Forums > One Down, Two to Go (1982) Discussion > Why Is Jim Kelly Such a Poor Actor?

Why Is Jim Kelly Such a Poor Actor?


Out of all the Blaxploitation greats in this film, Jim Kelly really stands out as really mediocre. Absolutely NO acting chops, whatsoever. He has 2 fight scences, and spends more time getting his stance on and making those fake Bruce Lee "whoop, woop" sounds, he's the exact comic book character he accused Hahn (in "Enter The Dreagon") of being. At least he finally cut that stupid 'fro down a yard or two. And what happened to Jim Brown? He was pretty good in "100 rifles" at his peak, but always came off as wooden and ALWAYS arrogant. Best thing I've seen him in since is "I'm Gonna Git You, Suka!". And that was a comedy spoof. Fred, well, I like Fred because you KNOW he's full of himself and he doesn't insult you trying to hide it. But he's at least likeable in this genre.

For an even BIGGER hoot of a laugh featuring these same guys (PLUS, as a bonus, a tubby Ron O'Neal), see "Original Gangstas".

reply

Jim Kelly was never a good actor. But I loved the guy. Next to to Lee Van Cleef in the 70's, he was the first african american Kung Fu star. He was at his best in Three The Hard Way 1974. He had his own style and fighting sounds, not like Bruce. Maybe you should check that out, then you'll see. Bruce Lee was a horrible actor as well, and so is Chuck Norris in my opinion. But they made up for their fighting skills in their films. Sadly Jim got caught up with the wrong directors and writers, who were trying to make everyone into a Bruce Lee after Lee died.

Jim Brown is the man. Not only was he in 100 Rifles, but he was great in The Dirty Dozen, and Slaughter as well.

Fred Williamson' acting was good, not great. But he gave all he could to his films, and still does. Plus he was always in great shape.

Most of these guys were atheletes, before they became actors, even Jim Kelly. He was a tennis player, which is why they may not be the greatest actors.

reply

3 years later but: There are a lot of action stars with limited acting ability, even today the list is long. Jim Kelly had screen prescence along with his physical ability. The other actor mentioned, his name is actually Ron Van Clief otherwise known as the Black Dragon, great martial artist as well (I prefer his screen fighting but thats strictly a matter of taste). With other men like Jim Brown and Fred Williamson there was alot of talent working in action genre during that period.

reply

I agree with Actionfilm, Jim Kelly may not be a trained thespian, but he's very entertaining. And the remark about Bruce Lee is beyond absurd. He was born into a theatre family, that's what his father's profession was. And he starred in his first movie as an infant and made 20 of them throughout his childhood.

"Bulls**t MR.Han Man!!"--Jim Kelly in Enter the Dragon

reply

Jim Kelly was great in ENTER THE DRAGON. He wasn't good in this movie (which we're not discussing) but no one was good, not even "the man" jim brown, because this was the poorest action movie ever concieved. it had a slug's pace, and jim kelly, whose best attribute is his karate, had a damaged arm in the story.

reply

[deleted]

After playing such a charismatic role in Enter the Dragon, I was surprised at how comparatively dull his characters were in Three the Hard Way and One Down, Two to Go. It's nice that he didn't get typecast as playing Williams his entire career, but it might have given him greater exposure if he had. Honestly though, I think the problem was simply that he was on the back burner behind Williamson, Brown, and Roundtree. The other men were given better dialogue and characterization. Kelly was there to be the invincible martial artist. Even the whole thing about his character's birth name being Mister was underplayed.

I watched an interview with Jim Kelly and he seemed like a really classy guy. He said that he turned down a number of roles because of the images that they presented and that he was happy with the way that his career turned out. If he had wanted to make a career by playing the cocky smooth martial artist each time, he probably could have done that. Instead, he chose different roles and acted under his own terms. I can't fault him for that.

Rest in Peace, Jim Kelly.

reply

Martial artists/turned actors are usually lame onscreen apart from their action scenes. Kelly was one of the worst. Great martial artist but terrible thespian. Aside from Van Damme, who was a terrible actor for most of his career but still better than most of his kind, there are few who could legitimately be cast in non-action roles. Michael Jai White is one of the few. He did it right. He did a lot of non-action early on, so he was able to get his face out there and not automatically be associated with martial arts (2 Days in the Valley, Martin, Ringmaster, Tyler Perry's Why Did I Get Married?, CSI). Other martial artists either refused or weren't good enough actors to do regular tv work. Same with Wesley Snipes. Long before he became associated with martial arts movies, he was playing dramatic and comic roles.

reply

[deleted]