A Secret Agent loses his memory after falling from a crashing helicopter. He is then chased by several other agency operatives, but he has no idea why.A Secret Agent loses his memory after falling from a crashing helicopter. He is then chased by several other agency operatives, but he has no idea why.A Secret Agent loses his memory after falling from a crashing helicopter. He is then chased by several other agency operatives, but he has no idea why.
- Awards
- 2 wins & 10 nominations
Ton Pompert
- CIA Chairman
- (as Tom Pompert)
Glory Simon
- CIA Secretary
- (as Gloria Simon)
Fred van Ditmarsch
- Airforce
- (as Johan van Ditmarsch)
Jeremiah Fleming
- Marine Assistant
- (as Jeremiah Flemming)
- Directors
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaMichelle Ferre never considered acting, but on the set of this movie, when she tried to interview Jackie Chan, he was struck by her, and asked her to audition for the movie, which she did, and landed a co-starring role.
- GoofsWhen Jacki runs up the hill on top of the rocks and screams, "Who am I?" you can see a member of the crew underneath the bridge area. When the chopper shot starts to move around you can see him look up at the camera and move back under the bridge trying to hide.
- Quotes
Morgan's hitman: You've got two choices. Give us the disk and jump off.
Morgan's Hitman: Or number two, we take the disk and throw you off.
Who Am I?: I like the third choice: I keep the disk, and I throw you both off.
- Crazy creditsIn the tradition of every Jackie Chan film, outtakes appear under the end credits. All of Jackie's outtakes involve bloopers only. The only injury on the outtakes is a stunt driver being brought out on a stretcher.
- Alternate versionsThe American version is cut by 9 minutes. Scenes omitted from the American version: -In the Hong Kong version, we do not see Jackie's unit get double crossed right after the mission is over (The American edit shows the unit getting double crossed after the mission). When the mission is over, it immediately cuts to the CIA briefing room. The scene with the double cross is shown during a flashback.
- There are more scenes with Jackie and his time with the African tribe. These include:
- Jackie talks in Chinese most of the time (The American version shows him talking in English as the film was shot in English).
- A conversation with tribal child Baba about the sun and the moon in hopes of finding out what happened to him.
- A confrontation with Jackie and a lion after Jackie picks up one of the lion's cubs.
- A ceremony where Jackie is made a member of the tribe.
- Before he leaves his tribal friends to go journey to find out his true identity, he does a traditional tribal dance for them and they return the favor with a dance of their own.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Jackie Chan: My Story (1998)
- SoundtracksYa Kuo Hu Di Ren (A Man in the Past)
Written by Lam Si
Performed by Emil Chow Wah-Kin
Featured review
Campy Over-the-Top Cartoon Fun!
I'm astonished that there were so many negative reviews here...
This film is OBVIOUSLY not meant to be taken seriously. It is very clearly intentionally a "joke" of a film. That people would complain about bad acting, strange dubbing, and/or a convoluted plot just leaves me flabbergasted.
From the very beginning, it should be evident that a big part of the point of the film is its own self-deprecating humor. Jackie loses his memory and is picked up by a primitive African tribe. The chief asks him, in an unintelligible language, "Where do you come from? What is your name?" to which Jackie replies (not understanding the questions) "What am I doing here? Who am I?" This is a JOKE, folks.
A few minutes later, Jackie saves a snake-bite victim with an IV he improvises from a COCONUT! When he's returned to "civilization," the doctor is impressed with that tactic, saying, "That coconut IV technique is only used by elite military units!" Is there any way to even dream of taking the plot/dialogue seriously at this point?
The acting is "bad" by design. The actors were obviously told to ham up everything they did. The meeting of the American intelligence officials is a completely ironic reference to the same sort of scene you'd expect in any James Bond movie. Dialogue is intentionally absurd, plot developments are intentionally obvious. The "Morgan" character is played perfectly (and hilariously) as a crooked CIA operative out for his own gain while feigning loyalty to the USA.
Yuki is a master stunt-driver with the naivete and wide-eyed innocence of a schoolgirl. Christine Stark is a completely laughable "reporter" who fools Jackie only as a result of his head injury; after she's "exposed," she rescues Jackie in an golf cart that can't seem to move faster than an electric wheelchair.
That the villains actually join each other in a verse of song ("Friendship, friendship!") near the end should serve as a good reminder of just how camp this picture strives to be. To criticize it for this as a "failing" seems to me to profoundly miss the point. Did the same viewers dislike that "Hot Shots: Part Deux" was absurd too?
Overall, the strengths of the film deserve the attention: it is a very funny parody of the overplotted "action/intrigue" genre, it has a terrific car chase, notable action sequences, and a terrific Jackie-Chan-Style fight scene at the beginning of the film's climax.
Perhaps I enjoyed this movie because I had grown up watching the "GI Joe" cartoon series, and had always been rather insulted by the fact that it managed to be both preachy and stupid at the same time. If you're looking for a great 100 minutes of parody and HUMOR, I'd recommend this movie. If you're more interested in believability and suspending your disbelief, this film will definitely not work for you at all. Inappropriate expectations would be the only "problem" I can imagine that would reduce one's enjoyment of this film.
If you want a more serious Jackie Chan film, you might try Drunken Master II, or Police Story. But if you're looking for an enjoyable and sardonic 100 minutes, this is truly one of Jackie's great vehicles.
This film is OBVIOUSLY not meant to be taken seriously. It is very clearly intentionally a "joke" of a film. That people would complain about bad acting, strange dubbing, and/or a convoluted plot just leaves me flabbergasted.
From the very beginning, it should be evident that a big part of the point of the film is its own self-deprecating humor. Jackie loses his memory and is picked up by a primitive African tribe. The chief asks him, in an unintelligible language, "Where do you come from? What is your name?" to which Jackie replies (not understanding the questions) "What am I doing here? Who am I?" This is a JOKE, folks.
A few minutes later, Jackie saves a snake-bite victim with an IV he improvises from a COCONUT! When he's returned to "civilization," the doctor is impressed with that tactic, saying, "That coconut IV technique is only used by elite military units!" Is there any way to even dream of taking the plot/dialogue seriously at this point?
The acting is "bad" by design. The actors were obviously told to ham up everything they did. The meeting of the American intelligence officials is a completely ironic reference to the same sort of scene you'd expect in any James Bond movie. Dialogue is intentionally absurd, plot developments are intentionally obvious. The "Morgan" character is played perfectly (and hilariously) as a crooked CIA operative out for his own gain while feigning loyalty to the USA.
Yuki is a master stunt-driver with the naivete and wide-eyed innocence of a schoolgirl. Christine Stark is a completely laughable "reporter" who fools Jackie only as a result of his head injury; after she's "exposed," she rescues Jackie in an golf cart that can't seem to move faster than an electric wheelchair.
That the villains actually join each other in a verse of song ("Friendship, friendship!") near the end should serve as a good reminder of just how camp this picture strives to be. To criticize it for this as a "failing" seems to me to profoundly miss the point. Did the same viewers dislike that "Hot Shots: Part Deux" was absurd too?
Overall, the strengths of the film deserve the attention: it is a very funny parody of the overplotted "action/intrigue" genre, it has a terrific car chase, notable action sequences, and a terrific Jackie-Chan-Style fight scene at the beginning of the film's climax.
Perhaps I enjoyed this movie because I had grown up watching the "GI Joe" cartoon series, and had always been rather insulted by the fact that it managed to be both preachy and stupid at the same time. If you're looking for a great 100 minutes of parody and HUMOR, I'd recommend this movie. If you're more interested in believability and suspending your disbelief, this film will definitely not work for you at all. Inappropriate expectations would be the only "problem" I can imagine that would reduce one's enjoyment of this film.
If you want a more serious Jackie Chan film, you might try Drunken Master II, or Police Story. But if you're looking for an enjoyable and sardonic 100 minutes, this is truly one of Jackie's great vehicles.
helpful•386
- roscopekoe
- Oct 1, 2004
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Languages
- Also known as
- Jackie Chan's Who Am I?
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour 48 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
![Who Am I? (1998)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BOWFiZDA1MjMtZmYwNi00ZjQyLTgxY2MtYjVjMGE5ODczNzc0XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTA0MTM5NjI2._V1_QL75_UX90_CR0,1,90,133_.jpg)