Not to be outdone by the recent unlikely pairing of Jack Nicholson and Adam Sandler, Chow Yun-Fat and Seann William Scott now star in a movie of their own called Bulletproof Monk. Talk about your odd couples -- with "odd" being the emphasized word, as it not only describes the pairing but the movie as well.

The film contains a strange mishmash of borrowed concepts, from the gravity-defying fighting to the extremely simplistic plot: a monk (Chow) protects an ancient scroll from an evil villain and seeks a successor. The selling point, I suppose, is how all signs point to a scruffy modern-day New York pickpocket (Scott). While the story tries to capitalize on this concept, it fails to make anything else around it interesting -- the scroll is powerful just because it is, the bad guy and his followers are practically Nazis, and the whole thing is a set-up for the usual chases, one-on-ones, master-pupil conflicts, etc.

Some may argue -- and justifiably so -- that Bulletproof Monk isn't supposed to be taken seriously. One can see the evidence of this in the goofy characters (like a funny punk named "Mr. Funktastic"), easy wisecracks, and the good-natured demeanor of both protagonists. But this tone isn't carried all the way through. Once any action sequence starts, danger becomes quite serious indeed and the amazing physical feats, clumsy computer-assisted work and all, tries hard to elicit audience ooh-ing and aah-ing.

The resulting tonal seesaw doesn't feel like it was planned. I think the filmmakers wanted this movie to be some kind of homage to old Hong Kong kung-fu flicks (the kind you could catch on local stations featuring "Kung-Fu Theater" after midnight) -- after all, the hero is a philosophy-spouting monk and his partner works at a run-down theater which only shows these kinds of movies. But is this a joke or a sincere ode? One scene best demonstrates my confusion -- Chow's monk spots Scott's character, late at night, standing in the empty screening room with a kung-fu flick playing on the screen. The character on the screen is training, whirling his arms and striking poses, and Scott's character mimics him. On the one hand, this explains where he learned his fighting skills; on the other hand, are they serious?

All the while, the movie continues to pile on corniness. However, it works best when not busy setting up obvious climaxes with the mid-story introduction of torture devices, or wasting time revealing a seemingly good character's motive of betrayal that ultimately contributes nothing to the plot. When Chow shows us his charming smile and engages in humorous conversation with an also-charming Scott, Bulletproof Monk is most at ease. Not the action, not the story, but their rapport happens to be the most pleasing aspect of this flick. And that is -- in a word -- odd.

(Released by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and rated "PG-13" for violence, language and some sexual content.)

Review also posted at www.windowtothemovies.com.