"Roar of the Dragon" (1932) and "Barricade" (1939) have essentially the same plots (as well as length). In China in the 1930s, Mongol raiders corner westerners in a building. It is in a hotel in the former; it is in the US embassy in the latter. They are refugees from a riverboat in the former; they are refugees from a train in the latter. The leading man in the former is an alcoholic riverboat captain; the leading man in the latter is an alcoholic reporter.
The IMDb rating for the former is 6.5; the rating for the latter is 5.7. Those ratings, in my opinion, should be reversed. The "Roar of the Dragon" lacks memorable scenes, while, despite its many production problems, "Barricade" has several (such as Baxter and Faye fleeing across a wheat field while the raiders try to burn them out).
Additionally, the "Roar of the Dragon" suffers from numerous problems. And it is hard not to have them detract from one's enjoyment. There are plot problems. No one suggests boarding-up the hotel's windows and doors, and, as a result, one person is killed and another kidnapped. The raiders make no attempt to destroy the refugee's only means of escape, the riverboat, even though it is docked nearby and virtually undefended. There are stupidity problems. The hero makes no attempt to ferret out the spies he has been informed lurk within the hotel, or even to exercise caution by having guards protect his limited water supplies. There are coincidence problems. A main character is killed when the hero's machine gun jams just as the other is being attacked. On the other hand, other than the question of "who put the rug over the trap door?" when the embassy refugees retreat into the cellar, the actions in "Barricade" proceed quite logically, given the situation cast members are said to be in.
So my advice, therefore, is to skip "Roar of the Dragon" and watch "Barricade" instead
The IMDb rating for the former is 6.5; the rating for the latter is 5.7. Those ratings, in my opinion, should be reversed. The "Roar of the Dragon" lacks memorable scenes, while, despite its many production problems, "Barricade" has several (such as Baxter and Faye fleeing across a wheat field while the raiders try to burn them out).
Additionally, the "Roar of the Dragon" suffers from numerous problems. And it is hard not to have them detract from one's enjoyment. There are plot problems. No one suggests boarding-up the hotel's windows and doors, and, as a result, one person is killed and another kidnapped. The raiders make no attempt to destroy the refugee's only means of escape, the riverboat, even though it is docked nearby and virtually undefended. There are stupidity problems. The hero makes no attempt to ferret out the spies he has been informed lurk within the hotel, or even to exercise caution by having guards protect his limited water supplies. There are coincidence problems. A main character is killed when the hero's machine gun jams just as the other is being attacked. On the other hand, other than the question of "who put the rug over the trap door?" when the embassy refugees retreat into the cellar, the actions in "Barricade" proceed quite logically, given the situation cast members are said to be in.
So my advice, therefore, is to skip "Roar of the Dragon" and watch "Barricade" instead