Conagher-7's Reviews

Clementine (2004)

4 May 2005

Warning: Spoilers

This is a typical melodramatic Korean movie. Decent drama compared to it's genre, decent fight sequences (heavy on taekwondo, as expected). Seagal added nothing to this movie, really, except for his name and some face time. Oh, and two lines of utterly predictable dialogue. He didn't do anything more than any martial arts stunt man could have done.

See this one if you enjoy Korean cinema or if you absolutely must see every celluloid moment of Seagal's career. Oh, and if you're just dying to see it, see it soon. There's apparently some contractual issues that could get this one pulled.

7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Saturday Night Live (1975– )

Enough already!!! Pull the plug!!!

14 April 2005

Is NBC ever going to give this show a mercy killing? Dying with dignity is out of the picture now. It just needs to go. The initial cast was funny, and the casts of the early nineties with Adam Sandler, Chris Farley (God rest his soul) and the like had their moments. But the magic is long since gone. The opening monologues/dialogues by the flavors of the month celebrities are as painfully contrived as ever, and it just goes downhill from there. If, on the rare occasion, a writer stumbles upon something a little funny, plan on them milking that teat dry until it is painfully unfunny. I guess they do it so it will match the consistency of the rest of the show. This seems to be a Lorne Michaels trademark.

Seems like the only use for SNL any more is to churn out moderately funny comics for Hollywood to pimp out for three or four movies until the public catches on that they're not funny (like Chris Kattan, Rob Schneider, Dana Carvey ... need I go on?). Outside of the first cast there has been some talent to go through SNL, but with places like Comedy Central and more people watching HBO, who needs SNL any more? Is it worth desecrating the memory of the few good years? I can't imagine anyone really watching this poor excuse for sketch comedy for it's comedic value. The only people I can even conceive of watching this disaster for more than five minutes are those who are easily entertained, don't have cable (which is barely an excuse), or watch it out of some strange allegiance for NBC, SNL or Lorne Michaels.

Maybe someone down at NBC will finally pull the plug on this shell of a show. Until then I guess the world will have to put up with atrocious SNL skits stretched into two-hour silver screen disasters and that one supremely annoying co-worker who starts every Monday with, "Hey, did you see Saturday Night Live this week? They made fun of ..."

2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)

Can you guys just try to be a little funny?

14 April 2005

Not real funny. I really don't have high expectations for recent cinema, but those low expectations weren't even met. I kept expecting to laugh, looking for the jokes, waiting for it ... but nothing. The only funny parts of the movie are the character of Brick Tamland (he just says random things, and I think they were all improvised) and the outtakes at the end. There is one laugh regarding a prank the female newscaster plays on Ron Burgundy, but that was mostly for the shock value than actual humor content. Oh, and there's a little dig at the Bush Administration at the end, but it was so unoriginal and unfunny as to almost be insulting. If you're just dying to see this movie, go find the trailer and watch it. The trailer has about all the kinda funny lines Ron Burgundy says in a convenient short form. It'll save you a few hours of boredom.

Give this one a pass.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Invincible (2001 TV Movie)

Uh, yeah.

3 September 2004

This movie wasn't as good as it could have been. The potential was there, with a decent plot and a few good actors, but it was just not done well.

The idea of a group of different individuals putting their differences aside and coming together to achieve a common goal is not new, but it can be done well. Here it was not. I didn't watch the movie for the story, which was good as it was not real good. The whole "love will overcome all" is a good idea, but Os runs it into the ground to the point that he comes across as one of those fake happy lovely-dovey Mormon missionary types that makes most people nauseous.

Judging from the commercials and the packaging, I expected this to be more of a martial arts movie. Sadly, where most martial arts movies use the story to connect the fight scenes, this movie apparently forgot that it was a martial arts flick and concentrated on a really weak story at the expense of the fighting. One could count the number of fight scenes in this movie on the fingers of one hand and still have plenty of fingers left. The fights that it did have weren't all that great, either. The fighting relied a lot on wires, which is okay for a fairy-tale or a wuxia movie, but it just looked silly here. Also, it wasn't hard to tell that the actors trained just long enough to pull this movie's few fight scenes off. The actions weren't crisp or particularly fast, and they tried to hide all of this via flickering lighting, jerky camera shots and slow-motion. It was just not good from a martial arts perspective.

Unfortunately, most of this 90 minute snoozer is only worth fast-forwarding through, which I did for most of the last thirty minutes, and I'm kicking myself for not fast-forwarding earlier through the totally inane temptation scene. Fast-forwarding through a movie is something I almost never do, but I couldn't take it after an hour of drivel. This movie may have worked as a children's cartoon or some sort of kids live-action movie, but not as a movie aimed at a post-adolescent audience. Mel Gibson I can forgive for being involved in this silly movie, but Jet Li ought to know better. Hopefully he did it as a favor or lost a bet or something.

Bottom line - avoid this one.

4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Last Samurai (2003)

If viewed in an historical vacuum, it's not a bad movie

2 September 2004

Although most recent movies are generally a mile wide and an inch thick, this movie is not so bad so long as the viewer is ignorant of early 20th century Asian history (which, fortunately for movie makers, the lion's share of moviegoers are ignorant of most everything).

If you haven't figured it out yet, the movie revolves around the samurai and their struggle to keep the "old ways" in the face of modernization/Westernization.

Seems noble, doesn't it?

The movie, although not in an attempt to mislead, fails to tell the rest of the story. The idea of protecting the Emperor and worshipping him as god on Earth makes a resurgence and, in short, leads to the invasion of China and the bombing of Pearl Harbor. If a viewer cares to get a fuller picture of the ideals that Tom Cruise's character is fighting to protect, he must educate himself on such things as the Rape of Nanjing, the brutal ethnic-cleansing undertaken on the Korean peninsula, the Bataan Death March, Unit 731, Korean and Chinese comfort women and the island-hopping campaigns of the Pacific Theater in World War II. In short, the samurai ideal lead to the torture and death of thousands of Americans and millions of Chinese and Koreans, among others.

I would compare this movie to a film version of the early days of the Nazi party, perhaps detailing the struggles against the Trade Unions and the Communists. Probably entertaining if viewed in a vacuum, but when put into historical perspective, very ominous.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Once Upon a Time in China (1991)

OH MY GOD!

13 January 2001

Today I experienced an epiphany. Having many Chinese friends I had heard that "Wong Fei-hung" was a really good movie (by the way, call it "Wong Fei-hung" and not "Once Upon a Time in China"; the latter title has nothing to do with anything and the Chinese will have no idea what you're talking about if you call it that). I saw that it was being released on DVD by Columbia TriStar, so I pre-ordered it on Amazon.com. I had high hopes. I waited for what seemed like forever for it to come. It finally came today, and I watched it.

THIS MOVIE BLEW ME AWAY.

I was expecting a really good kung fu movie. Instead I saw a really good movie, period. Li Lian Jie is phenomenal in "Wong Fei-hung". Western audiences familiar with only "Lethal Weapon 4" and "Romeo Must Die" have seen only the tip of the iceberg. Li portrays Master Wong as a dignified and disciplined master and a deft and elegant martial artist. His supporting cast was excellent as well, especially those who did fighting, like Yan Yee Kwan as Master Yim. This movie had a very good plot as well. Stepped on by everyone from the Manchus to the Americans, many in Canton rose up against their oppressors. Wong Fei-hung, despite sympathizing with his countrymen, finds himself caught between both sides, not to mention various other sub-issues.

Technically this movie is outstanding as well. The subtitling, although it contains a few awkward constructions and isn't always entirely clear, is relatively well done. The cinematography is outstanding. I always felt like I was a part of the movie, a bystander watching events happen. During combat scenes, I never felt like I was straining to see the action. It was very easy to see from a cinematic point of view (Li, however, is frequently too fast to see regardless of cinematography!).

This movie puts Hollywood action movies to shame, especially by martial arts "wanna-bes" like Jean-Claude Van Damme. I hope that further releases of Li's material here in the US will help to gain him a spot in Western cinema. This movie proved to the East that he is a spectacularly talented individual, and I hope that this and his other Hong Kong movies will do the same here in the West.

5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ocean's Eleven (1960)

Could this film be any dumber???

10 January 2001

Warning: Spoilers

This is a bad movie. A bad premise, a bad plot, bad actors, bad script, bad camera work, I bet even the catering was bad. I'm too young to know of the Rat Pack in their "glory" days, but this movie would make a terrible legacy.

Set in the tinny, gilded era of Las Vegas, the members of the Rat Pack conspire and (somehow) rob five of the casinoes on The Strip. With a see-through thin plan, they manage to rob these casinoes of millions. Were it so easy! Obviously the casinoes didn't have the security today's casinoes have, but it stretches my suspension of disbelief much too far to believe that the security was so lax. One of the eleven runs around playing with the wires in all of these casinoes without anyone so much as seeing him, all in broad daylight! If the casinoes were this easy to rob, people would be robbing them by accident!

Another problem with the movie was the motivation of each of the characters to rob these places. The only guy who had any motivation at all was Anthony Bergdorf (Richard Conte), the one who had terminal cancer (who happened to "suddenly" die from it moments after the heist). The rest seemed to be doing fairly well financially, judging by their expensive clothing and their posh digs. I suppose Josh Howard (Sammy Davis, Jr.) had a motivation as well, being a poor black trashman (who owns a pretty expensive suit that he wore to the organizational meetings). But this was at the end of the Fifties, and Howard was barely allowed to hang out with the rest of them, and probably would have gotten screwed out of the money in the end anyway.

The funniest problem was the dialogue. That script used more similies and metaphors than a dog has fleas. At some points in the movie I was never quite sure what the characters were saying because of the archaic euphamisms being used.

All in all, this film was one big throbbing pile of cheese. It's a caricature of the Fifties, the Rat Pack, and of itself. I've heard that these people were playing themselves in this movie. If so, the Rat Pack seems to be a group of self-absorbed, arrogant, greedy, base, immature little boys, riding around in the lap of luxury and bemoaning problems of their own making. If you're still wearing your bobby socks and poodle skirts and are disgustingly in love with this group, I suppose you could suffer through it, otherwise keep your conception of the Fifties and the Rat Pack pure and avoid this horrid movie.

25 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Titanic (1997)

Guess what? The ship sinks!

10 December 2000

Warning: Spoilers

*POSSIBLE SPOILER, BUT ONLY IF YOU'RE STUPID*

Hey, I'll save you who are considering seeing this movie a few hours. The ship sinks. And DiCaprio can't act.

Too bad all this money wasn't spent on something beneficial, like figuring out how to fill all those holes in Swiss cheese.

This movie's financial success is proof that our society is beyond hope.

6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Lethal Weapon 4 (1998)

See it for Jet Li, don't expect much from anyone else.

19 November 2000

This movie had such a great cast, but it was so completely underutilized. Other than the occasionally humorous utterance by Chris Rock, the dialogue was, well, mostly bad (the "frog" speech by Pesci was the only other exception). The political statements, telling us that guns are evil unless Mel or Danny have them, were understated and easy to miss but still pretty annoying. And the typical one-dimensional portrayal of Chinese characters is on full display here. I know they all look alike to a lot of Americans, but come on. "Fly lice"? So solly, but the honorable dilector does not know Chinese don't all have accent.

The one part of this movie that held my attention was Wah Sing Ku, killer for the Chinese mafia (not, as a previous reviewer erroneously pointed out, Japanese Yakuza), played by the veteran Hong Kong action star, Li Lian Jie, aka, Jet Li. A world-class wushu practitioner, Li had a few opportunities to showcase his talents. Words like breath-taking and awe-inspiring do not begin to describe his skill.

*SPOILER*

The utterly maddening part of this movie is that it somehow wanted us to believe that a couple of out-of-shape, over-the-hill cops could beat in hand-to-hand combat a well-conditioned, young wushu master who has trained for his whole life and (the movie suggests) killed people much tougher than Riggs and Murtaugh. Yes, I realize it was their movie, they had to win, the bad guy had to lose, etc., etc., etc., but I'm afraid my suspension of disbelief isn't quite that pliable.

*END SPOILER*

Other than Li's portions, this movie deserves to be placed in that mountainous pile of mediocre, killing-time formula movies. See it if you're bored, or see it for Li's action sequences and fast-forward the rest.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Original Kings of Comedy (2000)

The Unoriginal Subjects of Crassness

2 September 2000

Let's begin with the title, "The Original Kings of Comedy." Original implies one of two meanings: either previously unknown or unpresented, or the first of some series or set. Clearly the latter usage is out, since these men are not the first "kings of comedy." The originals of modern comedy are men like Jackie Gleason, the Marx brothers, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, etc., and not these 1990s "comedians." The former meaning of the word "orginal" is also a misnomer. Since when did four-letter words and racist stereotypes (a staple in Spike Lee "joints") constitute originality? "Kings" is an easy one to shoot down as well. How can one be a "king" of comedy if he is not funny? Between them the only one with any success was the emcee with a moderately successful network show to his credit. The rest are clearly usurpers at best. Finally, why should the word "comedy" ever be associated with this movie? Racism, profanity, misogyny, homophobia and other negative attitudes pass for comedy only to the lowest common denominator of our society.

The only aspect of this movie to which I give any credit is that it is a movie consistent with Lee's other celluloid garbage. Lee's "joints" never fail to appeal to the basest urges of this society's groundlings. Continue your foul work, Lee, and see to it that our country's racial divide is perpetuated.

3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

What Lies Beneath (2000)

A better remake of Psycho than Psycho!

23 July 2000

This movie hearkens back to the days of the great suspense-master Alfred Hitchcock. Elements such as a twisting, turning plot, many-sided characters and several red herrings make this film enjoyable for the thinking man (or woman) as well as the thrill-seeker. The film is full of Hitchcock favorites (look closely at the last fade-out for a good one!), and the score adds so much to the movie as well. I whole-heartedly recommend this movie to those who enjoy a good, suspenseful scare.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Being John Malkovich (1999)

Couldn't follow through.

18 November 1999

This movie started out with a great idea. Imagine being able to climb into a famous person's head and live their life with them for a few hours! But herein lies the problem: I'd rather be anyone besides John Malkovich. Who really wants to be John Malkovich? How about Being Jackie Chan, or Harrison Ford, Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwarzenegger or Mel Gibson? Why not someone other than an actor, like George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, or Oliver Stone? Why not a world leader like Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Jiang Zemin, Gerhard Schroeder or Kim Dae-jung? Why not a woman? Why someone white? Could we find SOMEONE more interesting than John Malkovich?

This movie started out as a funny movie. The poor puppeteer can't find a job as a puppeteer, so he goes to an office located in between floors in something akin to a finished crawlspace, built ostensibly for midgets and only accessible by stopping the elevator between floors and prying open the doors with a crowbar. Serious dialogue is incredibly funny when one is hunched over bumping his head on the ceiling and talking over the ringing bell of the elevator while delivering it.

The movie gets tedious quickly, however. A bizarre love-triangle/square develops and that drags the movie, along with a few other suspension-of-belief-rupturing developments into the zone of the bizarre and boring. Had this movie shied away from the totally demented and stayed closer to the humorous, it would have been, in my opinion, a much better movie.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Cruel Intentions (1999)

Nothing But Stupidity.

19 August 1999

Yes, I saw this movie. Yes, I regret it. I dearly wish that I could have that time in my life back. I saw it at a second-run theater, and I still feel like I was ripped off. This is DEFINITELY NOT a wonderful or witty movie. This is just a vehicle for sex play. If you want to hear immature bimbos discussing sex or see adolescent boys conducting activities with themselves that probably can't be mentioned in this format, then this is your movie. This is just another piece of fertilizer that Hollywood has put on our plate

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

There's Something About Mary (1998)

A Good Movie???

19 August 1999

I saw this movie when it first came out and thought it was pretty bad. Now, as the release on video is upon us, I have to comment on the movie. This movie is marginally funny, at best. It's a movie that makes "Beavis and Butthead" look like intelligent comedy. The only people that I can envision being attracted to this movie are those of low intelligence, lacking in maturity, and think that flatulent noises represent high art. I felt like I lost some IQ points there in the theater when I saw it. If you're considering seeing this movie, do yourself a favor and DON'T SEE IT.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Conagher-7

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed