Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Why is this film so bad? Well, if being so stupidly annoying and unfunny is a reason, then this film is it. The character of Corky Romano is unlikable at best and downright infuriating at worst. The gags are predictable but that isn't what makes it bad. They are the lame sort of predictable jokes that your unfunny friend would say.

Corky Romano is about a mild mannered vet that tries to do right but is so clumsy. His quiet life is thrown for a loop when the family that once spurned him now needs him to infiltrate the FBI to destroy any trace of the family's crime history. However, it isn't that easy for Corky because the FBI believes him to be a super agent and pegs him with the duty of spying on his very own family. Mishaps and mayhem ensue but it really doesn't feel like any comic hijixn are there. Corky ends up in love with his beautiful FBI partner and has to set the record straight with both the FBI and his family if he is to settle down to the quiet life again.

I think what makes this film irritating is both the lead actor and the supposed jokes. Chris Kattan reveals his alarming limitations as and actor here as his one note slapstick routine falls flat about 10 minutes into the film. It is okay to have a full movie based solely off of dumb, slap stick humor. Will Ferrel, Kattan's SNL partner, seems to have made a full career out of it. The only difference between Kattan and Ferrel is that Ferrel knows when to tone it down and rely on other ways of telling a joke. There is absolutely no diversity in Kattan's routine. It's hard to hear the same joke twice, but for a whole movie that is just pure torture.

The other problem with the movie was the lack of truly original and FUNNY jokes. The gay mafia brother, the awkward guy sch-tick, and plenty of other forgettable jokes appear none as funny as the first time you barely laughed at it. It seems as if the screenwriters had more of a fun time writing this than any one had watching it. Even with a cast that has some comedic talent (Chris Penn, Peter Falk) the jokes that commence are tired. There is no chemistry too. This film was obviously one for the pocketbooks for the actors. No body seemed to care about it, or even try. Sad thing is, no body told Chris Kattan that.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: beyond the fact crazy people exist and there are religious nuts out there.

The characters basically make no sense most of the time.

The film has no real beginning, middle or ending, nor is anything ever explained much.

The film opens with a young man, with the unlikely name of Hazel Motes, apparently returning from a stint in the army.

He hitches a ride to a two story house that is in extreme disrepair, windows boarded over. He goes in the house, walks around and finally writes a note that he leaves there. This scene comes to nothing, and we learn nothing further about the house or its history.

It is never explained exactly whose house this is, or where the people have gone, but we are given the impression Hazel has probably lived there at one time.

Hazel decides to go to a city. Why - we don't know. Once he arrives in this city he writes down a name & address that he sees on a bathroom wall, and goes to visit this woman, who is a surprisingly fat hooker. He sees her for awhile and then he apparently isn't seeing her anymore. Like everything else in this movie, it comes to nothing and serves no purpose.

A young man named Enoch, tries to befriend him, but Hazel really isn't interested, although they keep crossing paths.

Enoch is about as crazy as you can get. One of his habits is to go to the zoo and stand in front of the cage where the chimps are and talk at them insultingly.

We never really know why Enoch behaves as he does, or why Hazel behaves as he does, beyond the fact Hazel had an overdose of old time scary, fundamentalist religion via his grandfather.

Enoch later becomes enthralled with a man who dresses in a gorilla suit, and manages to get the gorilla suit from him and then runs around in it.

Hazel, who is wound rather tight and seems to be in a constant borderline rage does a bit of street preaching. I got the impression he was trying to free himself from the untruths of the religion that had been drilled into him.

He has several encounters with a preacher and his daughter, although their interactions never really make any particular point, and there is no plot line.

Eventually Hazel succumbs to complete religious fervor and begins self-harming.

It is a very odd film. Interesting in it's oddness but other than that it has absolutely nothing going for it.

The cast does an outstanding job,but this film completely fails to deliver either a point of view or a storyline.

The film also has the characters tossing around the N word from time to time with no connection to the rest of the dialog.

2 stars
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
From what I've read a lot of people were disappointed by this film, compared to Part 1. Initially I could understand this but after a bit of thought I think they are wrong to be. Soderbergh continues his fact based telling of Che's life that he started in Part 1. Part 1 told a story of a revolution moving from unpromising beginnings to an ultimately successful conclusion. Part 2 tells a story of a revolution that moves from unpromising beginnings to a completely unsuccessful conclusion. It is not Soderbergh's fault that these 2 parts of Che's life had completely different outcomes. He bravely chooses to tell both in a fairly straightforward way. The viewer may feel a lot better coming out of the cinema after Part 1 than Part 2 but that is the reality of Che's life and not in my opinion any fault of the director. The film is far from perfect. It is probably too long. At least in Part 1 we saw different aspects of the war as the guerrillas had successes. In Part 2 they can't catch a break and we see their numbers constantly being reduced by death and capture. Che's capture and death are dealt with well. The film is greatly enhanced by the dialogue being in Spanish. Benicio Del Toro is again excellent as the charismatic Argentinian. So if you've seen Part 1 you will see a very similar telling of a very different story in Part 2.