71. Congo (1995)

Roger's Rating :


Should be :

In his review Roger said "Congo is a splendid example of a genre no longer much in fashion, the jungle adventure story. Perhaps aware that its material was already dated when Stewart Granger made King Solomon's Mines in 1950, the filmmakers have cheerfully turned it into an action comedy, and the actors have gone a step further, treating it like one of those movies like Beat the Devil that is a put-on of itself. The result is not a movie that is very good, exactly, but it's entertaining and funny. False sophisticates will scorn it. Real sophisticates will relish it."
I guess I am a false sophisticate. I just didn't get this movie. A talking gorilla, named Amy, and everyone is interested in finding diamonds to make lasers? Why isn't everyone more interested in Amy?
Roger closed his review with "The movie was directed by Frank Marshall, who has worked with Steven Spielberg on his action extravaganzas, and is based on a novel by Michael Crichton, who is said to be unhappy about what they've done with his book. Since it is impossible to imagine this material being played for anything but laughs, maybe he should be grateful."
I don't think the movie was meant to be funny. It is listed as a Action, Adventure, Mystery, Sci-Fi and Fantasy, but not as a comedy. If the movie really was a comedy/drama why wouldn't the people behind the movie let people in on the secret?
When I recently watched this movie again I watched it carefully to see if was actually being played for laughs. I don't think it was. I just think it was a bad movie with bad acting, bad special effects and bad writing.
The movie was nominated for seven Razzies, including Worst Picture, Worst Screenplay, and Worst Original Song. It has a 4.6 rating on IMDB, a 21% rating on RottenTomatoes and one positive review on Metacritic - Roger's.
This is one of those movies that is so bad it just might be fun to watch, but believe me when I tell you, it was no fun for me.

---

Gene Siskel on Congo

---

74. She Hate Me (2004)

Roger's Rating :


Should be :

If this movie could talk it would say "She hate me, he hate me, they hate me, everyone hate me except Roger, who gave me 3 stars."
In his review Roger said

Spike Lee's She Hate Me will get some terrible reviews. Scorched earth reviews. Its logic, style, presumption and sexual politics will be ridiculed. The Tomatometer will be down around 20. Many of the things you read in those reviews may be true from a conventional point of view. Most of the critics will be on safe ground. I will seem to be wrong. Seeming to be wrong about this movie is one of the most interesting things I've done recently. I've learned from it.
My guess is that Lee is attacking African-American male and gay/lesbian stereotypes not by conventionally preaching against them, but by boldly dramatizing them. The inspiration for She Hate Me may be his Bamboozled (2000), an attack on black stereotypes that was one of his least successful films. Having failed with a frontal assault, he returns to the battle using indirection. By getting mad at the movie, we arrive at the conclusions he intends. In a sense, he is sacrificing himself to get his message across.
Either that, or I have completely misread She Hate Me, but I couldn't write the obvious review. I couldn't convince myself I believed it. This film is alive and confrontational and aggressively in our face, and the man who made it has abandoned all caution, even to the point of refusing to signal his intentions, to put in a wink to let us see he knows what he's doing.

I'm a big fan of Spike Lee, Malcolm X and Do the Right Thing are two of my favorite movies of all time, but this movie was not good. Roger is hoping desperately that there is something clever in the movie, but even he can't find it.
I think Roger hit it on the head on his At the Movies show. He said "It has enough imaginations and material for three movies, and that becomes a problem since it can't decide which of the three movies it wants to be." Ebert and Roeper's dialogue continues :

Ebert : "She hate me is preposterous, the critics are likely to hate it, but I give Spike Lee credit for being provocative, outrageous and daring in a world of timid and conventional movies, he swings for the fences. I went back and forth and back and forth, on this ... I'm going to give it thumbs up because it was never .."
Roeper : "Wow! Wow!"
Ebert "never boring. It was always intelligent in its film ideas even if the plot absolutely fell to pieces."
Roeper : "Roger this movie was never intelligent from the get-go. I give this movie a big thumbs down and I think it may be the worst movie of the year. I mean first of all, if anybody else made a movie about this black male stud, Spike Lee would be ripping them for trafficking in such obvious stereotypes. Is it supposed to be a parody of stereotypes?"
Ebert : "I think so."
Roeper : " It's just insanely outlandish. None of that stuff has any connection to any real world possibilities that you could ever, ever."
Ebert : "Were you bored during this movie?"
Roeper : "I was amazed, astonished.. that I was seeing such garbage on the screen. The acting is horrible. The music is intrusive and you know there's this whole plot where he's getting in trouble ... this movie knows nothing about an investigation into financial misdeeds. The stuff with the Mafia is third-rate stereotypes of Italians.
Ebert : "You know it's funny, this kind of movie is a real test for a film critic and it was a real test for me because intellectually I know everything you say is true. You're right - it's preposterous. I know that. Yet at the same time he keeps doing stuff. ... This movie is really trying to something in many different ways at the same time and even though it doesn't work it fails, fails in a very interesting and stimulating way and I didn't feel as if I resented losing my two hours."
Roeper : "I guess on one level I can understand what you're saying because I would say to some people you got to see this because it's such a train wreck that you won't believe it but I would say maybe people could wait to rent it to see what I mean. I think it's one of the worst movies of the year."

This was a movie that was supposed to be a comedy, but I don't think there was one funny minute in it. I agree with Roger that it was preposterous and didn't know what kind of movie it wanted to be. Offensive? Racist? Misogynistic? Homophobic? In my view, yes on all counts.
I'm going to agree with Richard Roeper on this one. Only see it if you enjoy watching train wrecks.

---

70. Gigli (2003)

Roger's Rating :


Should be : Zero stars

The movie starts out with hitman Larry Gigli, played by Ben Affleck taking a handicapped boy for a ride. It looked like it was going to be a remake of Rain Man and then J-Lo stops over the apartment to borrow the phone. It turns out the J-Lo is a hitwoman, sent to check up on Gigli. What follows is some of the most embarrassing dialogue in one of the worst plots of all time. It does have J-Lo, and the camera does love her, but that is about all this turkey has going for it.
Roger says in his bizarre review :

The movie tries to do something different, thoughtful, and a little daring with their relationship, and although it doesn't quite work, maybe the movie is worth seeing for some scenes that are really very good. Consider the matching monologues. They've gotten into an argument over the necessity of the penis, which she, as a lesbian, feels is an inferior device for delivering sexual pleasure. He delivers an extended lecture on the use, necessity and perfect design of the appendage. It is a rather amazing speech, the sort of thing some moviegoers are probably going to want to memorize. Then she responds. She is backlit, dressed in skintight workout clothes, doing yoga, and she continues to stretch and extend and bend and pose as she responds with her speech in praise of the vagina. When she is finished, Reader, the vagina has won, hands down. It is so rare to find dialogue of such originality and wit, so well written, that even though we know the exchange basically involves actors showing off, they do it so well, we let them.

Roger goes on to say :

So the movie doesn't work. The ending especially doesn't work, and what's worse, it doesn't work for a long time, because it fails to work for minute after minute, and includes dialogue which is almost entirely unnecessary. But there is good stuff here. Affleck and Lopez create lovely characters, even if they're not the ones they're allegedly playing, and the supporting performances and a lot of the dialogue is wonderful. It's just that there's too much time between the good scenes. Too much repetitive dialogue. Too many soulful looks. Behavior we can't believe. I wonder what would happen if you sweated 15 minutes out of this movie. Maybe it would work. The materials are there.

Wow! "It is so rare to find dialogue of such originality and wit, so well written"!! On Metacritics, out of the 37 reviews there is only one that is positive - Roger's.
The director/writer Martin Brest won Razzies for Worst Director and Worst Screenplay for this movie. This is a movie that has a 7% rating on RottenTomatoes and a 2.4 rating on IMDB. I don't think that sweating 15 minutes out of it is going to help.

Ebert and Roeper Dialogue on Gigli

Ebert "Gigli is filled with enormous lapses in common sense. Gigli makes a commendable effort though, to avoid cliches in the relationship between Affleck and J-Lo, and some of the conversations between the straight guy and the lesbian woman are very well written. J-Lo and Affleck deliver brilliant dissertations, for example, on their favorite sexual organs. I never, however, for a moment believed they were mob killers but I liked whoever it was they were playing although the movie is too disorganized for me to recommend it."

Roeper : "Oh, you are being far too kind to this utter disaster."

Ebert : "No, not at all. Not a disaster."

Roeper : "First of all, I can't believe that you are saying that there are some nicely written parts here, because I think the script is a disaster."

Ebert : "Their matching monologues. What about the matching monologues?"

Roeper : "I hated their matching monologues."

Ebert : "I loved it. Well written"

Roeper : "I cringed as I was watching it. J-Lo also speaks some of the most degrading monologue that I have ever heard a major female star ever have to utter. She tries to explain why she prefers women over men. And you're right, they are the two most least believable assassins of all time."

Ebert : "I'll tell you something. In the age of Sex and the City, I know exactly the word that you are referring to that she says and I believe that someone in that situation would say something just about like that."

Roeper : "Nobody will ever be in the situation that these two characters are in, in this movie and also this character of the brother, I'm sorry, it's a horrible Dustin Hoffman imitation."

Ebert : "Oh, I didn't like that."

Roeper : "The ending is a howling horrible way to complete this mess. I mean they are stuck with such a mess here."

Ebert : "Well my thumb is down but I still like the dialogue but I agree with you about the retarded brother who is so handy, he always disappears when he's not needed. Turns up, does everything on cue. He just like a little well trained prop."

Roeper : "I think it's absolutely one of the worst movies of the year. One of the worst movies I've ever seen."

---

---

Watch Ebert Review Here

69. The Fighter (2010)

Roger's Rating :


Should be :

I'm not a big fight fan. I think it is a brutal sport and I find it hard to watch, but I loved The Fighter. The movie worked for me on many levels. It had some tremendous acting. Christian Bale's performance was brilliant. Melissa Leo, Amy Adams and Mark Wahlberg were also all really good. The movie is well worth seeing just for the performances alone.
I also thought the movie was an excellent fight film. I thought the fight scenes were really well done, and really brought home the pain and brutality that takes place in the ring. The movie was also effective in showing the devastation that drugs can have on one's life. Dicky was a character who had hit rock bottom because of his drug fueled life style.
Roger says in his review "The weakness of the film is the weakness of the leading role. That's not a criticism of Mark Wahlberg, who has a quite capable range, but of how he and Russell see the character. Micky comes across as a proud, not very bright, very determined man who has apparently never given his family much constructive thought. To say of your family, 'they're my family!' is true enough, but may not be sufficiently analytical. His love for Charlene is real, but he never quite realizes he really must choose between her vision and his mother's. His character remains strangely unfocused."
I disagree with Roger since the movie was based on a true story. To say a character should have acted another way doesn't make any sense if that is not the way the real person acted. Micky is a character who tries to please everyone around him. His older brother is his hero and his mother is a dominating figure in the lives of everyone in her sphere.
Roger finishes his review by saying "There are a lot of fight scenes, not as visceral as those in Raging Bull, Rocky or The Wrestler, but designed more to represent the POV of a sportswriter or fan. Because we aren't deeply invested in Micky, we don't care as much as we should, and the film ends on a note that should be triumph but feels more like simple conclusion."
It's funny, because I felt exactly the opposite. I really felt connected to this character, who was so anxious to please everyone, and was used by all those around him as they tried to realize their dreams through him.
The film received 7 Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best original Screenplay along with 3 acting nominations for Bale, Adams and Leo. Sports Illustrated dubbed the film the best sports movie of the decade and "one of the best since Martin Scorsese backlit Robert De Niro's Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull." It has a 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and an 8.1 rating on IMDB.

---

68. The Manhattan Project (1986)

Roger's Rating :


Should be :

The Rotten Tomatoes synopsis says "Directed and cowritten by Woody Allen collaborator Marshall Brickman, this comedy-thriller doesn't seem to know where it wants to go or what it wants to say (other than, obviously, nuclear weapons are scary things). Christopher Collet plays an overachieving high school student who decides to show just how dangerously easy it is to construct a nuclear device. He builds one for his science fair, using his mother's relationship with a government official (John Lithgow) to sneak into a secret facility and steal plutonium. When the feds find out what's going on, they overreact in a brutish showdown that threatens nuclear annihilation of everyone within a 10-mile radius. While the movie makes some antinuke points and features a strong performance by Lithgow, it seems a little too breezy, given what's going on."
The main problem with the movie is that it is slow moving and the kid who is supposed to be the hero, is a brat who is hard to cheer for. Marshall Brickman, who wrote Manhattan and Annie Hall, didn't do so as well when he tried to write for the teenage set. This movie was no where near as good as a similarly themed movie, War Games (1983), which was made just a few years earlier.
In his review Roger said "The Manhattan Project was co-written and directed by Marshall Brickman, the sometime Woody Allen collaborator (Annie Hall, Manhattan) whose own films include Lovesick and Simon. This movie announces his arrival into the first ranks of skilled American directors.
It's a tour de force, the way he combines everyday personality conflicts with a funny, oddball style of seeing things, and wraps up the whole package into a tense and effective thriller. It's not often that one movie contains so many different kinds of pleasures."
This is usually the kind of movie that is right up my alley, but for me this one went right to the gutter. On IMDB it has a 5.9 and Rotten Tomatoes it has a 47% rating.
By the way, the highly skilled director, who just joined the first ranks, only directed one more movie fifteen years later, Sister Mary Explains It All (2001). I don't think that one was too good either.

---