Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media

Review: Kung Pow 211

Well, some of you warned me, and you were right. Kung Pow - Enter the Fist had a great premise and the trailers were tantalizing. Steve Oedekerk borrowed from Woody Allen's What's Up Tiger Lily? to make a Kung Fu spoof patched together from a little known 1976 karate film Tiger and Crane Fists. But the result is anything but funny. Spoilage warning: plot discussed, not ending.

This one should have worked. Oedekerk, writer and director of this mediocrity, is also the star. He uses digital film-editing techniques to insert himself into the older film as the new hero, a creative idea that in better hands could really have been funny.

The Chosen One saw his family killed by the evil Master Pain/Betty and was raised by rodents. He finds his way to Master Tang, then falls in love with Tang's daughter Ling, who speaks in a perpetual whine. The stop-action overdubs and hesitations are funny at first, but then are just headache-inducing. There are a few inspired moments -- I personally loved the karate brawl with the dairy cow -- but the movie derails as he comes closer and closer to his confrontation with Master Pain.

Don't be fooled by the trailers. Every funny scene is in them. There are few movies I can't sit through, but this one was a struggle. It really isn't worth much more discussion, and my best advice would be to skip it altogether.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Review: Kung Pow

Comments Filter:
  • by frostgiant ( 243045 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @12:48PM (#2909767)
    I saw this movie and... yuck!
    I guess I should've known... The previews said "From the director of Ace Ventura 2". I don't know if you've ever seen Ace Ventura 2 or not, but let's just say it sucked.

    Go see "A Beautiful Mind" if you haven't already, it is much, much better.
  • put one positive thing in there? Geez, this guy is blasting the movie without any resentment.

    Summary of Review:
    The movie sucks.
    • I admire that. If a critic thinks a movie sucks he or she ought to say that. I hate the critics who just go the moderate route to appease the movie makers and avoid confrontation with others who might not have agreed with their review. That's why i think the filthy critic is so great. He has his opinions, and he can back them up with insight and knowledge. He doesn't sugar coat his review with: "Superb moviemaking for the 20th century!" -- or other press bytes that tell you nothing except that the critic who wrote them was a whore.

    • Well, he *did* put some positive things in there -- he did love the cow scene. that's (positive thing > 0)
  • by LatJoor ( 464031 ) <latjoor@@@hotmail...com> on Sunday January 27, 2002 @12:53PM (#2909784) Homepage
    the trailers were tantalizing

    No, the trailers were terrible. How anyone could want to see a movie based on those trailers is beyond me. Yet another spoof on The Matrix, this time with a cow? A guy being distracted by a woman with big breasts? And these are the highlights? This was just another me-too addition to the new genre of 'genre parodies' to come out in the last few years, and obviously not an inspired newcomer.
  • by nizo ( 81281 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @12:56PM (#2909791) Homepage Journal
    ...any movie I would want to see less, given the trailer. On the upside, I am guessing that if I did go see the movie, I wouldn't be disappointed; at least I KNOW it sucks, where these days often the trailer deceives me so......
    • ...any movie I would want to see less, given the trailer. On the upside, I am guessing that if I did go see the movie, I wouldn't be disappointed; at least I KNOW it sucks, where these days often the trailer deceives me so......

      Most of the time the trailers are more enjoyable that the main features... Sometimes I just leave after watching the trailers and don't bother with the main title.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 27, 2002 @12:59PM (#2909804)
    "Let's boycott the MPAA... until there's some idiotic looking spoof movie I really want to see."
    • Er... no, you only go see the movies that are worth your time, or at least wait til they hit the dollar theatre. In the last months, I've only seen a limited number of first-run movies: Shrek, Final Fantasy (which I know kinda sucked, but I still wanted to support the cause an view it for its aesthetics), Crouching Tiger (my second viewing), Monsters Inc. (I didn't pay, so I can't argue), and LOTR.

      Point to that waste of bandwidth is, I paid for movies that were truly worth it or that I had to see, and I just found something else to do with the rest of my time (as another thread points out, sacrificing one movie pretty much pays for one month of a MMO game). Don't boycott, just be judicious in what you see, and be willing to defend yourself when others try to convince you. Were my friend so strong, I wouldn't have convinced him to see Scary Movie. I still don't think he's fully forgiven me for that night...

    • I'm sorry, you must be mistaken - I wasn't aware that even as much as a small minority actually engaged in such a futile effort as an MPAA boycott. I happen to like a number of artists and movie producers that would be hurt by such an action, and also realize the pointlessness of such a boycott (even if every single slashdot reader actually did boycott and got thirty friends to boycott as well, there would be NO NOTICABLE IMPACT on sales).

      Instead, why not engage in productive activities? Dontate to the EFF. Write congressmen about laws you hate. Make sure you explain to everyone you can what the MPAA and cronies are trying to put past everyone. They can be stopped but not by a boycott.

      BTW, nice troll.
  • Ummm.... (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Doctor_D ( 6980 )
    Ummmm...Kung Pow Chicken.... Now ya went and made me hungry...
  • by Papa Legba ( 192550 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @01:02PM (#2909818)


    "Not worth stealing. Two cds better used to rip John Tesh MP3s and archiving them for eternity"

    ---Internet piracy council

    • Re:A real review (Score:3, Redundant)

      by GreenHell ( 209242 )
      More reviews [rottentomatoes.com] (Not that many right now actually, more are added as more reviews are published)

      Right now, my favorite's the one that says "It could well end up being the worst movie of 2002. It's that bad."

      I'm still trying to figure out how anyone could have found the trailers interesting though...
      • One of my favorite activities is reading reviews of really bad movies. I don't actually see the movies themselves though, and I agree with you; how anyone could deduce from the trailers that this was anything other than an amazingly bad movie is beyond me.
  • by staticdragon ( 95211 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @01:04PM (#2909821) Homepage
    My Opinion of the movie: It was probably the worst movie I have ever sat through in a movie theater (never wasted money on Battlefield Earth) but despite how horrible it was I laughed my ass off the entire movie. Now, when a second group of friends invited me to go see it with them, I told them there weren't enough tea in China...
  • this is the man who created Thumb Wars...
    I LOVED thumb wars. I bought the damn thing on DVD.
    Why!? WHY did kung pow have to suck??!
    • not to mention High Strung, one of the funniest movies ever made. basically just one guy (oedekerk himself) ranting and raving about anything and evertyhing that bugs him, including watermelon popsicles, ("they actually put SEEDS in the popsicle, what marketing genious came up with this?? Watermelon popsicles, with all the annoyances of actual watermelon"), a character named Happy the Clam, and a breif cameo by jim carrey. if you can find this rent it (better yet buy it, but ive never found it for sale) you'll be glad you did.
  • So Kung Pow is bad, who'd have guessed?

    Was anyone actually considering seeing this movie? I didn't think it looked funny from the previews at all.
    • I thought the concept had a lot of potential, but from the trailers, it looked way over the top cheezy and stupid. I was kinda tempted to see it, hoping the people who made the trailer were just dumb, but after katz's revew... I dunno.
    • Uh, until I saw this review _I_ was going to see it.

      Thought it looked like another action movie with lots of fighting and that I would just ignore the three or so lame jokes in it (since the trailers normaly do contain any and all funny parts of a movie.)
  • Jeez Katz... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 27, 2002 @01:10PM (#2909842)
    You know, I'd take your movie reviews more seriously (especially the negative ones), if you didn't spend so much time watching so much crap and then coming here to tell us how it's all crap and we could do better.

    Need to see what I mean? [slashdot.org] Your review list lately reads like a direct-to-DVD-bargain-box roll call.

    Good movies that have come out in that time span:
    • Lord of the Rings
    • A Beautiful Mind
    • Ocean's Eleven
    • Gosford Park
    • Ali

    What's up, Katz? Afraid of actually cutting your teeth on something substantial?
    • Re:Jeez Katz... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cheinonen ( 318646 ) <cheinonen&hotmail,com> on Sunday January 27, 2002 @01:28PM (#2909886)
      If he really wants to do reviews of films that people might acually use, why doesn't he go see some movies that aren't massive blockbusters? In the past two months, he could have gone to see In The Bedroom, The Royal Tenenbaums, Brotherhood of the Wolf (though I didn't like it), Amelie (best movie of last year, bar none), or Monsters Ball, which are smaller movies that people might acually go see if they read a good review of them. Kung Pow and Orange County have been showing me trailers for two months and they've looked stupid the whole time. Come on, do we really need Katz to do a review of Lord of the Rings? Was anyone NOT going to see it?
      • Hey, I totally agree with you, I'm not reading /. to be force fed with MORE industrially-produced blockbusters.

        What's puzzling is that most mainstream medias do cover (favorably!) blockbusters because they are funded by the MPAA through advertising.

        It's odd, I didn't see any MPAA ads on /., so why suck 'dem balls and provide them with the free coverage they don't really need?

        Hmm, and yeah, go see Amelie [amelie-themovie.com].
    • Exactly. If you're going to be writing about computers and/or teen alienation, you missed a bunch of movies dealing with these subjects. Good movies you could be reviewing:
      • Avalon
      • Battle Royale
      • Bully
      • Startup.com
      • Waking Life
      C'mon Katz, you're the only internet critic that hasn't done a multi-page diatribe on Battle Royale.
  • Oh lighten up... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 27, 2002 @01:10PM (#2909844)
    I went to see Kung Pow expecting a low budget spoof of cheezy Kung Fu movies, and that's exactly what I got. This movie obviously wasn't aimed at up-tight no-nothings like Katz, it was meant for Kung Fu fan boys.

    Katz's review reminds me of all the bad press Godzilla 2000 got when it came out. People whined about it's crappy plot and terrible special effects... That's the whole point!

    Of course a bad review from Katz can do nothing but help the movie out in the box office. Anything that idiot hates must be good.
    • On Friday a coworker of mine brought in a DVD he got from Hong Kong called "Shaolin Soccer". We used it to "test" a defective laptop, and got no real work done for the next hour or so because we couldn't stop laughing.

      In a nutshell, the movie is about a group of Shaolin monks who become a soccer (or football, if you prefer) team. Now, I pretty much hate anything sports-related, but that didn't deter my enjoyment of the movie at all. It manages to successfully spoof just about every martial arts cliche in the book, with some direct pokes at Bruce Lee and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

      There's nothing deep in this flick- it's pure light-hearted fun. They make great use of special effects and the acting is perfect for a movie of this type. It's in Chinese (with English subtitles available), but most of the comedy is visual.

      It's going to be released in the US as "Kung-Fu Soccer".

      Oh, as far as Godzilla 2000 goes, I agree with the parent post- if you went in expecting to see a cheesy, campy giant monster movie on the big screen it was a lot of fun.

      -Cybrex
      • Re:Shaolin Soccer (Score:2, Interesting)

        by HKTiger ( 527586 )
        Oh, it truly warms the cockles of my heart to read this...Shaolin Soccer is the latest from the comic genius of Hong Kong, Stephen Chiau Sing Chi. I'd have to say that Shaolin Soccer is not his funniest film, but it's very well done. I'm only concerned that the imminent US release will trash it in some way: there's talk of cutting, new soundtracks, and, most ominously, dubbing.

        This brings up an interesting issue for me: as a fan of HK cinema, things like Kung Pow only do huge harm to a film industry that, while it does churn out a lot of dross (but can anyone tell me that Hollywood *doesn't*?), also creates some true works of genius (and I'm *not* talking about Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon here). HK films get a bad rap from things like Kung Pow, leading to the stereotype that all HK films have ultra-cheap effects, and are chockfull of stylised fight scenes. Remember that the chop socky films he's supposedly satirising were made in the *60s*, for gods' sakes. That's 40 years ago. Does anyone believe that HK films are *still* like that? And does anyone believe that the world's third largest film industry (Bollywood is second) makes *only* kung fu films, and cheap ones at that?

        Whereas in fact, the HK film industry is moving in a lot of directions simultaneously: HK is home to the aforementioned Chiau Sing Chi, master of comedy (director and writer as well as actor, I might add), and Johnnie To, director of slick romantic comedies, dark futuristic fantasy, and rivetting drama/thriller. If you like odd horror-comedy, there's plenty make in HK. Ghost stories, exploitation flicks, human drama, comedies by the bucketload, triad and crime, quirky surprising indie films, anything you want.

        Then, of course, there's Wong Kar Wai, arthouse director extraordinaire. Anyone daring to suggest that his films are simply cheap chop socky action would be on the receiving end of some not very nice words from Director Wong.

        Honestly, who needs another unfunny satire that's at least 40 years out of date? Watch the real thing, and maybe get a surprise...

    • There's a huge difference between pulling off a movie with a crappy plot and special effects and failing miserably at it. It was obvious from the previews that the writers were a bunch of non-funny people attempting to be funny, trying to capitalize on other non-funny spoofs that have come out in the past several years (starting with Scary Movie, although IMHO I'd say Austin Powers sorry guys I know a lot of people liked it but I had to force myself to smile at all during it). If you want a good kung-fu fan boy movie spood, go watch "They Call Me Bruce", or it's sequels. Or even "The Last Dragon", although I think that one was semi-serious, but the kung-fu villian dressed in football pads was great.
  • Enter the Fist had a great premise and the trailers were tantalizing

    Hmmmmm, I don't know. Not exactly Cannonball Run.
  • I personally loved the karate brawl with the dairy cow
    You would, Katz, you would...
  • ya but.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by AA0 ( 458703 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @01:19PM (#2909861) Homepage
    this guys too hard a critic. I mean, he'd probably give Booty Call 2 a bad review.
  • This is the best Sunday treat ever. This weeks's Jon Katz movie review is the shortest, most sane posting of all time.


    Thank you Katz, for sparing us the usual wordy outpouring of ranting pseudo-journalism.

  • Review? (Score:5, Informative)

    by UberOogie ( 464002 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @01:26PM (#2909883)
    I'm sorry, that wasn't a review. That was barely a TV Guide summary of the movie.

    Amongst all all the other faults Katz has (*coughCommie64splayingmoviesinKabulcough*), his movie reviews tend to be nothing if he can't bring out one of his dead horses (Columbine, geek prejudice, globalism) to beat. And even then, it has no actual bearing on the movie review.

    And why is this even being reviewed here? Jesus, if Katz can't make at least a tenuous connection with some of his tropes, how does this fit "News For Nerds, Stuff That Matters"?

    And, granted that this was likely a horribly bad movie from everything I've seen on it and heard from others, Katz is still supposedly getting paid for this "work," so he can at least put some effort into it. I mean, hell, Mr. Cranky [mrcranky.com] devoted more words to his review.

    • Re: Review? (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by DrEldarion ( 114072 )
      People get pissed if the Katz reviews are too long.

      People get pissed if the Katz reviews are too short.

      He can't win, can he?

      -- Dr. Eldarion --
    • Re:Review? (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by JabberWokky ( 19442 )
      *coughCommie64splayingmoviesinKabulcough*

      *cough* you're a moron [divx-digest.com] *cough* Commodore made other machines than C64 [osnews.com] *cough*

      --
      Evan

      • by UberOogie ( 464002 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @02:11PM (#2910019)
        Evan, honey, if you actually believe the "Message From Kabul" story, you're not one to be calling people a moron.

        I understand that Commodore made other machines besides the 64. I own two. Hell, I still play with the 128 from time to time, but the Amiga crapped out and I haven't had time to fix it. It was just funnier that way.

        And while I acknowledge that the scenario (movies onto Commodore machines) is technologically possible, there is no way that a week after the liberation of a city in one of the most war-damaged "cities" in the world, that there was some linox haxor downloading full Hollywood movies over non-existant 28.8 ISP connections.

        And that's just one part of the story that's credability-bending.

        Katz has had plenty of time and prompting to prove his outrageous fabrication, but has not done so. I know that I would publically apologise to him for everything bad I ever said about him if he could document it to my satisfaction. But he can't, because he made it up and is now trying to brush it under the rug.

        • And that's just one part of the story that's credability-bending.

          Oh, I never said that the story was true, just that you can watch movies on machines made by Commodore. In fact, you can even go back to that story and find my messages where I picked apart the logical flaws in it. And also the logical flaws in the arguments against it. ;)

          I'm personally of the opninion that Katz was trolled, and as a self-professed "real journalist", fell flat on his face when it came to fact checking. I wouldn't have been upset had it been, say, Rob, but for good reason. I know my sources - if Hemos of CmdrTaco say it's so, I take it as I would from a friend telling me a cool thing... it might be rumor, it might be real. It's still fun. If it's roblimo on NewsForge, I'm significantly more accepting of the news - not blindly accepting, but NF tends to do more fact checking, and puts that checking into the news article ("So I called Mr. So-and-so") than most major news agencies. I'd rather have an attributed rumor than a "news fact".

          --
          Evan

          • I'm personally of the opninion that Katz was trolled, and as a self-professed "real journalist", fell flat on his face when it came to fact checking

            But Katz doesn't consider himself a journalist; that's the only problem I have with him. He's a talented writer, he picks interesting subjects, and he really does have a stronger technical understanding than most other mainstream reporters. But I've seen him protest on slashdot that he's a pundit, not a journalist, so doesn't have to follow the rules of journalism (if anyone can find a post I'd appreciate it if they posted the URL; I know I've seen it, but couldn't find that exact instance). Now pundits are obviously complete wastes of space, unless they ARE journalists and bring some measure of journalistic ethics to what they do. A pundit who just gives his opinions on something, and doesn't care about investigating what he or she is writing, isn't really contributing much.
            • Re:Review? (Score:3, Interesting)

              by JabberWokky ( 19442 )
              A pundit who just gives his opinions on something, and doesn't care about investigating what he or she is writing, isn't really contributing much.

              That pretty much describes Slashdot.

              Okay, now that you've had your laugh, that's not actually a bad thing. A good pundit will toss out themes and concepts for the general population to chew on and discuss. I know that in most threads on Slashdot that I get involved in, one of three things happen (usually a small amount of all three): I am moved to change my position, I am exposed to a different position with at least some validity, or in stating my existing position and being questioned, I build up my own existing beliefs and strengthen them.

              Slashdot: A Million Pundits Arguing. Not all that bad a description, and not really that bad a thing. Of course, it's also nice to be in a forum where a Google search or peek into the online Brittanica or CIA World Fact Book can buttress your arguement. That eliminates all but the most pigheaded "But my uncle said Afgans are all rich" idiots.

              --
              Evan

              • Let's face it. Based on the movie trailer, it was obvious this was going to be a real cinemtic suppository (to quote Dr. Clayton Forrester). You always know the funnies gags are in the trailer for any low-budget parody, and none of these gags were funny.

                I think Katz did all he needed to do: state the movie wasn't worth watching, briefly explain why, and open the floor up for discussion of bad movies in general, how the MPAA causes cavities and impotence and how much almost everyone hates Katz.

                "stuff that Matters" is relative, and all of the typical /. audience should understand the concept of something mattering deeply to someone which no one else cares about... it's a common
                situation with "nerds". "Nerds" and obsession go hand-in-hand, so enough with the "Topic X doesn't matter." If the story is pointless, skip over it. If JonKatz and CmdrTaco and CowboyNeal, et al, notice a certain kind of topic not generating any discussion, they can keep it in mind for the next time.

                I also like the idea of 1,000,000 pundits. Almost everyone here is an expert in something, no matter how narrow. It's often just a BS session with thousands of participants. Anyone who takes it more seriously than that is looking at it wrong. But every BS session has the chance to teach someone something, or alter a point of view or even educate. Let's face it, assertions made on /. aren't really any less rigorously backed up than a lot of the news stories we are seeing (like that perpetual motion machine story that Yahoo! ran mentioned here last week). At least when someone on /. speaks about a technical subject, there's a decent chance he actually knows what he is talking about. When does that happen in the mainstream media.

                If you take /. the right way, for all its problems, stupidities, abuses and other garbage, it can be a valuable resource, or at least less of a waste of time than watching your harddrive defrag.
    • Actualy, I don't think katz is getting paid for posting stuff on here.
  • I had no urge whatsoever to see this movie. Well, I might have, but the cow scenes in the trailer purged any of those urges from me.

    The Matrix came out in 1999. Bullet-time spoofs stopped being funny shortly thereafter. In 2002, they're actually anti-funny; if you're laughing at another funny joke, and you see one, you suddenly stop laughing.
  • What I keep wondering is how some guy who's written crap like "Patch Adams" got a studio to give him the $$$ and the time to direct, produce and star in his own movie.

    Yeah dude, the cow milk Matrix thing, WAY funny. And the chick with one boob? HEEEELARIOUS.

    BTW, side note to Hollywood, putting the phrase, "From the director of Ace Ventura 2..." in the trailer isn't going to make people run out and see your crap ass movie.
  • I totally agree... the trailer sucked. The comedy seemed stupid, but it wasn't even that "good-stupid" comedy. And yes, the Matrix spoofs have to stop.
  • If /. users can contribute book reviews and get them posted, what's to stop us from asking for an equivalent sort of movie review system? I think it would work better than the current Katz monopoly...
  • A REAL REVIEW! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by batkiwi ( 137781 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @01:51PM (#2909936)
    I don't think katz actually saw the movie, I think he got a friend's grumpy grandfather to see it and tell him what it was.

    This movie can be compared to one thing, and one thing only:
    An entire movie made off of the bruce lee spoof in kentucky fried movie.

    If you like naked gun/etc, you'll like this. If you don't, then what the fuck are you seeing a movie called "Kung Pow" for?

    Two people walked out in the middle of the movie.
    The other 60 of us in the theatre were falling on the floor we were laughing so much!

    This movie is about one thing, and one thing only:
    PHOTOSHOPPING.

    You know all those pictures of person X put into background Y? This is an entire movie of it.

    They took an old, REALLY BAD, 1970's kung fu film, and with a TON a greenscreen and computer wizardry, as well as some really bad dubbing, made their own movie out of it.

    Only the main character is "real." All of the other people/scenes/etc were from the cheezy old kung fu film. In the credits they show you some of the wizardry (before and after shots) and it's REALLY amazing.

    There is tons of changed faces, added people, time change bizzarement.

    You know when you and your friends are drunk, 2am, watching a kung fu movie and you start adding your own lines, and acting out parts? That's this movie.

    If you're into the photoshopping scene, you've GOT to check out this movie. Maybe wait for dvd if you're not into silly-stupid-drunken-funny humour, but check it out.

    I am eagerly awaiting the DVD... I hope they show more of the before/after/in progress stuff. It's amazing to see a scene of the original, then watch it again to see a completely new scene made out of it, with new people/etc added in.

    HERE'S MY SCALE OF 1-10 ratings:
    SOPHISTICATED WIT: 0
    JUST REALLY FUCKING FUNNY: 10
    PLOT: N/A
    TECHINCAL WIZARDRY: 10
    ACTING: N/A
    WACKYNESS: 10

    MY overall score: 9

    Like I said, if you like:
    -kentucky fried movie (bruce lee segment)
    -naked gun
    -crazy mad editing
    you'll love this movie.

    If you're not into at least 2 of the 3 above, you'll hate it.
    • Please sir, more?

      YOU should be doing the movie reviews around here, I was stagging at seeing this film reading the latest comments, but your comment put me back in my place. This is the type of movie I'd go see with my guy friends, "leave the chick at home cause she ain't gonna like it". It's an escape, a time to hold your gut because it's hurts so hard from laughing.

      Kick katz out!
      Yay for batkiwi!
      (even his name is halarious!, bat! kiwi! batkiwi!!!)
    • People seem to have no clue why I can get such a kick out of completely stupid movies. As long as they're dumb enough, you can laugh your way through it(unlike Mystery Men, which lulled at times). I've rented Pootie Tang 3 times now, and I love forcing people to watch it!!!
    • Finally, some people who can appreciate stupid humor. Steve Odekerk is really lucky, he's getting paid to go out and have FUN and (hopefully) make money at what he loves doing: making stupid jokes. And for the rest of you people that actually APPRECIATE this movie, go check out his THUMB WARS and other Thumb Cinema [thumb.com] features.
    • I really don't know what Jon Katz was expecting as he walked into the theatre. Personally, I thought this was one of the funniest movies I've seen in a long time. Some of the gags are just painfully stupid and make you wonder how the ended up in the final cut, but almost all of it was just funny. By taking scenes from older Kung Fu movies and redubbing them with completely different words, the net effect is that of a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 on crack. For instance in one scene, two people walking along clearly not talking, are dubbed to be singing a song "We are ventriloquists". This sort of humor isn't for everyone, but nearly everyone who walked out of the movie when it was over seemed to have enjoyed it as much as I did.
  • up side (Score:2, Informative)

    by Rubbersoul ( 199583 )
    Well look at it this way everyone:

    We only have wait until next year [upcomingmovies.com] to start seeing Maxtix 2 ripoffs in every other movie. And then by this time in 2004 they wont be cool anymore either ...
  • Fist - Hit the Kung Pow.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I'm sorry, can anyone tell me what Katz said in his review? I got one of those
    This review is beneath your current threshhold...
    messages when I tried to read it.
  • Sure, this movie is not a contender for a Comedy Oscar, but I thought it delivered on what it advertised....
    I mean, if you watched the adds, you should have known it wasn't going to be a high dollar flick.

    I thought it was one of the best silly films made in a long time. The silly film genre is one of the most overlooked in the history of Hollywood. When have they ever had a "Best Silly Film" award? When has the silly film ever gotten listed as a valid subcategory of Comedy? Granted that most people do not appreciate the wonderful humor in a silly film, but not being one of those people is no reason to criticize.

    Shame on you Jon, you should have simply said "the movie is not for me" and gone on with your life.

    This is a movie for those of us that are fans of things like MontyPython, The Hitchhikers Guide (the videos), Some of Mel Brooks more offbeat stuff, etc.
    If you fit in that group, go see it, If you want to see a spoiler for my favorite gag, scroll down. When you see the spoiler, you'll understand why some people simply can't handle this movie.

    Brad

    .
    .
    .
    We've all poked fun at the old dubbed japanese movies, where the sound is out of sync with the mouth movements, and this movies pokes fun at that. My favorite gag is a part where the dog barks, but the bark is obviously dubbed and is out of sync.

    Not everyone would find that funny, and far too many people would let themselves be put off by its obvious and simple nature. Their loss.
  • Hey.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by wedg ( 145806 )
    Well, some of you warned me, and you were right.

    So... you're saying that before you went to do this impartial review of the movie, you went and listened to how everyone else said it was really bad? Don't you think that might have clouded*cough* your judgement? I mean, people see what they expect to see, and if you were expecting crap, perhaps that's all you saw.

    Personally, I haven't seen the movie. But what's the point of having the review at all if the first line of it simply says: I was very prejudiced against this movie before I even saw it, now here's my unbiased review. (Although, most of us recognise that Katz is rarely, if ever, approaching unbiased... but that's a small point).
  • It was funny (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jheinen ( 82399 )
    I was expecting to see an utterly stupid spoof of 70's kung-fu movies and that's exactly what I got. It was so stupid it was hilarious. That was the whole point. I laughed my ass off. Was it a great example of cinema? No. Was there any redeeming features of the film? No. Is any of that relevant? No. It was a stupid, funny, enjoyable movie that made no pretense at being meaningful, serious, or containing a "message." It's sheer stupidity was a delight, and it is nice to see something come out of Hollywood that doesn't try to be anything other than silly. Sometimes I don't want to go to a movie to be informed or enlightened. I don't want a wry commentary on this American life. I just want to turn my brain off and be entertained, and this movie delivers. Go see it with a bunch of friends. Your soda will be coming out your nose.
  • that most of the comments so far are from people who have NOT seen the movie. I did, last night. It won't win any Academy nominations, and it's not another
    Airplane...but it had a theatre full of people of all ages laughing their ass off...I mean, damn near ROTFL. Yes, bullet ducking time warp tricks have been overdone...and yes, I'm a Matrix loyalist, too....but I think Jon was a little too tough on this one. There is wizardry in the production techinques, and enough funny gags to make it worth the 8 bucks. For a different take on the movie (one which I agree with) go to Moviefone and read the Variety review. To read the whole thing, you'll have to do a free 30 day trial of their site.

    And Jon....all the funny gags were NOT in the trailers...eg when the peasant woman picks up the baby...and that's in the first 2 minutes.
  • Next there'll be complaints about realism and plot in Godzilla movies...
  • by _ganja_ ( 179968 ) on Sunday January 27, 2002 @03:07PM (#2910210) Homepage
    Apprently Donald Rumsfeld wants the name of the movie changed to "Kung illegal combatants".
  • We're all supposedly intelligent people here. It is OBVIOUS from the ads that the film is sheer crap (and in fact the studio should be held accountable for the 30 seconds of my life lost to that ad). Why is Katz reviewing such SHEER AND UTTER CRAP? I guess he thinks he looks intelligent by methodically picking apart a bad film. Instead of pointing out the painfully obvious in the hopes of looking insightful, try coming up with some REAL insight on a REAL film.

    I saw the Orange County review and wondered why it was posted - this one is a step further in solidifying my theory.

    My $0.02 (Canadian)

    Steve
  • I enjoy a stupid funny movie now and again, and I'm guessing Katz does too (he's gone to see this and Orange County in the last while). While I'm not much of a Katz fan, he gives enough information for me to know that this wasn't another "Dumb and Dumber" kind of movie - and that's all we needed to know.

    Better than an article on the evils of McDonalds.
  • ...1976 karate film Tiger and Crane Fists.
    I've never seen nor heard of this movie, but it should be blatantly obvious from the title that it's a Kung Fu movie, not Karate. Tiger and Crane are two of the most well known Kung Fu styles. Don't believe everything you saw in The Karate Kid, they're not even from the same country (Kung Fu: China, Karate: Japan). This may have nothing to do with Kung Pow, but it certainly doesn't add to your already low credibility.
    • Ah, Danielsan,Mr. Miagi told us why the Miagi Karate was animal inspired, old Miagi anscestor leave okinawa, get lost while fisihing. wind up in china. Come back with Chinese wife, chinese kids and chinese style karate. What you would call Kung-fu!!

      Mod me up, I have a winner

      Karate Kid Two!!!
  • It doesn't seem as though many movie critics are acknowledging this as a "true" film. Whereas the majority of recent theatrical releases have already been reviewed at least 40 to 70 times, the Movie Review Query Engine [mrqe.com] lists only 14 reviews for Kung Pow.

    Roger Ebert hasn't released a review for the movie, either. Oh, and all 14 of the reviews are negative. It appears that everything remotely amusing was included in the trailer.

    Katz is, for once, correct. Skip the movie; read James Berardinelli's review [colossus.net] instead. It's probably more humorous than the actual film.
    • Is because it was not screened for critics in the weeks before it opened. Studios usually do this when they know they have a bomb (quality wise) on their hands, and that all the negative reviews that come out before the movie opens will hurt its box office take. If a studio doesn't prescreen a movie, it is usually a sign to stay away, because the studio that fronted the money doesn't have confidence in the movie.
  • What a terrible shame to waste the bandwidth with a review, of any kind, about yet another bash 'em in the face and kick 'em in the groin movie. These things were a genre that was past their prime in about 1979. Grow up kiddies and see the light. Try reading a book, ANY book, as obviously the prospects of finding something of iterest, no matter WHAT it is, will be better than a time waster like this. (Alas and alack, now I've contributed to the waste of bandwidth myself!)
  • Kung Pow - Enter the Fist had a great premise and the trailers were tantalizing

    First question: What were you smoking?
    Second question: Do you have any left?
  • This movie is a piece of shit. This surprises you, how? It's just another turd that Hollywood has tried to shove down our throats instead of making a truly intellectual movie that's worth watching.

    Fuck them.
  • I haven't seen the previews, but I just assumed it was gay pr0n...
  • ...how does a reader/fan of Slashdot configure it so that Katz's stuff doesn't show up on the home page? I've heard that it's possible, but I don't see anything in the preferences on my page.

  • Sometime back in '96 (if memory serves), Steve Odekerk had a one-shot show on NBC, some kind of cyber-stand-up kind of a thing. (I'm a little sketchy on the details.) The name of the show was "steveodekerk.com." Being a mischevious young 2600-writing dork, I looked it up, and found that the domain wasn't registered. Naturally, I registered it. (This was in the heady days of no-cash-down-required domain name registrations.)

    A week passed. Nothing happened. Then something minor, but interesting, happened: they changed the name of the show. Now it was "steve.odekerk.com." They'd registered odekerk.com, lacking their own domain name.

    That was one of the greatest achievements of my 18-year-old life: getting NBC to change the name of a show. I'm not saying that was a worthwhile endeavor, nor that it was a good or useful thing to do in retrospect, but it sure thrilled me at the time. :)

    -Waldo Jaquith
  • Does Katz watch every single movie that comes out?! No wonder he doesn't have time to write good editorials. (-:

    Rules of Movie Previews:

    If it looks dumb, it's sickeningly stupid.
    If it sounds great, it'll put you to sleep.
    If it looks hilarious, it's definitely not.
    If it looks exciting, it has no plot.

    If you can't quite figure out the preview, it might be a good movie.
  • Sure, the movie was no LOTR. It was childish, pretty dumb, and had a number of cliches.

    However, the cliches were obviously intentional, there were a few jokes that really were quite funny and original, and there even was a (very rare) bit of brilliance there.

    They did one hell of a job melding two old martial arts movies together with a fair bit of greenscreen and CGI to make it a reasonably cohesive whole. The thing is, if you are going to go see this, don't expect a standard movie with typical cut scenes, soundtracks and characterisations. Take it as it is and you'll probably enjoy it.

    However, take it seriously and expect to come out of it with some sort of sense of purpose and you'll be disappointed. Go see it with Katz' typical pap of a review in mind and you'll be annoyed at the movie and at Katz.

    TheGeek

"An open mind has but one disadvantage: it collects dirt." -- a saying at RPI

Working...