Late Night with Conan O'Brien first went on the air September 13, 1993 - 20 years ago. His first guests were John Goodman, Drew Barrymore and musical guest Radiohead.
All this week Conan has been celebrating the anniversary by playing montages of the best moments of his 20 years on late night. There are too many to link to but you can find all the uploaded clips at TeamCoco.com/Conan20. They'll only be available for a few weeks though.
A few personal notables:
20 Years of Bloopers
The World's Oldest Stuntman (a video I put on youtube before it was removed by NBC)
The Clive Clemmons Totally Inappropriate Response Channel
Conan Goes to Bartending School
Conan and Andy Have a Staring Contest
Abe Lincoln Money Shots (don't watch it)
The Max On Max Channel (don't watch it either)
The "Not Cool Zeus" Channel
Conan Visits Houston
Conan Dines with Jordan Schlansky
Conan's "Making the Band" - Dudez A-Plenti (note: Conan's own website gets the name of the band wrong. Pfff.)
And on, and on, and on. Check it out.
Friday, November 1, 2013
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Serious Jibber-Jabber - Mel Brooks
Conan sits down for a long-form interview with Mel Brooks. They discuss Automats and little else...
Monday, October 28, 2013
Conan Reviews Video Games - PC Horror Games
Conan is back with another video game review. This time, in honor of Halloween, he's reviewing a few horror games for the PC.
This video is kind of Not Safe for Work.
This video is kind of Not Safe for Work.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Late Night - 1980s Cop Show
Long time, no post. Well, I didn't go anywhere, it's just that the Late Night Comedy field has been sparse lately.
But this is good.
Jimmy Fallon and Alec Baldwin remember their 1980s cop show:
But this is good.
Jimmy Fallon and Alec Baldwin remember their 1980s cop show:
Saturday, September 21, 2013
IMDB 250 - The Hobbit (2012)
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
I think I like this movie more than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Having not read any of the books, I can't say why for sure but I can speculate.
I guess that when you spread one book over three movies (instead of three books over three movies), the material is allowed to "breath". You can handle things more slowly and naturally. The beginning of the first Lord of the Rings movie feels jarring - they setup multiple characters, races, histories all at once and then things move seemingly very fast (and perhaps seemingly at random). The beginning of this movie only needs to setup a few characters and a few flashbacks to history to get going. It's much easier to get into. As a fantasy movie, it feels less of a "list of scenes that we need to cover" and edges closer to "Alice in Wonderland" or "The Wizard of Oz".
I also think that Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins is easier to like than Elijah Wood. The group of dwarves that he accompanies are also much more fun than "the fellowship". It follows, then, that the action sequences work more because you care about the characters involved.
It also helps that this movie can start at the beginning. The LOTR trilogy didn't have that. It, again, feels simpler and easier to follow. Perhaps if this movie had been released first, I would have enjoyed LOTR more.
I've spoken before in my review of "Harry Potter and the Something Something" about how dangerous magic is in movies. I'll repeat myself slightly here because it most definitely applies. The magic in this movie has no logic. Perhaps it's explained in the books, I don't know. But I do know that one scene begins with Gandalf creating a huge explosion of white light and knocking out hundreds of enemies in all directions and then a few minutes later, he's trying to fight off a single attacker with a sword. How does that work? If you can use magic in one instance, what happened in the next? In fact, when ever ANYTHING bad happens in the movie, I'm wondering why magic isn't used. Seems pretty straightforward. Similarly, if a character has just been pushed off a giant cliff and is hurtling toward the ground and a giant eagle appears from nowhere to pick him up, what does that mean for all future "whatever will they do" predicaments? It's extremely hard to worry about the outcome of any dramatic situation when you've already seen how magic can just swoop in out of nowhere and save the day.
Given that we know everything will always turn out fine thanks to magic, I can only guess that it'll be very hard to really be worried by anything in the series to come. But this is enjoyable, imaginative and colorful entertainment. I enjoyed it.
6/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 371.
I think I like this movie more than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Having not read any of the books, I can't say why for sure but I can speculate.
I guess that when you spread one book over three movies (instead of three books over three movies), the material is allowed to "breath". You can handle things more slowly and naturally. The beginning of the first Lord of the Rings movie feels jarring - they setup multiple characters, races, histories all at once and then things move seemingly very fast (and perhaps seemingly at random). The beginning of this movie only needs to setup a few characters and a few flashbacks to history to get going. It's much easier to get into. As a fantasy movie, it feels less of a "list of scenes that we need to cover" and edges closer to "Alice in Wonderland" or "The Wizard of Oz".
I also think that Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins is easier to like than Elijah Wood. The group of dwarves that he accompanies are also much more fun than "the fellowship". It follows, then, that the action sequences work more because you care about the characters involved.
It also helps that this movie can start at the beginning. The LOTR trilogy didn't have that. It, again, feels simpler and easier to follow. Perhaps if this movie had been released first, I would have enjoyed LOTR more.
I've spoken before in my review of "Harry Potter and the Something Something" about how dangerous magic is in movies. I'll repeat myself slightly here because it most definitely applies. The magic in this movie has no logic. Perhaps it's explained in the books, I don't know. But I do know that one scene begins with Gandalf creating a huge explosion of white light and knocking out hundreds of enemies in all directions and then a few minutes later, he's trying to fight off a single attacker with a sword. How does that work? If you can use magic in one instance, what happened in the next? In fact, when ever ANYTHING bad happens in the movie, I'm wondering why magic isn't used. Seems pretty straightforward. Similarly, if a character has just been pushed off a giant cliff and is hurtling toward the ground and a giant eagle appears from nowhere to pick him up, what does that mean for all future "whatever will they do" predicaments? It's extremely hard to worry about the outcome of any dramatic situation when you've already seen how magic can just swoop in out of nowhere and save the day.
Given that we know everything will always turn out fine thanks to magic, I can only guess that it'll be very hard to really be worried by anything in the series to come. But this is enjoyable, imaginative and colorful entertainment. I enjoyed it.
6/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 371.
Friday, September 20, 2013
Conan and Louis C.K. Reminisce
September 13th was the 20th Anniversary of the first Late Night with Conan O'Brien and one of the writers on his first show was Louis C.K.. In this clip they remember the old days...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
