1999 / 102 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Galaxy Quest has a lot of moments that are immensely fun, but it also has a lot of moments that aren’t.

It starts out wittily enough with a group of has-been actors of an old sci-fi show getting together for a convention. Here, it has a lot of fun with all things “Star Trek” and there is plenty here to have fun with. The whole idea of people being so obsessed with “Star Trek” is pretty pathetic, but also sort of endearing. You have to admit that it is neat that a show created so many years ago has given so many people so much joy…even if they are geeks. It has a ball with this whole idea, and it shows.

And then… well, everything starts to go awry. The aliens in this movie are fairly lame. They have these bad accents (although they are better than most of the accents in “Episode One”) and there is very little payoff to these scenes.

Then the entire cast of “Galaxy Quest” gets taken into Outer Space to fight an evil creature who looks like a sadistic vegetable. The premise of the film is pretty clever: aliens think that the cast of the old show are real space heroes and enlist their aid to fight a war. And several of the scenes are pretty funny and others are quite poignant.

Yet the film’s main problem is that there aren’t enough jokes. Now, check me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that the point of a comedy? To make you laugh? I found myself smiling at much of the film, but I wasn’t having as much fun as I should have. I just found the whole thing to be a rather generic exercise. All the actors are well cast. Tim Allen is perfect as a egomaniacal drunk. Alan Rickman seems to be having great fun with his role as a serious actor pigeonholed by his most famous role. And Sigourney Weaver is very effective (not to mention FOXY, YOW!!!!!!!!!!!) in her role as a woman resigned to playing the bimbo who has grown tired of it and is desperate to show her stuff.

But the best member of the ensemble is Tony Shaloub as the supporting actor. At once you realize how funny this guy is. When the rest of the “cast” are reacting to their new situation with wide-eyed amazement, he simply takes a look around, nods and gets down to business. Every one of his scenes is hilarious. Pity there aren’t more of them.

Another great thing are the people playing the fanatical fans. They bring great life to their roles and have a lot of very funny payoffs.

The film is very funny, when it chooses to be, but it just should have been a lot more so. In between these moments of great humor are moments that are, frankly, pretty boring and a few that are just plain lame. A near miss, but a miss nonetheless.

Share on Facebook

1999 / 162 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

Over the course of his career, Oliver Stone has tackled rather weighty subjects like Vietnam, presidential assassination and some just flat out fucked up people in the films “Platoon”, “JFK”, and “Natural Born Killers” respectively. He even helped pen “Conan: The Barbarian” for Christ’s sake! So, quite obviously, the next logical step is to make a movie about……professional football? I know I would have done the same thing if I were in his shoes.

Despite the sarcasm, “Any Given Sunday” proves to be an entertaining film if nothing else. It’s a movie that wants to have a purpose, but ends up feeling like a movie that wants to have a purpose, rather than really having one.

It is the story of a pro football team called the Miami Sharks and the people that make up the organization. Starting at the top, the owner of the team is played by Cameron Diaz in an interesting diversion from the roles of the rest of her career. She is undeniably a bitch in this film. There is no mistaking it. Daddy turned the reigns of the team over to her and she thinks she knows exactly what she has to do to win.

Opposing her is the team’s coach, Al Pacino, who has been in the game for some thirty years, winning a couple of championships along the way. Needless to say he knows a thing or two about what it takes to win.

Other key roles include Dennis Quaid as the aging superstar quarterback, Jamie Foxx as the superstar’s would be successor, and James Woods as the ethically-challenged team doctor.Shit hits the fan early in the film, as Quaid goes down with a herniated disc in his back. The backup quarterback goes in and is immediately injured. This leads to the insertion of Jamie Foxx into the lineup. Prior to his first play, he throws up in the huddle. This is an event that becomes a ritual for him, as he throws up at some point in every game. He makes some big plays, gets the crowd behind him, and gets the owner behind him. Problem is, he doesn’t get the team behind him. Quaid was a leader of men, whereas Foxx is in it for himself. He changes plays to his liking, which does nothing but piss off Pacino and his teammates.

It all leads up to the inevitable big game, which concludes virtually every sports movie ever made. You know it’s coming, but this time around you actually welcome it. Cameron realizes how much of a bitch she’s been, Jamie learns that winning isn’t everything, and Dennis learns when enough’s enough.

The main thing this film has going for it is the performances. Cameron Diaz is wonderful in this role. You not only want to hate her. You DO hate her. What a conniving bitch she is! Pacino essentially does what he always does, but this time around he throws a slightly different shade on the character to make it feel entirely different than what you have seen him do before. Amazingly enough, Jamie Foxx manages not to detract from the movie. He’s not terribly special, but not bad either. Even L.L. Cool J is competent! I actually didn’t want him to die in this film. Tell me that’s not fucked up. I remember watching “Deep Blue Sea” and wanting nothing more than to watch him die a slow painful death. Preferably in that oven. It didn’t happen and I was pissed for awhile, but I guess I got over it. I actually found myself enjoying his screen time. Definitely a change of pace for good ol’ L.L. One last performance that deserves mention, is that of Lawrence Taylor as an aging linebacker who is becoming damaged goods. He gives a very real performance. I suppose he culled some past experiences from his days in the NFL for his role. A wonderful performance that has more weight to it than the rest of the movie combined.

This film’s primary problem is it’s length. It’s about 45 minutes too long. I found myself being rather bored until the last half of the film when shit starts to go down for the major characters in the film. From that point on it held my attention to the closing credits. It’s just that it took it too long to get there. Another thing that I have a problem with is that there is a scene involving an injury on the field that exists for nothing more than shock value. I was sitting there wondering where the fuck it came from. Totally pointless. I still don’t know why it was there, other than to shock the viewer anyway.

All that aside, the film manages to entertain once it finds it’s legs. If you like football, check it out. It offers a lot of insight into what goes on behind closed doors for a professional sports team. If you don’t enjoy a hearty game of football then you will probably want to take a pass, as it won’t really have anything to hold your attention.

Share on Facebook

1999 / 84 Minutes / PG
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I am glad that I don’t have kids. I can imagine how hard it would be to find a movie that would entertain the kids and keep myself from going insane at the same time. Hollywood doesn’t seem to worry itself overly about it. Every so often, they throw parents a bone, but most of the time a parent has to make do with pap like “Pokemon: The First Movie” or even “Barney’s Great Adventure”. Ugh! It sends chills up one’s spine just to think about it.

So Thank God for stuff like “Stuart Little”. I have no kids. I don’t have to worry about things like that yet. (You have to have dates before you can have kids, but enough about that for the moment). But sometimes, you wish you had a little person to share a movie with because it is so magical. “Stuart Little” is a movie like that.

“Stuart Little” starts with a family that has so much love to give that they are going to adopt another child. Besides, they need a playmate for the child they already have: a little tyke named George (Jonathan Lipnicki, who was such a delight in “Jerry Maguire”). They go to the orphanage and are quickly won over by Stuart, a sweet and rambunctious little mouse. Stuart, like the Littles (played winningly by Geena Davis and Hugh Laurie) has loads of love to give and he wins the hearts of Mr. and Mrs. Little at once. George, however, is a little harder to win over. George had his heart set on a little brother and while Stuart is most definitely little, he is not the sort of brother George had in mind.

Another member of the Little household who does not warm immediately to Stuart is Snowbell (voiced by Nathan Lane) the family housecat. Soon, Snowbell is devising a plot to get rid of Stuart. After all, he’s embarrassed that a mouse ranks higher than him, and all the other cats are making fun of him.

This movie works because Stuart is, indeed, a sweet character. He’s wonderful. And the special effects which bring him to life are spectacular. You find yourself believing that this mouse exists. It’s pretty amazing. And voiced by Michael J. Fox, he is a delightful little character. So are the other characters that are aided by the animation of the film: the cats. I love the cats. They plot, they scheme, they try to eat Stuart and they are hilarious.

There is a lot of humor that appeals to adults as well as children. For example, how can you not laugh when Snowbell’s friend suggests that they enlist the aid of the local alley cats and Snowbell says: “Alley cats? They fight, they prowl, they’re hopped up on catnip!” This is many steps above the average, fart and crotch injury humor of most kids films (and even of “Episode One”. Yuck!)

It’s not a perfect movie. I did not believe that it would be hard for a walking, talking mouse to win the heart of a little boy, for example. What kid wouldn’t love to have a talking mouse for a brother? Anyone can have a regular little brother, after all. And the movie does seem to move a little too quickly at first. After while, it becomes comfortable with itself and hits its own stride. It has so many charms, it does not need to rush itself. “Stuart Little” wraps itself up within 85 minutes, but you might find yourself enjoying yourself so much that you want more.

So it’s your choice. This, or the “Pokemon” movie. You make the call.

Share on Facebook

1999 / 188 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

This is not quite a perfect movie, but it is so close that it hardly matters.

“The Green Mile” is based on a novel by Stephen King. As soon as I read the novel, I fell in love with it. It’s the sort of novel that reminds you why you bother to read Stephen King. I like all of King’s books (okay, except the “Tommyknockers”, sorry, Steve, but it was rather weak), but every so often Steve just knocks one out of the park. “The Shining”, “IT”, “Misery”, all of these are King at his top form. And “The Green Mile” belongs in that list. So when I heard that they were making a movie from this novel, naturally, I was excited. When I heard it was to be directed by Frank Darabont, the man behind my favorite King adaption for the movies (”The Shawshank Redemption”), my excitement grew. When I heard it was going to star Tom Hanks (perhaps my favorite actor of all time). Well, I knew I was going to be going opening weekend, that much was for sure.

With those sort of expectations, I could very easily have been disappointed. But it is a testament to this film that it is even better than I thought it would be.

The story concerns a death row guard named Paul Edgecomb (Tom Hanks). Paul is in charge of the death row (they call it “The Green Mile” because of the green linoleum) in a penal institution in Louisiana. One day, he meets a towering, black inmate named John Coffey who changes his life forever. John is a very simple man, a bit on the slow side, and he is also fairly odd. One day, he touches Paul and Paul’s violent urinary infection seems to disappear. Soon, Paul finds himself drawn to this man and wondering if maybe the man doesn’t belong on Death Row after all.

That is just the tip of the iceberg for this magnificently told story. Yes, it is long, but not a moment of its running time is wasted. I was captivated from the first frame to the last, even though I already knew how the story would play itself out (I had, after all, read the book….several times). It is a story told with beauty and wonder and heart. It has a magical quality to it. The scenes in the 1930’s are given a sheen that represents the nostalgia of days gone by and it just looks beautiful. Some of the events could have easily became hokey, but Darabont is a master visual storyteller and he has just the right touch with every scene. He also draws exceptional performances from his great cast. Hanks is, as usual, a wonder to behold. The man could be captivating in a tampon commercial. Michael Clarke Duncan is also brilliant. He gives his all to this character and makes him real when he could easily have been a stereotype. Everyone in the cast gives top drawer performances.

By the end, I found that a surprising thing had happened. I found myself staring at the screen, watching the events unfold and crying. Actually crying. And not just a little. I, who had never even blinked when Old Yeller got shot, was sobbing like a little girl. For something like that to happen, for a cynical old seen-it-all bastard like myself to be reduced to tears takes a lot of skill.

This marvelous film has that in spades.

Share on Facebook

1999 / 88 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

The most shocking thing about this movie is how I liked it. I was prepared to hate it. I borrowed it from a friend just because I wanted another movie that I could rip to shreds. As much as I hate to watch a crappy movie, I must admit to taking a certain degree of pleasure from reviewing one and illustrating how horrible it is.

This was my sole intention in watching Deuce. I’ve got nothing in particular against Rob Schneider. His “Copy Boy” routines on “Saturday Night Live” almost always made me giggle. I may be ashamed to admit to that, but it is a fact. But more often than not, well, he’s kinda annoying.

Here, however, he works. He is the last man on Earth that anyone would pay to have sex with. In fact, I don’t know who would have sex with him for free. Therefore, the plot makes me laugh just for that fact. Just look at the little weenie! Steve Buscemi has more sexual charisma than this guy.

And the women that he is made to do the naughty limmerick dance with, well, they are all hilariously flawed in some way. One woman is enormously obese. One woman has a pituitary problem and is grotesquely tall. Another has Tourette’s Syndrome and curses like Samuel L. Jackson in any public place. And Deuce finds a surprisingly clever way to make each of these women happy and feel better about themselves without giving them the hot beef injection. They are the sort of women that could only do as well as going to bed with Rob Schneider. I probably should be ashamed for laughing at them, but I did.

More surprising than any of this, the movie has a charm to it. You start rooting for the absurd little putz. You believe it when he falls in love, although you wonder how such a seemingly sweet young woman could fall for Deuce. She is a sweetheart. And I was surprised to find myself wanting these two kids to stay together and iron out their differences, even when there were a couple of off color jokes made at her expense. Unlike much of “Scary Movie” however, the off color jokes are hilarious. So are the spoofs of “The Matrix”. There is a lot of very funny stuff in this movie. There are some not-so-funny moments too, as expected, but less of them than I thought and more of the drop-dead funny ones. It also has a lot more wit than I imagined it would.

In the end, you will likely find yourself laughing pretty hard, caring about the characters, and actually wanting to find out how it all turns out. That’s more than you can say for a lot of comedies these days.

Oh, and keep an eye out for the cop who keeps badgering Deuce. That guy is just hilarious.

Share on Facebook

1999 / 113 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

“Being John Malkovich” is the reason I hate movies like “Billy Madison”. I hate comedies that rely on the same tired situations and boring sources of humor when there are ideas like “Being John Malkovich” just floating around in the ether, waiting to be discovered.

“Malkovich” tells the story of a pathetic young man named Craig Schwartz. Craig (John Cusack) is a puppeteer who cannot get a job. One day he applies for a job as a filing clerk on the 71/2 floor of the Mertin-Flemmer building. It is there he meets a brainy and enticing young woman (Catherine Keener, Best Supporting Actress nominee and the one who deserved to take the little golden guy home) who wants nothing to do with him. He also finds a portal behind a file cabinet that leads him into the head of John Malkovich (of all people).

Craig soon discovers that he can reside inside Malkovich’s head for fifteen minutes at a time, experiencing everything that Malkovich experiences. Soon, Craig is selling tickets to anyone who wants to experience the life of Malkovich.

I am barely scratching the surface of this delightfully absurd comic fantasy. Easily the most original film in a decade and easily one of the funniest, the film is like a great, bizarre dream that you never want to wake from. The film could easily have become a one-joke film, repeating the same gag of people going into Malkovich’s head and getting dumped out on the side of the New Jersey Turnpike fifteen minutes later, but somehow the film keeps finding delightful possiblilites and twists on its maniacal premise. It has a ball and explores all of the absurd turns that its story can take.

Not only that, but it accomplishes the astounding feat of making you actually care about its characters. You feel for them, because each of them is astoundingly well acted. Each of the performers sinks into their roles as if they are slipping into a looney glove. Cameron Diaz is remarkable as a frumpy housewife who likes her pets just a little too much. I said over and over last year that she should have gotten a Best Actress nomination for her work in “There’s Something About Mary” and she is no less good here. She is one of our best actresses, and the way that she shines in a comedy is further indication of this. She brings a soul to characters that otherwise would be a walking breast joke, and that is a strange and admirable sort of alchemy to pull off. Catherine Keener also deserves every bit of the kudos she has received. She is shallow and bitter and nasty, yet we see what draws Craig to her like a moth to a flame. The moment where she turns and indicates the window… well, it’s a great comic moment and it works because she has sunk so deeply into her role.

Then there are the men. Cusack is often relied upon to carry the movie, and he often does it very well, but here he is allowed to relax and wallow in the adsurdities of the rest of the film and he is excellent. When I think of this film, I do not even think of it as a John Cusack movie, and I LOVE Cusack. That right there illustrates how good this film is.

And then there is Malkovich. He takes his role to unparalleled heights of self parody, playing his role with a delicious appreciation of irony. In a year of LOTS of Best Supporting Actor worthy performances, his at least deserves a big mention.

The direction by first time feature director Spike Jonze is also worthy of acclaim. He directs the film in a straightforward fashion that underscores everything beautifully. The pacing, the editing, the use of color and light… all of them are perfect. And the script by Charlie Kaufman was ROBBED of an Oscar. I loved “American Beauty”, but this was more tightly scripted, and done so with the panache that only the sharpest of lunatics can achieve. It works in subtle points about our need to control the world around us (and our often complete inability to do so), our desire to be someone else, our need to be loved, and the way that sex can be used as the worst of weapons.

And it’s hilarious!

From the Seven and a half floor orientation film to the somewhat tragic ending and including everything in between, this is a brilliant film, elevating comedy to the level of genius.

Share on Facebook

1999 / 105 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

When I heard they were making a “Sleepy Hollow” movie, I was as excited as anyone. When I heard Tim Burton (”Batman”, “Pee Wee’s Big Adventure”) was helming the production, I was practically beside myself. Not a better choice could have been made. Burton was the perfect choice to give the film the look and feel that it deserves. Throw in Burton’s trusty sidekick Danny Elfman to do the score, and things appeared as if it would all go off with a hitch. Which I believe the film does in most respects. However, if you are looking for a faithful adaptation of Washington Irving’s original vision you will find yourself disappointed.

At the outset of the film Constable Ichabod Crane (Johnny Depp) is dispatched from New York City to a farming community called Sleepy Hollow. He is being sent to investigate three murders that have occurred over the past two weeks, which have left the victims headless. When he arrives he is enchanted by Katrina Van Tassel (Christina Ricci) and told, by the town elders, of a Headless Horseman that haunts the area. Crane is of the opinion that the Horseman is a myth and that the killer is a person of flesh and blood. He takes up an investigation that involves corpse excavation, rooting about in the woods, and taking a look at town records. In the meantime we are captivated by the merciless nature of the Horseman, as he claims more victims by each passing day. As the bodies continue to pile up, Crane is haunted by memories from his past that will have to be resolved if he is to unravel the mystery of the Horseman. It all boils down to a conclusion that can only be described as a “Scooby Doo” ending.

This film divides me in a way that few films do. I love it for it’s beautifully dark visual style that only Burton can make possible. Elfman’s score accents the film well enough, but it isn’t anything spectacular. Depp is wonderfully cast as Ichabod Crane. I can’t think of any other actor who could have brought this legendary character to life in the way that Depp does. His timidness is what brings humor to this film. The scene the morning after he has seen the Horseman is particularly amusing. Christina Ricci holds up her end of the deal, but doesn’t do much else. She doesn’t really bring anything to the film, but doesn’t take anything away from it either.

One thing I really love about this film is Burton’s vision of a mercilessly cold and sadistic Horseman. He has to be one of the better villains in recent years. He is an equal opportunity killer. Men, women, children. It doesn’t matter to the Horseman. I felt that, that was a breath of fresh air. I have grown weary of these supposedly cold blooded killers that still have enough scruples so as not to harm any women or children. In that respect Burton succeeds where so may others have failed.

My problems with this film are numerous. First of all, the lack of faith to the original story. Ichabod Crane is now a Constable instead of a schoolteacher. That one is a minor problem however. I can understand changing his occupation in order to liven up the story, so that one doesn’t rub me to raw. One thing that does irritate me is something that left me feeling more betrayed by a filmmaker than I ever had before, or since. There is a point in the film where Ichabod and Brom Van Brunt (Casper Van Dien) are being chased by the Horseman. In my mind I am screaming, “Go across the bridge!” In being faithful to Irving they would have been able to evade the Horseman by doing so, but in Burton’s world the Horseman can cross the bridge. Talk about a world class disappointment. Instead of the bridge being the Horseman’s undoing we are left with, of all things, the Church. I don’t know about you, but to me this religious symbolism in movies is getting really old. Especially in cases such as this, where religion isn’t even relevant. It seems as if the Church was picked simply so the Horseman could have a rather glamorous kill scene. Which, by the way, is quite cool, but not cool enough to necessitate the Church’s relevance to this film. For once I would like to see evil done away with, without God’s help. Why does He always have to meddle in these things?

What else is troubling me? I guess all that is left to be bothered by is the end of the film.
There will be some SPOILERS, so if you don’t want to know anything about the end of the film you should probably bypass this next paragraph.

The ending of the film is centered around the Horseman pursuing Katrina due to the fact that he has been commanded to kill her. Makes sense right? It did to me too, but then he goes after Ichabod as well. He does this even though, throughout the rest of the movie, he has only gone after those people he was sent to kill. On top of this we have an exploding windmill. Yeah. You heard right. An exploding windmill. Wasn’t that nice. One bonus about the end is that the chase scene is very well done. It gives a feeling of immediacy that thrusts the viewer headlong into the fray. After the chase things get mildly lame, as the Horseman reclaims his head flesh grows back over it even though he is supposedly dead the whole time. How exciting? I actually find myself laughing as I watch the flesh growing over his skull.

Despite all of my problems with this film it is still fairly entertaining. If you are a fan of Burton’s work and don’t care about how it is translated from the original story, then you will undoubtedly find this film to be wickedly entertaining. But if you are in search of a faithful adaptation of Irving’s work you will find yourself greatly disappointed by what Burton has labeled “Sleepy Hollow.”

Share on Facebook

1999 / 105 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

This movie is nothing short of an eye-popping visual marvel. It is the ultimate Halloween movie, one of the best of a long line of ghost stories committed to film this year (and one of the few that actually has a satisfactory ending) and one of the most accomplished of all Tim Burton’s films.

I have always loved Tim Burton. His style of filmmaking, well, it just appeals to me in a very personal way. Halloween is my favorite holiday. I have always been drawn to stories of the macabre. And I think that his take on “Batman” is the only one to do the Dark Knight any sort of justice. I love the actors he chooses for his productions. I love his choice of Danny Elfman as constant composer (although Howard Shore’s “Ed Wood” score is quite magnificent as well). In short, I think that if you were to put me in a room with any director, Tim and I would probably get along better than me and most other directors.

So, of course, I was definitely looking forward to “Sleepy Hollow” and I was not disappointed. It was not flawless and I did not expect that it would be. I may be a Tim Burton fan, but I am also a realist. I did not much care for the “Scooby Doo” ending. There was no part of Danny’s music that stuck in my head to hummed for several days afterward such as there was in “Pee Wee’s Big Adventure” or “Batman” or even “Mars Attacks!”.

But that was about all I had in the way of complaints.

I didn’t really care that they were not true to the original novel. If I wanted the novel, I would have read the novel. It is just that easy. I rather enjoyed the fact that Ichabod was a skittish detective who no one respected rather than a pussy of a schoolmaster. I did not care that the movie was not a contest between Brom and Ichabod for the affections of Katrina. I tried to read the book and found all of that stuff rather tired, actually. I found the new additions made by Burton and his crew to be rather fresh and lively and I did not miss the old Sleepy Hollow for a second.

The character of the Horseman was a wonderful rendering. He was truly a vivid portrait of evil, both with and without his head. Most other villains look toothless by comparison. Of all the villains from movies in the past year, The Headless Horseman is the one I would least like to have pursuing me.

I loved the movie’s grim, fairy tale look. It was an absolutely beautiful film. Every frame was like a work of art, a gothic painting come to life. I was enthralled by it.

I loved the work of all the actors, but Johnny Depp in particular. He is one of those actors I love in just about anything. His work here is rich and wonderful. He takes a character that could easily have been nothing more than a cartoon character and gives him all sorts of wonderful, quirky qualities that endear him to us. We have seen a lot of characters go up against chilling supernatural villains, but we have never seen one quite like Ichabod.

I also loved the little touches of humor. They were subtle, charming and very, very clever.

The action scenes are also worthy of note. Much of the film is very exciting. And some of it is genuinely scary.

And, regarding Mr. Elfman’s score: so what if there were no memorable themes? The music was wonderful and did an exemplary job of establishing mood and suspense. It did the job. In these days of the Hans Zimmer scores that all sound the same, Elfman’s bold orchestral manuevers are worthy of high praise.

I enjoyed “Sleepy Hollow” from beginning to end. It had a few moments that weren’t as good as others, but on the whole I was completely dazzled. The old Universal Horror films were not perfect either. We only are led to believe they were because they are old.

Personally, I would take “Sleepy Hollow” over the original “Frankenstein” any day. Bravo again, Mr. Burton.

Share on Facebook

1999 / 128 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

“Dogma” is one of those rare comedies that actually has something to say. Many people bashed it for being blasphemous. Once again, those were criticisms levelled at a movie by people who will probably never even bother to see it for themselves. You have to see a movie before you can affectively criticize it. That is the catch. If you want blasphemy, rent “Life of Brian”. If you want a thoughtful, loving exploration of what it means to have faith, rent “Dogma”.

“Dogma” starts very well. Ben Affleck and Matt Damon are two angels who have been kicked out of Heaven. Now, after many years of exile to Wisconsin, they have found the way out of their predicament. Unfortunately, it involves going to New Jersey. Oh, and destroying the world. There’s that. So the voice of God (a delightful Alan Rickman) instructs a woman working in an abortion clinic to stop them. She gets two prophets to aid her in her quest (Kevin Smith and Jason Mewes) and also a little help from the thirteenth apostle (a very black, very angry Chris Rock).

The story is very good for a while. Affleck and Damon are wonderful together. They make a great team, and they are great verbal sparring partners. Toward the end, when things start to get serious, the only reason that the movie does not begin to totally suck is because the two of them have invested so much in their characters. They are a remarkable team, and there should be a law that they cannot make a movie apart from each other. Together, they are good. Apart, well, things can go either way. Especially for Affleck.

Another bit of glue holding the movie together is a strong, unifying performance by Linda Fiorentino. She is quite good here, dealing with absurd situations the way any of us would: in total disbelief and confusion. But she does it well. Alan Rickman and Jason Lee (as a demon who loves air conditioning) are also wonderful to behold. They bring a spritely amount of joy to the proceedings and also help illustrate some great points about belief and faith and the whole ball of wax.

Unfortunately, Jay and Silent Bob are also in this movie. They are hilarious to begin with, but after time their prescence begins to grate. The fart jokes get a little old and by the end you wish they would stop altogether. The movie also gets a bit sermony at times, and the ending leaves a little something to be desired. But I can’t get too far down on the film. I loved it for quite a while when I was watching it, and on the whole it respected my intelligence and made some very interesting points. It also has a wonderful, ludicrous premise (by now you may have guessed that I am a sucker for an oddball comic premise).

And if it falls apart toward the end, well, as this movie says so eloquently, nobody is perfect.

Share on Facebook

1999 / 124 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

Every so often there comes a film that you have no interest in seeing. People tell you that it’s good but, for some reason or another, you don’t quite believe it. I mean, people were always telling me how hilarious “Billy Madison” was. I shudder to even think about it. But unlike “Billy Madison”, sometimes those films really are as good as everyone tells you they are.

Sometimes you see them and you kick yourself for not seeing them sooner.

“Notting Hill” is one of those films.

Now, I usually have a problem with romantic comedies. My problem is that they usually aren’t that romantic nor are they all that funny. They just lay there: limp and withering on the screen for two hours. I think the only reason people take their dates to them is that they know they can safely make out in the dark for two hours and not risk missing anything important.

“Notting Hill” succeeds, however, by being both drop-dead hilarious and genuinely tugging at the heart strings. It is the story of the unspectacular owner of an English travel book store (Hugh Grant). He has a mundane life, no love life, and a roomate who takes eccentricity to new, unparalleled heights. Then, one day, a beautiful American actress (Julia Roberts, not really a stretch for her) wanders into his store. Understandably, Hugh falls for her immediately. And, much to his happy surprise, she falls for him.

Complications then ensue.

You don’t really need to know the specifics of the plot. This film has a wonderful charm to it. You find yourself falling in love with this film almost at once. Hugh is delightful and engaging in this film. He reminds me of a younger, British Cary Grant. Was Cary Grant British? I was never able to figure that out. Oh well. That’s neither here nor there. Anyway, Hugh Grant gets you to immediately identify and root for him. And so does Miss Roberts. Why didn’t she get nominated for this? She is exquisite. You can easily see why Hugh would fall in love with this woman. I have never really cared for Julia Roberts before. But in this film, she completely enchanted me. She wowed me. I can see how she is such a star.

And the guy who plays Hugh’s roommate. God, this guy is hysterical. You start laughing every time he shows up. All he has to do is walk into a room and your funny bone is tickled. But then he….well, he does some very bizarre things. You will laugh. I guarantee it.

“Notting Hill” was written by the same man who wrote “Four Weddings and a Funeral”, which was another enchanting romantic comedy that provided a great deal of entertainment. But I liked this one even more. It is sweet, tender, charming and thoroughly hilarious. It’s the sort of date movie that might just keep you from making out during the film.

Well, maybe.

Share on Facebook