2004 / 102 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

When I saw the words “From the producers of “Road Trip” and “Old School” attached to this film, well, let’s just say that I wasn’t filled with confidence. However, the sneak preview of “Starsky and Hutch” was sold out, and this was the only thing that really appealed to me at the time. So I figured “What the hell”? It couldn’t be any worse than “Road Trip”. Besides, “Old School” was a fun time and this one might provide more of the same. I was shocked, therefore, to find myself truly loving this little film. I wasn’t always laughing until my sides hurt, but I did have a big smile on my face for the length of the film and there were several moments that did wring huge, gut-busting laughs from me.

The plot of this film could fill a thimble and it’s basically “Road Trip” taken to an international length: a boy gets dumped by his girlfriend and spills his woes to his online buddy Mieke. Mieke responds by professing romantic feelings toward him, which creeps him out because he thinks that Mieke is Mike, a boy from Germany. It’s only after sending her an email that basically tells her to wank off that he discovers Mieke is actually a really hot German girl. It is at this point that he jets off to Europe, joining a pair of twin friends that are already there and going on a zany, madcap romp to find the woman of his dreams.

Unlike “50 First Dates”, which was cute and romantic, this one pays only lip service to the notions of romance and seems to have sex on its mind instead, which, I think lends itself better to the concept of comedy. Yes, the main character is in love, but the other characters seem to want to go to Europe due mainly to the promise of kinky, European sex. It’s less a romantic comedy than it is an “American Pie” sort of horny teenager movie. The thing, this film is wittier than any film with the words “American Pie” in the title has ever been. The characters are endearing and rather naturalistic, and more interesting than most of those found in the average teenage sex romp. The main character is a good-looking guy, yes, but he actually has some charm and sincerity that is lacking in most of the bland, teenage leading men. And his buddy (Jacob Pitts) has a Stiffler sort of role, but makes his character less bombastic and over the top and more laidback and, I daresay, realistic. I also liked Michelle Trachtenberg as the girl who is basically one of the guys (much to her chagrin) and Travis Wester as her goofy, nerdy brother. Each of them has certain skills and strengths that help them on their journey, which both includes and skewers nearly every European stereotype I’ve ever known. And there are some great cameos by people you may have actually heard of, as well. Vinnie Jones is great as an intense soccer hooligan, Rade Sherdebaga (I think that’s how you spell his name, anyway, he’s the Russian dude from “Snatch”) steals a scene as a Czech local, and Lucy Lawless (Xena: Warrior Princess) has a hilarious cameo as a woman named Madame Vandersexxx. And you’ll never believe who they got to lead a punk band in this movie, so I won’t ruin the surprise by telling you.

There are a lot of sex-related jokes in this movie and they all work fairly well without getting too down and dirty. Yes, you see a beach full of men completely nude (and the movie even has the, ahem, balls to show them in all their full frontal lack of glory) but the thing that’s most hilarious is the fact that they are all there looking for nude women and there are none to be found (they’ve all flocked to a less crowded beach instead and, don’t worry, guys, there is a nice shot of that beach as well, in all ITS full frontal majesty). Yes, you get to see a couple going at it in a confessional at the Vatican, but it’s not gratuitous T&A and it pays off in a rather hilarious sight gag. There are enough breasts in this film to satisfy the sort of person that’s coming to a movie by the producers of “Road Trip”, but there’s a level of intelligence and sincerity here that makes the whole thing rather tasteful and very, very clever. This is one of the funniest movies I’ve seen in a long, long time, and easily one of the funniest. There’s a gag involving the apparent death of the pope that is sorta predictable and yet still had me busting a gut. Even the predictable jokes in this movie work, and that’s saying something.

Go for the breasts, go for the sly comedy, go for the fun jabs at European culture, or go for the sincere and refreshingly low key comic performances. But whatever you go for, you should definitely go. You’ll have a lot of laughs, you’ll enjoy yourself immensely, and you won’t even have to check your brain at the door.

Share on Facebook

2004 / 106 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Jason Jones

When I first heard the premise of this film it sounded as if someone had put “Groundhog Day” and “Memento” in a blender and the result was something involving Drew Barrymore, Adam Sandler, and sea mammals.

To my surprise it was that and a whole lot more. It may not be as well crafted and clever as “Memento”, or as funny as “Groundhog Day” but it does contain an ingredient that those two films were lacking in: heart.

“50 First Dates” proves to be a surprisingly emotional film and yet it never feels manipulative. This is due in large part to the considerable talents of its stars. Sandler, after some shaky early scenes, shows that his performance in “Punch-Drunk Love” was no fluke in his candid portrayal of Henry Roth, a caretaker of a Hawaiian Sea World of sorts. Apparently he is some sort of Hawaiian Don Juan who woos women while they are on vacation only to sever ties with them when their vacation comes to an end.

Henry is quite at ease with the “no strings” relationship lifestyle he has made for himself when one day he finds himself in a restaurant sitting across from Lucy (Barrymore). He manages to start a conversation with her and they actually hit it off. They even make plans to have breakfast again the next day. So when tomorrow comes and Henry arrives for breakfast he is shocked to find that Lucy acts as if she has never met him before in her life. Come to find out, Lucy might as well be Guy Pearce’s sister as she suffers from short-term memory loss. To further complicate things her family and friends recreate the events of the day of the accident that caused her condition every single day. So, in essence, she keeps living the same day over and over again.

Henry falls in love with her and every day he makes it his mission to make her fall in love with him all over again. Some days he succeeds and other days he crashes and burns, but he never stops trying. On the worst days, Lucy finds out that her life is not what she thinks it is. On these days she goes to the doctor and is told that she will never get her short-term memory back. The only consolation is that she won’t remember any of this when she wakes up the next day.

The role of Lucy would be a difficult role for any actress to take on, but Drew handles it with grace and a great deal of conviction. Like Sandler, she gets the opportunity to showcase the full range of her acting abilities in this film. She’s not just a pretty face, as evidenced by her previous work in “Riding in Cars With Boys”, and this performance should help to solidify her status as a talented actress if people give this film a chance.

At this point, you’re probably thinking “Jones! I thought this was supposed to be a comedy?” Have no fear my friends, it is a film that has its fair share of funny moments. Most of these moments are the product of the scene-stealing performance turned in by Rob Schneider as Henry’s friend and coworker Ula. If you were to look up comic relief in the dictionary you should find a picture of him in this role to provide the definition. He is a hopelessly inept man who at the very least is sincere in all of his words and actions no matter how inappropriate they may be. There was one scene in particular that illustrated this. Henry tries to get Lucy’s attention when she is driving by, by having Ula appear to be mugging him. Ula gets a little more of her attention than he was expecting when she starts beating the crap out of him with a baseball bat. I have rarely laughed as hard during a movie as I did at this scene. Depends are optional, but recommended.

“50 First Dates” proves to be reminiscent of “Shallow Hal” in that it is a comedy with a lot more going on than one would suspect. There are a few weak points involving animal humor and whatnot, but not enough to outweigh its surprisingly considerable strengths. It is anchored by strong performances and a fairly clever script that never takes the easy way out, as it always remains true to its premise. That, my friends, is a rare commodity these days, especially in a comedy.

I went in to “50 First Dates” expecting little more than a routine romantic comedy involving Adam Sandler, Drew Barrymore, and sea mammals. I came out having experienced a movie that was far better than it had any right to be.

Quite honestly, I can’t think of anything else I could ask of a movie.

Share on Facebook

2004 / 106 Minutes / PG-13
Reviewed by Dale Nauertz

I’m not really sure when it happened and no one is more surprised than I am, but somewhere along the line I went from despising Adam Sandler to actually considering myself an Adam Sandler fan. Perhaps it was “The Wedding Singer” that started this strange development. Yeah, I think that was it. Then I liked “Little Nicky” (I watched it again a couple months back and, uh, I don’t know why I once liked it so much, it is rather stupid, even for a Sandler flick). Then came “Big Daddy” which is perhaps my favorite of his comedies. It was cute, it was hilarious and it was wacky and fun. The same can be said of “Happy Gilmore” and, from revisiting it, “Billy Madison”. “Mr. Deeds” was also a lot of fun and had its own goofy sense of atmosphere. And “Punch-Drunk Love” was an absorbing comedy/drama that put a whole new spin on the standard Sandler character and put it in more of a real world situation. Even Sandler detractors were suddenly looking at him with, well, not really respect but at least a sense of appreciation for what he is capable of doing. Then came “Anger Management” which I thought was fairly funny at the time. In retrospect, however, it’s not all that great. The problem is, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, it’s like Sandler has compromised his usual brand of slightly surreal, off-kilter, proudly moronic humor to a more mainstream sensibility and has, therefore, taken what makes him so special and compromised it. “The Wedding Singer” was more straightforward than his usual films, yes, but it still held a certain undeniable twinkle that was pure Sandler. The moment where he sings “Love Stinks” at a wedding reception, for example, is a classic Sandler moment. “Anger Management” cast him as a straight man, which is a mistake. With “50 First Dates”, Sandler seems to be working at a middle ground between the mainstreaming that took place in “Anger Management” and the hijinks of his earlier films. And, as a comedy, it isn’t real successful.

But, for a moment, let me sidetrack to the actual plot of this film. In “50 First Dates”, Sandler plays a guy who is classically afraid of commitment (as all men are in romantic comedies, so it would seem). He is so afraid of commitment, in fact, that he only gets involved with tourists because they’ll be out of town in a week or so. He is content to keep loving women until they leave and hang out with the animals at the Sea World-like facility in which he works until, shock of shocks, he one day meets Drew Barrymore. Drew is a beautiful, enchanting woman who is just as goofy as Sandler in her own way and both of them fall almost instantly in love. The only problem is that Drew cannot form any short term memories because of an automobile accident. Therefore, she only remembers Adam for one day. The next day, he has to woo her all over again. In fact, he must win her over every single day all over again, only to have her forget him as soon as she goes to sleep. As you can imagine, this is a slight problem.

So, if the comedy only works sporadically in this movie, you may be wondering why the hell I’m giving it such a high grade. The answer is simple: the movie doesn’t cop out. The jokes may be sort of obvious and kinda lame, but the premise is an interesting one and the movie is smart enough to play it out for all its emotional and dramatic potential (as well as a few comedic ones that actually succeed). The movie treats Drew’s ailment seriously (as it should) and examines the pathos underlying the plight. Drew and Adam make for an engaging couple (probably because they fit in their own goofball way) and we care about their love affair and how it will all turn out. Also, thankfully, I never really knew what was going to happen next in this film. This is damn near revolutionary in a romantic comedy, I gotta tell you. I also respected the way this movie did not wrap everything up in a tidy package at the end. She doesn’t miraculously get cured. She doesn’t get bonked on the head and go back to normal. The writing is a lot more interesting than that and the ending is more of a manner of compromise and magical connection than simple screenwriter convenience. I respected that a lot. This movie has some magical moments and some very romantic ones as well. It also has compelling characters and an undeniable sweetness.

Unfortunately, its jokes are all fairly obvious and the quirky supporting characters are just a little too quirky to be believable. They just don’t work all that well, I’m sorry to say, even if the sight of Sean Astin in a muscle tee shirt with a Sylvester the Cat lisp is fairly amusing the first couple of times. And the European quasi-lesbian animal trainer character doesn’t work all that well at all.

But it’s a sweet little film that is good-natured and genuinely emotional. And, quite frankly, that’s a bit harder to achieve than a movie like “Billy Madison”. But, as a bachelor prone to drinking every weekend, “Billy Madison” and “Happy Gilmore” are probably going to find their way into my DVD Player more often.

Share on Facebook

2003 / 111 Minutes / R
Reviewed by Jason Jones

It is a rare thing for me to say that a film left me feeling assaulted. Perhaps, I should have qualified that statement by saying “good” film. I say this, because I have felt assaulted by horrifically bad movies like “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” and “Goldmember” to name a couple past offenders. Although those would be defined more as muggings than assaults I suppose, as my wallet did feel a bit lighter after sitting through those pieces of crap.

The point of my initial statement is that I have rarely seen films that quite literally leave you changed after having seen them. The last of these films would have been “Requiem For a Dream” and to a lesser extent “Mystic River”. These films leave you planted in your seat as the credits roll and, as you emerge from the theater, you realize that you will never look at the world in the same way again.

“Monster”, make no mistake about it, is one of these films. It cuts no corners. It pulls no punches. It does not sugarcoat its subject matter. It is, at its essence, a raw nerve, unflinching in its vulnerable state of display for us to judge as we see fit. This is what makes this film unnerving. It is also what makes this film an ordeal to make it through.

Based on a true story, “Monster” is about the downward spiral of Aileen Wuornos, one of the first known female serial killers. After a miserable childhood of abuse and neglect she set out on her own and fell into a life of prostitution on the highways of Florida. The film focuses on a nine month period in her life when she took part in a lesbian relationship with a woman named Selby. During this time, after a night when one of her “clients” attempted to kill her, she began killing anyone she came across who she perceived as having intent to rape her. In essence she turned the tables on the idea of serial killers preying on prostitutes by instead having the prostitute prey on the would-be rapists/killers.

The fact that the film is based on real-life events, does give it a little extra heft. The burden of making these events come to life is placed squarely on the shoulders of the cast. In particular, Charlize Theron delivers the performance of her life as the tortured soul Aileen Wuornos. Due to some fantastic makeup effects she comes across as unrecognizable as the woman who was most recently seen in the remake of “The Italian Job”. Charlize takes herself to places it is quite likely she did not know she had inside of her to bring out the emotion that presents in this role. She carries a lifetime of pain and lost innocence in every glance of her dark eyes. There is a lot to say about her performance, but to say anymore would be to rob anyone who hasn’t yet seen the film the chance of being exposed to it for the first time, so I will say no more.

There have been many movies about serial killers in the past. Most don’t really have much to say, as they usually focus on the more morbid facets of the serial killer way of life. Rarely, if ever do they focus on the person who became the serial killer. What made them that way? Where do they come from? What finally pushed them over the edge? This is just one area where “Monster” sets itself apart. It doesn’t apologize for its protagonist’s actions, nor does it condemn them. It merely tells her story and shows us how exactly it is that a young girl from Michigan could one day grow into a cold-blooded monster on the highways of Florida. This was refreshing to see and, I must say, much more interesting than watching the acts themselves.

There are many themes at play in the film. Bruce Dern plays a Vietnam vet, who has befriended Aileen. He speaks of the parallels between her life and his. How neither were given much of a chance and as a result they were forced to do whatever it took to live. Christina Ricci, in an underappreciated performance, as Aileen’s lover Selby plays out the surprising love story portion of the film. This element really surprised me as, in the end, I felt it was the prevailing theme of the film. Aileen’s love for Selby is to a certain extent what drives her to do the horrific things she does. She wants to give Selby everything that she wants in life, no matter the cost.

For those who like a certain amount of style in their movies (myself included) you won’t find it here. The story is told in a straightforward manner that enhances the subject matter. To have been stylish like “Requiem For a Dream” for example would have been detrimental to the film in a number of ways. Instead director Patty Jenkins was wise enough to allow her talented cast to carry the film. The saying goes that sometimes less is more. In the case of “Monster” the saying holds true.

As I said earlier “Monster” is not an easy film to sit through. There is one scene in fact that may be too much for some viewers to take. If you see the film (which I hope you will) you will know of which scene I speak. Some might say that it is too much, but I feel it is the most necessary element of the entire film. It is a scene that shows us what could make a person do the things Aileen did. It shows us that, given Aileen’s circumstances, any of us could be prone to taking to the life she chose from that moment on To hear it spoken would not have been enough. It had to be shown, so that those of us living our “normal” lives could understand just how ugly the world can be to those who have had the poorest of poor hands dealt to them.

On some level it is frightening to know such a world exists, but when I think about it, it seems to me that it would be even more frightening not knowing of the existence of that world at all.

Share on Facebook