I've seen the other comments for and against this film. At times I've wondered if we've all seen the same movie.
For those who find Dogma too verbose: go find a movie that panders to your low sensibilities. Smith is a good writer who uses all of the tools available to him to bring forth a work that stands up well over time. In 20 years, Dogma will be as good and interesting as when it came out. If you want a movie that is more action than plot, go see a Schwartzenegger film.
For those who are offended by the religious, or perception of anti-religious material: GET OVER IT. Smith was trying to do a balanced work here that was nondenominational. He succeeded in putting forth a movie that addressed many dogmatic christian issues that transend catholicism and took on the absurdities of christianity as a whole.
If you don't like a movie, then don't see it. One knows generally what one is getting into because of trailers, interviews, and articles that come out well before a movie is released. If you don't feel a specific movie is going to be your thing: DON'T GO. But don't try and censor what you don't like, and don't tell others they shouldn't see it if they want to. I loathe Touched By An Angel, Highway To Heaven, and a slew of other propagandistic christian shows, but that does not mean I feel they shouldn't exist.
The director's cut, with its additional 24 minutes of film may change minds. The story is clearer and there is more plot development. The other banal criticisms of Dunaway and Slater are unworthy. Supergirl is an archetypal heroine. She's supposed to be naive and clueless when she comes to Earth. Dunaway sells what in a lesser actresses hands would truly be a hamhanded performance. Give the director's cut a chance and see what could have been.
Only a moron would call this film a waste of time.
Of all the negative comments I have seen on here, none of them have had substance. It seems that none of them saw the movie, or are bitter because they didn't get what the rest of us saw.
This is a well shot inventive movie which stretches the imagination and makes one think about what is or could be possible. This is a deep film which works on many levels, and perhaps for the overly literal minded viewer, these fine points could be missed.
Emily Bergl was exceptional as Rachel. She and the rest of the class did a high caliber performance with the sometimes trite and hackneyed plot.
I do wish that they hadn't copied elements of Scream and Halloween H20. Scream homages are growing very old, and copying the discussion of literature in class that will give you the moral of the movie was unnecessary.
The pilot was interesting, but it really didn't capture the wit and irony of the very amusing comic strip. Overly broad humour that while moderately funny, seemed more like a cop out to what is a very good strip.
Contrary to some perspectives, this movie deftly covered what it is like both to be a temp, and to deal with office politics. While I was thinking it would be a big comedy because Lisa Kudrow and Toni Collette appeared in it, it is actually a drama with a good dollop of satire on business life.
Parker Posey is as wonderful as ever, and while the end of the movie drags a little bit, Toni Collette gets to have a moment that is priceless as she confronts Cleo, the recently hired permanent secretary.
Contrary to Leonard(Bourgois Reviewer that he is) Maltin, I thought that 'Apt Pupil,' was a good adaptation of the best work that Stephen King turned out. While it deviates from the details of the short story from the collection 'Different Seasons,' it kept the heart of the piece, albeit giving it a brand new ending.
McKellan of course is brilliant, Renfro is very good, though Schwimmer is about as threatening as a wet paperbag when it comes to being a guidance counselor. Perhaps he should watch Carrie or maybe get some acting lessons from Lisa Kudrow before he tries to be intimidating.
I liked this show a great deal. The pilot shows a great deal of promise and should be excellent viewing through out the season. McDowell as the new Roarke is a welcome change. I look forward to the new machiavellian Fantasy Island.
While it strained the original feel of the television show it was attempting to bring to the screen, I thought this movie did an admirable job. The 60's show had such a rare chemistry, that I'm not surprised that it couldn't recreate it, but it did make a worthy effort.
This was not a movie like other action/adventure movies. It was not filled with one pithy, eminently quotable line after another that could be merchandised to death. This was a movie that was attempting to have substance. It was the little movie that tried.
Now if they had only remembered that the sexual tension between Steed and Peel should have only been played at, and that there should have at least been an obvious fifteen year age difference between the two...
Don't blame Kathleen Turner or Sara Paretsky for this tragedy. This is a case of a book that went to movie and was savaged in the process.
Turner does her best to make this disgusting script believable. What were the writers on when they wrote it?
Sara Paretsky's V.I. Warshawski, a raven haired, Italian/Polish Chicago detective was wasted in this flop. The writers, or should I say butchers, took the characters from three separate Paretsky books, threw them into one story, and used the plot from a separate Paretsky novel.
Barely watchable, one can only pray that Warshawski will get another chance on the screen someday.