Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (July 1, 1999)
‘South Park”s big-screen debut surprisingly good By Samuel McKewon Editor Through no design of its own, “South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut” possesses a perfect sense of timing in lampooning censorship specifically the nation’s overreaction to movies and the lack of personal responsibility in America. That creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone deliver such a scathing, hilarious satirical message with 80 minutes of the most daring and shocking raunch ever put onscreen makes “South Park” the best surprise of the summer. Its humor works masterfully on two levels: one, it’s just plain out funny, with Cartman, Kyle, Stan and Kenny in their best form; the second level deals with wondering just how Parker and Stone got away with doing this and not getting an NC-17 rating. Make no mistake, “South Park” is chock fiill of language like you’ve never seen, delivered in ways previously unheard. And language is the beginning, not the end, of the numerous violations. What makes it all the better is the main target of the movie: the Motion Picture Association of America ratings board - the same board that forced Parker and Stone to make numerous cuts, but somehow allowed a 20-foot talking clitoris to stay in. Not to mention man having sex with a horse, too. The Facts Title: "South Park: 4 Bigger, Longer and Uncut" Stars: Cartman, Kyle, Kenny, Stan Director: Trey parker Rating: R (excessive adult language, stong sexual content) Running Time: 120 (80 minutes) Grade: A Five Words: Surprise! “South Park" is fantastic. Oh, but what fun this movie has with (those images. The plot even has a point, start ing with the new film from a Canadian duo who have mastered the art of fart and another f word. The boys see the film, take the words back to the classroom in South Park and shock the world It’s Kyle’s mom who is angered most by her sun s uewiuuiiu linguis tics, and starts Mother Against Canada, a group which eventu ally convinces America to wage war against our neighbors to the North. From there, “South Park” becomes an allegory that stands up for the First Amendment and laughs at the double standard of conservatives. In between, the movie produces a good number of inside jokes about current and past movies, mixing in social com mentary. One thing I loved about “South Park” is its high sense of culture. The musical scenes is a direct lampoon of movies in the 1940s and 1950s, replaced with raunchy words, along with making a point: did we ever really care what they were saying in “Oklahoma!”? “South Park” says no, and I agree. “A Clockwork Orange” is spoofed here. So is “Les Miserables.” Throw in “Star Wars,” every spy movie ever made, French films, English films, “Apocalypse Now” and anything with Winona Ryder, the Baldwin brothers or Barbara Streisand. Bu the movie always comes back to its basic, toilet humor with a heaping side of wit thrown in. “South Park” makes its point by laughing at adults who embrace conformity. By its end, it’s made a good point about finding scapegoats (as the movie asserts, it’s not one or two people, but rather a nation of folks, most of which have nothing to do with it) and accepting that sex scares us and so does vulgarity. But violence? Hardly. There’s very little in “South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut” to complain about, if you can stomach the language. If you don’t think you can, know this: it has a point, unlike most movies. Like the violence in “Saving Private Ryan,” the lan guage exists to foster reaction from those in the movie, a reac tion which I suspect will mirror some older people in the the ater. But let the language pass. “South Park” is short, funny, unpredictable and smart, something other gross-out comedies currently out, “Big Daddy” and Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me,” can’t really claim. Both those movies aren’t bad, but the boys in South Park whip them both. ‘Wild Wild West’ is a lightweight success By Mark Baldridge Film Critic Will Smith is back as a man in black, this time sporting six-guns and a cowboy hat, bouncin’ through the “Wild Wild West” as James T. West, America’s first super secret agent. Those who remember the 1960s tele vision show with Robert Conrad will remember West’s sidekick Artemus Gordon, master of disguise, here played with aplomb by Kevin Kline, (who appears also as President U.S. Grant and as Gordon’s inept impersonation of Grant in a dizzying double, double role.) The two agents are charged with a mission to stop the threat to national security posed by a partly mechanized madman living in the desert surrounded by beautiful hench women and kid-; napped scientists. Kenneth Branagh, as the indefatigably cheery and totally . insane Dr. Arliss Loveless, sounds like a younger Steve Martin and looks like a poster boy for obsessive/compul sive disorder with his intricately shaved, jet black v \ beard. • \\ Loveless, bitter over his losses in \ the Civil War, intends to divide the US among the nation’s enemies, leaving a little retirement spot for himself that would include most of the Pacific seaboard. — To accomplish his diaboli cal goals he has the cutting edge secret weapons of the steam age, a giant mechanical spider and a plan to kidnap the President. The Victorian era techno aesthetic of the film is a thrilling and surprisingly effective addition to its Western setting and action/ad venture pacing. The cost of suspended disbelief is metered out in small increments, each new whizbang gadget, imagined clearly enough, sets the audience up for the next until, by easy steps, we move from the merely improbable to the utterly fantastic without so much as feeling the Gs. The film is slick enough with its beautiful costumes, its hit soundtrack and beautiful ladies. For sheer acting power it finishes well above standard for this kind of film. If the predictable script leaves anything to be desired, the special f/x make up for a little bit of that - though Hollywood will have to learn, one day, that a great cast and eye popping illusions need a compelling story and solid dia logue as a counter-balance to all that flash. It also might have been nice to see Conrad in a cameo (Ross Martin, who played Gordon in the series is no longer living) but knowing what a hard-head he is, it’s possible he simply wouldn’t have done it. He always did have a chip on his shoulder (or was that a battery?) All atti tude. What’s really missing from the film is continuity. Editing problems make some of the fight scenes seem pretty confusing and in one case totally mysterious (what did that metalhead die of, overheating?) But what the film does best it does from the beginning - morphing the Western genre into seamless science fic tion without sacrificing too much in terms of credibility. For that alone “Wild Wild West” is a remarkable film and well worth seeing on its own terms. The Facts ^ THIs: "Wild Wild West" Stars: Wilt Smith, Kevin Kline, Kenneth Branagh Director: Barry Sonnenfield Rating: PG-13 (language) thinning Time: 1:47(107 minutes) Grade: B Five Words: West wasn't won this way