Written by DAVID KEYES / featuring guest speaker DUSTIN ROSE

December 9, 1998

CINEMA film critic David Keyes and guest columnist Dustin Rose love watching movies. But there’s something they love even more: arguing about them. It seems as if every movie leaves each of them with a different opinion. If one of them likes it, the other one hates it; if one hates it, the other loves it. But finally, they have found a movie they both can agree on: "The Waterboy." Neither of them were too impressed with the new Adam Sandler flick. They did, however, have different reasons as to why the movie was a waste of money. Rose’s words can be found in bold below, while Keyes’ words are in Italics.

"The Waterboy" is a typical Adam Sandler movie. His character is immature (like Billy Madison) and rejected by society, then he becomes a hero after doing something impossible (like Happy Gilmore). He attempts to use a little bit of dramatic acting, but fails. Sure, it has its funny moments, but most of them are from other characters. Overall, it is a mediocre storyline with bad acting.

You know, for someone addicted to "Armageddon," you’re sure praising "The Waterboy" more than I anticipated. Nothing was funny or amusing about it. It was a dreary, endless exercises of practical jokes, insults and football tackles, all brought on by Sandler’s character. It seemed as if everything repeated itself over and over again. It’s basically a series of juvenile humor sequences that can be watched in any order and in any quantity, because, aside from the punch-line, they’re basically all the same. I’m one to say that Kathy Bates was okay as Sandler’s mother, but otherwise, the movie is a complete waste of time: a clumsy, unfunny comedy, to put it bluntly.

I agree with you to some extent. The movie is very immature and, for the most part, pointless. But through all the bad in it there was Kathy Bates. She took on her toll in a way no one else did. Even with this no-brainer, uneventful script she had some much-appreciated laughs. Don’t you think?

No way. Nothing was funny about it! Wait, I take that back. The very first time Sandler tackles someone is funny. The rest of the time it’s repetitive and predictable. I gather the movie was supposed to be aimed at a level of "Forrest Gump," in which a character with limited mental capacity proves his peers wrong about his intelligence. But instead of having Sandler’s character accomplish all these great, worthy deeds, what does he do? Football. That’s it. I’d hardly call football important.

Well, he is pretty stupid; at least to society’s standards. No one can argue that fact. Why anyone would want to put Adam Sandler into a movie, though, is a question that will never be logically answered. He is not an actor, he is a comedian. He’s a dirty comedian at that. He can’t say a line and make it funny without throwing in an "F" word or some other obscenity. Why do you think that is? Our society has become pathetic. We like to hear someone act like a buffoon.

In addition to that belief, what do you think about the recent box office success of the movie? In its third week of release, it surpassed the 100-million dollar mark. Any instant reactions?

Well, this once again shows the point I already made. Society is desperate for someone who is funny. It doesn’t matter whether or not he is clean or even has a moral conscience. This movie doesn’t have any quality that would make it a success, other than Kathy Bates. It is pathetic!

Now you make yourself clearer. You’re implying that society’s general tastes are moving in the wrong direction. Of course they are. Movies are made in many different ways, several of them we may not necessarily agree with. "The Waterboy" is the perfect example: it was made because people knew it would receive great audience turnout, since it’s involves obscene language and moronic character tendencies.

But there’s something we can do: stop buying tickets and supporting these stupid, pointless movies.