Dog City: The Movie, which originally aired as an hour-long 1989 episode of The Jim Henson Hour, will be released on Region 1 DVD on June 8, 2010.  Lionsgate Home Entertainment will release the disc, as part of its arrangement with The Jim Henson Company.

The “movie” is a film noir spoof with lots of bad puns, not all of them dog-related.  Main protagonist Ace Yu is looking for his uncle’s killer, Bugsy Them.  Yeah, it’s that kind of spoof.  Jim Henson won an Emmy for this episode, his first and last as a director.

Dog City: The Movie has been on DVD before, albeit in Region 2 form.  This will be Dog City‘s North American debut.

Both DVD versions of Dog City: The Movie retain appearances by Rowlf the Dog, even though The Walt Disney Company owns Rowlf.  Rowlf is a framing device, so he can’t be avoided.

Special features include a “behind-the-scenes photo gallery, original concept art, ‘and more!’”  It reads like the standard set of extras, not that I’m expecting much more from Lionsgate Home Entertainment.  At least Lionsgate is releasing Henson’s titles, no matter how esoteric they are.

This news is only tangentially related to Canadian television.  Dog City (1992-95), one of Nelvana’s better 1990s shows, is an indirect spinoff of the Dog City special.  I have pondered whether the Dog City series will see release.

As an aside, Amazon.com has the entirety of Dog City on video-on-demand.  There’s a fair swath of Henson-related product on demand.  Truth be known, I’m surprised Dog City has its entire run on VOD.  I don’t remember the show being that popular, but you know, nostalgia.

Dog City: The Movie could spark renewed interest in the Dog City cartoon.  We’re seeing The Completely Mental Misadventures of Ed Grimley (!) on DVD – one episode, but come on.  If that show can waft to home video, Dog City‘s chances aren’t so bad.

I have never cared for Bill Maher’s work.  His sardonic persona has carried him through Politically Incorrect and Real Time with Bill Maher, giving him some weight as a pundit.  Religulous (Super Channel: first airs July 10, 9:01 PM ET) should theoretically help me understand Maher’s humour better, since I like Larry Charles’ work on Seinfeld and Dilbert.

I hated Dilbert the comic strip at one time.  Charles and Scott Adams’ work on the cartoon version converted me.  In Dilbert‘s second season, Charles and Adams explored topics like faith vs. science and the existence of God, keeping the shows funny in the process.  It had the thematic focus Religulous doesn’t, as Religulous is too scattershot to be of any lasting impact.

I don’t think Religulous is a massive ego-stroke for Maher, as he can be insightful at times, but the film touches on one topic for a minute or two before jumping to the next.  Sometimes a segue between topics is provided, but not often.  The main problem with this approach is that one doesn’t get a real understanding of religion’s perceived faults.  Maher interviews someone, bounces an observation off the interviewee and moves on to his next one night stand.  All that’s missing is a rimshot.

Larry Charles, for his part, adds to Religulous‘ shallowness.  He leavens the interviews by adding relevant clips, pictures and/or captions to each one.  For instance, a mention of Mormon temple garments is backed by captions explaining what they protect against.  Since the joke is not yet subtle enough, Apollo Braun’s “Party in My Pants” plays in the background.  This is supposed to be funny, but I find Charles’ approach annoying.

Religulous suffers most from a cheap ending.  After ninety minutes of religion-mocking, Maher addresses the audience with “but seriously, folks…” for five minutes and change.  In this case he argues for “rational” people to take a stand against religion.  This isn’t a spoiler, since Maher established his position on religion earlier in the film.  In that case, why not make a point-by-point argument refuting the major world religions in an intelligent manner, rather than riffing off Borat?

Religulous doesn’t work, as Maher doesn’t approach religion differently from others in the comedy field.  George Carlin approaches the same central tenet as Religulous in one of his stand-up routines.  It’s funnier and more to-the-point.  Julia Sweeney, Doug Stanhope and Lewis Black have all mined religion’s humourous potential in a less smug way than Maher does in Religulous.

Hell, even Dilbert was better.  Dogbert is a magnificent bastard, after all.

In the end, Religulous amounts to nothing more than 101 minutes of Bill Maher spanning the globe in search of the Anti-Religious Equation.  I’d rather make up my own mind about religion than have someone else tell me how and what I should believe.