Why I liked The Cable Guy (1996)

In 1994, Jim Carrey became a box office sensation with smash hits as Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, The Mask, and Dumb and Dumber. Two years later, audience expectations were high when The Cable Guy was released and the film was advertised as another light slapstick romp from Carrey. What they got was a black comedy about a seriously disturbed cable TV installer who just won't leave his new friend (Matthew Broderick) alone. Jim Carrey fans were left cold with the dark tone and most critics blasted it (Roger Ebert was especially brutal towards the film while his television partner, Gene Siskel, gave it a positive review). I was watching it lately on cable and on VHS... and I don't think the movie is as bad as many people say it is.

Before I get started with my analysis, I'm not saying it's a great film, I'm saying that I think it's a decent film on it's own right. If you don't like the film, it's fine, it's your own opinion. This article is not going to be a preachy review on how I'm right and you're wrong, it's simply an article about my own, honest thoughts about the film and how I think it needs to be seen in the right mindset.

The film starts off like a light comedy. An architect named Steven Kovacs (Matthew Broderick) has moved to a new apartment after his girlfriend (Leslie Mann) has just dumped him. After he hires cable installer Chip Douglas (Jim Carrey), they becomes friends and that's when the film takes a dark turn. He keeps leaving messages on Steven answering machine, shuts off the cable to get attention while Steven and his ex-girlfriend were about to watch Sleepless in Seattle, steals and hooks up a home theater environment while Steven was at work, and even has Steven arrested for accepting the stolen home theater equipment, even though he didn't want it in the first place.

This is obviously not the film fans expected back in 1996. It was dark, twisted, upsetting, and different than the typical lighthearted fare Carrey was known for at the time yet somehow, there's something about the film that just clicks to me. As I was watching the film recently, I began to realize that the film is actually a brutal take down on how the media can affect people, celebrity worship, and even irresponsible parenting.

I think it's true with Carrey's character because he's been raised with television all his life and we get a flashback on how his mother always lets him watch TV while she goes to work at night instead of hiring a babysitter. This affected his life in a blatantly wrong way and as a result, he's been using false aliases named after television characters, often quoting and spewing out pop culture references, and even stalking customers. It's really makes sense that people like The Cable Guy can actually exist because of lazy parenting. It's really sad that some parents think that television and computers are the sole babysitters for their children when really they need to realize that they should also be reading books, going to school, and make new friends and develop social skills.

There's a running sub plot involving television coverage of a former child star (Ben Stiller, the film's director) who murdered his identical twin brother, who is also a former child star. This causes media attention, tabloids, gossip, and sensation as the case is spreading on nationwide television news and viewers are getting obsessed with the case. We even get to see scenes with Steven watching the news coverage and even a commercial for a made for TV movie starring Eric Roberts based on the actual murder case. It really fits with the obsessions we have on actual murder cases in real life, such as the O. J. Simpson trail, and how excited we are about what the verdict is going to be.

The film ends with a climax set at a huge satellite dish that carries information from all the television units and home theater systems nationwide. The Cable Guy has kidnapped Steven's girlfriend to get his attention. As he climbs up to the satellite tower with her as a hostage, he's finally running out of ideas. He begins to break down and admit to Steven that he was a bad friend and how he was influenced by television thanks to his lazy mother. So he nearly sacrifices himself by jumping off the tower and landing on the dish to save television viewers from their obsessions. I believe that's what the movie is saying. The more we watch too much TV, the more we become brainwashed and ignorant from reality.

The Cable Guy is not a great film. The comedy can be hit and miss and not all of Carrey's physical humor work, but as a brutal take down on how pop culture brainwashes people, it's fairly honest. It may not be the film Jim Carrey fans expected back in 1996, but it's still an honest film on how the media affects us and our lives. If there's a rating I could give to the film, it's a 3 out of 4.

Memento (2000)

We're used to movies that follow a simple and linear plot structure because they are easier for the casual moviegoer to follow along. But there are movies that are so complex in their non-linear narrative structure that it's up to us to interpret the events of the movie and how we put the pieces together for ourselves. Christopher Nolan's Memento is a great example of a non-linear film.

The movie follows the adventures of Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce), an insurance investigator whose wife has been murdered and develops a serious case of short-term memory loss after the attack. After the police refused to help him, it's now up to Leonard to find the man who is responsible for his wife's death and he meets strange and interesting characters along the way.

To keep in line with Leonard's condition, Christopher Nolan writes his screenplay out of order and mixes up the chronology so the audience can pay attention to important plot details, get invested in the mystery, and mix the pieces of the puzzle on their own. If the movie were written in a linear fashion it would get monotonous and there would be no suspense.

In contrast to the non-linear narrative, Nolan also shot the film in color with black and white segments. The color sequences are told in reverse order of the plot while the black and white sequences are in chronological order. The black and white sequences are important to the story because we were given important plot details indicated on the Polariod photographs and the tattoos and Leonard's body before the film goes back into color.

What also distinguishes Memento from the other linear stories is the level of character depth. Most movies tend to have flawed people learning to redeem themselves and change the course of their own lives. With the case of Memento, it's grounded in reality and the characters are manipulative towards each other. They always lie, cheat, abuse, and murder. It goes to show the audience that people like these characters do exist and there's very little they can do to redeem themselves and develop as people.

This adherence to a more realistic depiction leaves us a little unsure of our typical good and evil archetypes. While Leonard is certainly the protagonist of the film, it's ambiguous as to whether or not we should consider him a hero or a villain. Just as in real life, where heroes and villains are defined by perspective than anything tangible, we're left unsure as to whether or not Leonard is truly justified.

Although the main essential elements are present in both the film and short story, the short story is radically different than the film. In the short story, the main character's name is Earl, not Leonard. In the short story, Earl is convinced by his own notes, escapes from the mental institution, and finds his wife's murderer. The film's ambiguous approach to storytelling is much better than the short story.

All the performances are first rate. Guy Pearce is perfectly suited for the role of Leonard. Joe Pantoliano is terrifying as the scheming undercover cop who helps Leonard into solving the murder. And Carrie-Anne Moss is electrifying as the woman Leonard is seeing during the course of the mystery.

Memento might be difficult film to follow and understand but it gets more interesting as the plot goes along and the more we see the film often, the more we can be able to understand it after repeated viewing.

RATING 4/4

Rover Dangerfield (1991)

Rodney Dangerfield was one of most popular comedians of the 70's and 80's. His stand up act, including his "No Respect" routines, made millions of people laugh and has given good performances in movies like Caddyshack (1980) and Back to School (1986). As the 90's come around however, he began appearing in watered down family films and that's the case with the animated feature, Rover Dangerfield.

Dangerfield came up with the idea with the intention of making a hard R rated animated comedy that's more in line with his stand up act. But Warner Bros reportedly watered the film down into a G rated animated musical for a broader family audience. Probably after animation was completed, the studio was beginning to lack confidence in the film and decided to give the film a very small theatrical release in the August dumping ground of 1991. The box office results were unknown but the film seemed to disappoint critics, Rodney Dangerfield fans, and animation fans alike, though it seems to have an audience after home video and television broadcasts. Is the film underrated, or should it get no respect?  Let's find out!

The film centers on Rover Dangerfield, a carefree, wisecracking dog who belong to a friendly Las Vegas showgirl named Connie (Shawn Southwick). After he discovers that Connie's boyfriend is a crook, he gets thrown into the Hoover Dam, but he survives, takes shelter on a farm, makes new friends, and wisecracks throughout the entire movie.

Right there we have a problem with the character of Rover. He's a one-dimensional, unfunny, and obnoxious bore. He constantly wisecracks, speaks up lame one-liners, and tells a lot of jokes that would work on stand up comedy, but they just don't work on a movie like this. Consider this scene for example, a group of wolves attacks a turkey while Rover comes to the rescue. He scares the wolves away but the turkey is dead. Rather than feeling sorry, he performs a puppet show with the dead turkey while the man who owns the farm believes Rover killed the turkey and points a shot gun at him. This scene is not funny. It's stupid, unnecessary, and disturbing if they're gonna make a family film.

Speaking of tonal inconsistency, for a movie that Warner Bros watered down a potentially adult animated film for a family audience, they surprisingly failed to do so. Granted there's no swearing and blood but we have the aforementioned dead turkey joke and scantily clad Las Vegas showgirls at the beginning of the film and it's slapped with a G rating instead of a PG somehow. Now, I don't have a problem with family movies with adult content, but if the film's tone and mood is confused, I really have a short fuse.

The musical numbers are really weak. They range from stupid, annoying, and forgettable. Rodney Dangerfield can be a talented singer. He made his own cover on "Twist and Shout" for Back to School. But the songs really just don't work. The worst song in the film is "I'll Never Do It On A Christmas Tree" (obvious sexual innuendo in the song title is obvious). It's annoying, lame, and Rodney's singing talent just really doesn't through.

The only positive thing I can say about the film is the decent animation. I like the colorful Las Vegas setting and the warm landscape when Rover gets to the farm for shelter. There's even some good use of CGI in the film, especially in the opening shot of the film as the "camera" follows the starry Nevada landscape to Las Vegas. But that's all I can say positive about.

Overall, Rover Dangerfield is a one-joke, unfunny, and annoying animated film that would probably turn of Rodney Dangerfield fans as much as casual movie goers and animation fans. This film deserves no respect, and deserves to be forgotten.

RATING 1.5/4