Reader's Guide to Pulp Fiction (Spoiler Warning)

This is a readers guide for Quentin Tariantino's 1994 masterpiece, Pulp Fiction. The film contains 4 interconnected stories of violence, crime, and redemption. This film has made a cultural impact for it's non linear structure, complex characters, and character driven dialogue. This reader's guide contains why these 3 elements were necessary along with elements of the film that are open for interpretation. If you're confused by the film on your first viewing, this list might help you understand why these elements work if you're planning to give the film a second viewing. One word of warning though, this list may contain spoilers so make sure you watch the movie before you read this list.

Non-linear structure: Most movies have typical 3 act structures that basically consists of buildup, conflict, and resolution. While not all 3 act structures are bad, they sometimes can get formulaic. Quentin Tarintino intentionally mixes up his chronology to figure out the events of the movie for themselves instead of guessing what's going to happen next. It also allows ambiguity, and mystery into the plot instead of spelling out information to the audience.

Character-driven dialogue: There are so many movies when dialogue pushes the plot forward and the characters weren't given time to say interesting things. This is not the case with Pulp Fiction. There are long stretches of the characters talking about things they are passionate about because the dialogue is much more interesting than the cookie cutter dialogue that you hear from routine films. The dialogue also gives the audience time to know the characters. If these long stretches were cut from the film, we wouldn't know the characters well.

Character development: I complained on my Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers The Movie review that the characters were cookie cutter and one dimensional. The characters in Pulp Fiction are rich, interesting, and fully developed. Each of the characters have distinct personalities and they develop by redeeming themselves. The biggest character development in the film comes from Jules (Samuel L. Jackson), who is sick and tired of being a hit man for the mob. His development takes place at the end of the film when he holds a robber hostage and plays peacemaker during a robbery at a diner. He spares the robber and saves a lot of customers.

The glowing briefcase: The glowing briefcase is the film's MacGuffin. A MacGuffin is a device or object that serves as a trigger for the plot. The glowing briefcase is also open for interpretation because we never see what's really in that briefcase. Some people think it was drugs and money, others think the glow is actually the soul of crime boss Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rahmes). If you want a behind the scenes example, the glow is obviously a small light bulb operated by two battery packs.

The band aid on Marsellus Wallace's head: The band aid on the back of Marsellus Wallace's head was also open for interpretation, but it was never intended to be ambiguous. Ving Rahmes actually cut himself shaving while preparing for the role. When he put the band aid on, Tarantino liked the image of the band aid on his head and kept it in the movie.

Central Theme: The central theme of Pulp Fiction is redemption because each of the 4 stories end with the characters redeeming themselves and saving others. John Travolta saves Uma Thurman from dying of a drug overdose. Bruce Willis saves Ving Rahmes from sado-masochists. And Samuel L. Jackson foils a diner robbery operated by Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer.

This concludes this reader's guide to Pulp Fiction. I hope you see the film and read this article after you see the film.

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers The Movie (1995)

On August 28, 1993, the hit superhero show Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers hit our television sets and was very popular with kids back in the day, resulting in one of the biggest merchandising phenomenons of the 90's and it still continues to this day. What few people realized at that time is that Power Rangers is actually an adaptation of the long running Japanese superhero show, Super Sentai. Shortly after the success, Saban, the company responsible for the franchise, joined forces with 20th Century Fox to make a movie, hoping it would make summer dollars in 1995. The film however, was doomed from the start.

Director Brian Spicer did very little research on the show and insisted that the Ranger helmets would have no visors and mouthpieces to show emotion. Realizing that the Power Rangers weren't supposed to show emotion, Spicer decided to put the visors and mouthpieces back in the helmets. And there's a major casting change during shooting.

Mariska Hargitay, known for her work on the Law and Order series, was hired for a key supporting role named Dulcea. The filmmakers decided that she was miscast and they fired her, resulting a lot of deleted material, including Dulcea's backstory and a training montage. Hargitay is later replaced by Gabrielle Fitzpatrick.

The show was also being worked on while the movie was being filmed, which is why we had episodes of the Rangers taking a vacation in Australia while the evil Rita Repulsa marries Lord Zedd. All in all, the film had a troubled shoot. But what are the results? Let's find out!

An evil alien creature named Ivan Ooze (Paul Freeman) has been freed by Rita and Lord Zedd and plans to destroyed Zordon, the Rangers' mentor, and rule the universe. As Ivan takes over the city of Angel Grove, Zordon and his robotic assistant Alpha 5 send the Rangers to a distant planet called Phaedos. Led by the scantly clad warrior named Dulcea (Gabrielle Fitzpatrick), the Rangers get new powers to save the world and defeat Ivan.

While the movie is not canon with the show, the film feels like an extended episode of the show. In fact, after the film was released, season 3 started with the 4 parter, "Ninja Quest" when the Rangers had to get new powers and Zords, machines the Rangers use to stop the monsters from attacking Angel Grove. It's the Rangers first trip to the big screen and it's a feature length version of an adventure they're about to embark on the show. That's pretty lazy writing.

Speaking of the writing, the Rangers barely have personalities in the film. While the show was formulaic, the Rangers at least had personalities like the nerd (Blue Ranger), the valley girl (Pink Ranger), the goofball (the original Black Ranger), and the leader (White Ranger). But ever since 3 members of the original cast left the show due to contractual disputes, the Red, Black, and Yellow Rangers were replaced by three blank slates. In the movie, we know very little of them and it's hard for the casual viewer to distinguish one Ranger to another apart from the colors of the costumes.

The special effects are atrocious. The show took footage from Super Sentai for most of the action scenes, which consists of cheap robot and monster costumes. But these action scenes have charm. Not in this film because the Zords and monsters were made of terrible CGI. They look like video game graphics and they look very cheap.

The only positive I could say about the film is Paul Freeman's performance of Ivan Ooze. He's clearly having fun with the role and appreciate him for this achievement. But that's about it.

In conclusion, this film is an example of Hollywood cashing in to what's popular and making a corporate sell out. The plot is a non canon extended episode of the show, the characters are one dimensional, and the special effects are just wretched. But of all the Hollywood sell outs of the 90's, the film is at least watchable, mainly because of Paul Freeman. Otherwise, you're better off watching the show, which had much better seasons after the Mighty Morphin' era.

RATING: 2/4

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.

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

Fight Club (1999) (Spoiler Warning)

Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club and it's film adaptation from David Fincher shows us the horrors of masculinity and how it can lead to violent activities. We, as a society, have been raised in a stereotypical masculine culture, the reflection of which can be seen in action movie stars, athletes, or superheros. But the characters Fight Club takes masculinity to the extreme with their foul language, their massive and brutal battles with each other, and their war against a capitalistic American society.

Common masculine stereotypes can be attributed to a short temper, the use of violence to solve disputes, fights in public places such as bars, and rough language. But Fight Club doesn't glorify and romanticize masculinity.

The Narrator (Edward Norton) expresses complete cowardice earlier in the story. He works at a boring job, which often affects his insomnia very badly, and he doesn't stand up to his boss (Zach Grenier). He doesn't really become a stereotype of masculinity until Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) enters his life and they decide to run a business in which oppressed men learn how to be a man by fighting each other. David Fincher shoots the fight sequences in dark areas with bright yellow lights to give the audience the feeling that the characters are like savages from hell, so while the movie does embrace violence, it does show the negativity that can come from it.

Fight Club also focuses heavily on the idea of extremism. Nietzsche once stated that the more civilized our society becomes, the weaker each individual becomes in terms of their willingness to endure physical consequences. The formation of the Fight Club was originally cathartic, intended to open the participants to a truer connection to reality. This opening, however, allowed for the extreme ideals of its creator to easily be adopted by those following him. Just as in a terrorist organization, where extreme rhetoric is used to conform the followers, Tyler Durden uses the rhetoric of Fight Club to align his followers with his end goal.

In the context of the story, terrorism is being used against our capitalist society. As the Fight Club progresses, Tyler Durden begins to form a group called Project Mayhem, which declares war on capitalism. They overfeed doves so they can defecate on brand new cars, they cause property damage such as wrecking cars, and blowing up electronic stores, and they beat up complete strangers while they are at work. But the terrorism isn't glamorized. Fincher still uses unsavory color palettes for sequences of Project Mayhem at work.

The true conclusion of both the book and film should be clear. Our Narrator eventually realizes that he himself is Tyler Durden. The parts of him that had felt quelled by the advancement of civilization in the worst possible ways. These manifestations led him down a dark path believing that your ability to damage and destroy defined your true effect on the world. This parallels with our contemporary traits of masculinity, that our ability to effect charge and have a true position is proportionate to our strength. It also parallels with groups in the real world who, when feeling oppressed, resort to violence (or terrorism) to achieve their goals. There's something intrinsically ironic, however, that in Fincher's film the majority of people in Project Mayhem are white American males, a group who in no way experiences actual oppression. It's as if it was purposely to show purposelessness of their actions.

Once our Narrator realizes the consequences of the actions in the book and film, he sets out to stop them. We, as an audience, are supposed to take the position of the Narrator. We are shown the lure of violence, of resorting to our basest instinct when we begin to feel lost in the world. But we are brought to the conclusion that these actions are not the best course to take, they merely result in more pain and destruction. Fight Club holds a mirror up to our faces and asks if what we actually like to see.

RATING: 4/4     

Cool World (1992)

In 1988, we were given the live action/animated feature, Who Framed Roger Rabbit. That film had memorable characters, great special effects, the humor is funny, and it's a great mix of murder mysteries, conspiracies, and Hollywood satire. Plus, we also have Disney and Warner Bros animated characters in the same movie, which is sadly the only movie to have this achievement. Studios wanted to cash in with the success of Who Framed Roger Rabbit and in 1992, we have Cool World, directed by Ralph Bakshi, who was known for adult animated films back in the 1970s.

Cool World was doomed from the start. Bakshi wrote a screenplay about about a woman named Debbie Dallas who was half human, half cartoon, who gets revenge on her human father for the way she is. That was a script that could have been a potential horror film and Drew Barrymore could have played Debbie Dallas, who would later be renamed Holli Would. But producer Frank Mancuso Jr. was tired of making horror movies as he had done some of the Friday the 13th movies, so he hired Michael Grais and Mark Victor to rewrite the script against Bakshi's wishes. When Bakshi found out that his script was changed, he reportedly got into a brawl with Mancuso and Paramount threatened to sue him if he didn't finish the movie. Kim Basinger, who replaced Drew Barrymore, told Paramount to tone the film down so she could show the movie to sick children, and the animators were never given a script, so they had to draw whatever they want. What's the end result after a messy production? Let's find out!

The movie starts in 1945 when WWII veteran Frank Harris (Brad Pitt) comes home to Las Vegas and rides his new motorcycle with his mother. Unfortunately, Frank survives a motorcycle crash which kills her mother and he's accidentally transported into the cartoon world called the Cool World by a cartoon scientist named Dr Vincent Whiskers who invents an energy source called The Spike of Power so he can transport to the human world. Dr Whiskers somehow sees Frank as a potential hero and gets him a job as a police detective.

47 years later in Las Vegas, cartoonist Jack Deebs (Gabriel Byrne) is working on his comic book series called Cool World, which focuses on a beautiful woman named Holli Would (Kim Basinger). It turns out that Holli has the power to transport Jack anyway she wants to because she wants to have sex with a human so she could be a human somehow. After they return to earth, they somehow began to flicker back and forth between cartoon and human forms and Holli decides to seek The Spike of Power, which for some reason has the power to merge the human and cartoon worlds while Frank Harris comes back to the real world to stop Holli.

As you can guess from this plot summary, this movie absolutely makes no sense at all. This movie has so many plot holes, contradictions, and inconsistencies that I don't know where to begin.

First of all, how does Frank Harris never age? He's been in the Cool World since 1945 yet he's still in his 20's in 1992.

Second, There's an ancient law in Cool World that humans can't have sex with cartoons yet the movie never really explores the side effects of human sexual contact with cartoons apart from Holli turning human after her sexual intercourse with Jack and both characters flickering back and fourth between forms somehow.

Third, Frank was supposed to stop Jack from having sex with Holli yet he's in a relationship with his cartoon girlfriend named Lonette. We never really learn much on how they met, where had the attraction come from, what they see in each other, and why Frank has to take the law seriously while he's in love with Lonette.

Last and worst of all, when a human has sexual contact with a cartoon, the cartoon becomes a human. But when a human is killed a cartoon, the human becomes a cartoon? How much sense does that make?

There's also too many random scenes and pointless, annoying, unfunny filler that does not advance the plot and has nothing to do with the story, such as random scenes of cartoon characters hurting each other for comic effect.

The main characters are flat and one dimensional. Holli spends much of her time shaking her butt and whining about her desires to be human. Frank's hero journey is barely accomplished since he ends up being killed off by Holli (which would later turn him into a cartoon somehow). And Jack often looks bored and confused and I don't blame Gabriel Byrne for this. Even the actors look uncomfortable with their roles.

The combination of live action and animation doesn't work either. Compare the Cool World to the Toontown sequence from Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Bob Hoskins was filmed in front of a blue screen and later added in the animated footage by an optical printer. As a result, we really get the sense that Hoskins is in an animated world. That's not the case with Cool World. The actors are clearly in wooden live action sets with animation added on top of the live action, which gets pretty insulting to the audiences intelligence.

And lastly, this film has an unclear target audience and has a confused PG 13 rating. At times it's far too juvenile for adults yet at other times it's too dark and sexual for children. This film appeals to no one.

Overall, Paramount's attempt to cash in with Disney's offering with Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a complete failure and it certainly doesn't help when producers change the artist's vision without their permission. The story makes no sense, the characters are annoying and bland, and the special effects are lazy. Stick with Roger Rabbit and Mary Poppins if you wanna see a live action/animated film.

RATING 1/4

Toy Story 2 (1999)

1995's Toy Story proved to be a hit and changed the way we looked at animation but making a sequel to the first movie made by computers is a very risky move from Disney and Pixar. Even riskier, the film was originally intended to be a direct to video sequel but when the story had potential, Disney decided to give the film a theatrical release and production had to be completed in 9 months. Will Toy Story 2 be as good as the original, or will it be a disappointment? Let's find out!

After Andy goes on a camping trip, Woody (Tom Hanks) gets stolen at a yard sale by a greedy toy store owner because he's actually a rare collectors item based on a 1950s TV show called Woody's Roundup and he's about to be shipped to a museum in Japan. He meets new friends based on the show, including a cowgirl doll named Jessie (Joan Cusack), a stuffed horse named Bullseye, and a rubber prospector named Stinky Pete (Kelsey Grammer), who lives in a box that's never been opened. Woody now has to decide to either go to Japan or go back to Andy's house while Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) and the gang goes on a journey to save Woody.

Forget about the fact that the film was originally meant to be direct to video, the animation has slightly improved over the original film and still holds up today. You get details like reflections, the amount of plastic on the toys, the light sources, rugs, and even dust. The visuals are bigger in scope too. There's an chase sequence at the end of the film when Buzz and the gang are at the airport to save Woody, Jessie, and Bullseye and the baggage handling system is so big with those suitcases on the conveyor belts, the hard work from the animators really payed off for that scene.

The performances are equally strong as they were in the first. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen were great as usual in their respective roles but there's a whole gallery of great supporting performances from Don Rickles as Mr Potato Head, Jim Varney as Slinky, Wallace Shawn as Rex, and even newcomers to the series like Joan Cusack, Kelsey Grammer, and Estelle Harris as Mrs Potato Head. They're all chosen well for their roles and the way the voices mixes with the characters personalities are perfectly handled.

What's equally impressive about the film is it's character development and storytelling, which deals with friendship, growing up, and moving on while also dealing with the fear of rejection.  Andy accidentally rips Woody's arm and his mom puts him on a special shelf, reminding him that toys don't last forever. Woody later has a surreal nightmare of Andy not wanting to play with him anymore because of his broken arm and throws him in the trash. After Woody gets stolen, he makes some new friends, who are on their way to Japan or else they'll go back into storage.

When Woody was telling Stinky Pete, Bullseye, and Jessie about Andy, they're weren't convinced that Andy loves Woody because of his broken arm and the fact that he tried to save a rubber penguin with a broken squeaker in the yard sale earlier in the film. After Woody loses his arm while trying to have a picture taken with his friends, Pete warns Woody that the outside world is dangerous. After Woody's arm is fixed, he decides to go back to Andy.

This is when we get to understand Jessie's fears as Woody learns that she belongs to a little girl named Emily. Rather than spelling out to the audience, we get a flashback with Jessie's fond memories with Emily since they both bonded with each other. As Emily begins to grow up, she buys make up and music instead of toys and when she finds Jessie under her bed, she decides to give her away. This was why Jessie often gets jealous of Woody trying to get back to Andy and having her own fears of being owned by another child. After Stinky Pete warns Woody that Andy might do the same thing, he decides to stay with his new friends and go to Japan.

At this point, Woody begins to forget that a toy is meant to be played with and when Buzz and the gang convince Woody to get back to Andy's house, he turns down the offer. When he sees a kid playing with a Woody puppet on the TV set, he realizes his purpose in life is to be played with and not for show, so he decides to leave and take his new friends to Andy's house along with Buzz and company. This leads into Stinky Pete being a bigger threat in the film.

It turns out that Pete can get out of the box anytime he wants to and reveals that he framed Jessie for foiling Woody's escape attempt the previous night because he'd rather be appreciated in the museum rather than being played with. He also hates space toys since the Space Age was responsible for Woody's Roundup's cancellation and children bought space toys as a result. He doesn't seem to understand that they're are children who love toys and take care of them no matter what kind of toy they are. Realizing Stinky Pete's problem, Woody and company puts him in a little girl's Barbie bag to show him the true purpose of being a toy.

The movie ends with exciting climax when Woody, Buzz, and Bullseye save Jessie from a cargo ship heading to Japan, Andy coming home from camp and accepting the new toys, Woody's arm being fixed again after Stinky Pete ripped it at the airport and the toys lived happily ever after.

Overall, Toy Story 2 is equal to it's predecessor with it's improved animation, strong themes, great performances, and lovable, well developed characters. This film really deserves to be ranked with The Empire Strikes Back and Terminator 2 as one of the best sequels of all time and deserves a higher recommendation from me. I loved the Toy Story movies as a kid, I wasn't disappointed as a grown up.

Tune in next time for the final conclusion to the Toy Story trilogy.

RATING: 4/4.

Toy Story (1995)

After the successes of the first half of The Disney Renaissance, Disney teamed up with a very small computer animation company called Pixar to create the very first computer animated feature, Toy Story, directed by John Lasseter and inspired by an Oscar winning short subject Pixar made called Tin Toy.

The story focuses on a pull string cowboy doll named Woody (Tom Hanks), who is the favorite toy of a little boy named Andy. When Andy gets a space themed action figure for his birthday, he replaces Woody as his new favorite toy. The action figure is named Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), who is delusional because he thinks he's a superhero. As Andy plays with Buzz more often, Woody becomes increasingly jealous of Buzz and has made plans to get rid of him. After Woody accidentally knocks Buzz out the window, Andy takes Woody to a space themed pizza restaurant called Pizza Planet. Meanwhile, Buzz follows them and after a brawl between Buzz and Woody, they're left behind at the gas station. When Woody and Buzz get to Pizza Planet, they're kidnapped by Sid, Andy's neighbor who destroys toys and mixes the broken pieces together to make his mutant toys. It's now up to Woody and Buzz to get back to Andy's house and escape from Sid's clutches.

There have been previous movies that used computer generated images (CGI) such as Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Jurassic Park, and several Disney animated films but making a feature length film made entirely by CGI was a really big deal back in the 90s due to technical limitations at the time and how it would affect not only affect the finished film, the the movie industry in general. When Toy Story came along, it revolutionized animation and it's easy to see why. The animation is very detailed, like scratches on wood, dirt on the ground, rusty vehicles, and the reflections on Buzz Lightyear's helmet. Unlike traditional animation, the "camera" is now given freedom to move whatever it wants and shows us interesting angles we normally see in live action films. And the character models on the toys really do look like toys and they are animated fluidly. The animation still holds up today, but what really made Toy Story a masterpiece besides the animation are the story and characters.

Woody is a complex yet likable character. The beginning of the film establishes Woody as a confident, and friendly leader of the toys. But when he is replaced by Buzz Lightyear as Andy's favorite toy, Woody's jealousy quickly took over and got him into trouble. When Woody unintentionally throws Buzz out the window, the other toys think he did this on purpose and began to hate and disbelieve him because of his jealousy. After Sid captures Woody and Buzz at Pizza Planet, Woody begins to bond with Buzz and tries the best he can to convince the other toys that Buzz is okay but they still don't believe him. When Sid plans to blow up Buzz, Woody rallies up Sid's mutant toys and we root for them to save Buzz and defeat Sid and Woody finally learns the importance of having a new friend. Tom Hanks is perfectly chosen as a flawed but confident toy in my opinion. I liked his wit, charm, and his inner bravery as he tries to save Buzz.

Buzz Lightyear has some interesting character development as well. When we first see him, he appears to be under the delusion that he's a space ranger who crash lands in uncharted territory while making friends with the toys. Woody tries to convince him that he's an action figure but Buzz doesn't believe him. As Buzz hides from Sid's dog, he sees a television commercial of Buzz Lightyear action figures in stores. When Buzz realizes that Woody is right, he develops severe depression, he won't talk to Woody, and even thinking that he can't help anyone. Woody convinces Buzz that being a toy is better than being a space ranger and Andy really loves him and accepted him as a toy. As Buzz sees Andy's name on his foot, he learns that being played with and loved as a toy isn't a bad thing after all and agrees to team up with Woody and get back to Andy. I'm not a Tim Allen fan but I think this is his best performance. He clearly was having fun playing a delusional action figure who thinks he's a superhero.

There's also some great and funny supporting characters, including a toy dog who's also a slinky, a T Rex who's ironically afraid and insecure, a cynical Mr Potato Head, Woody's girlfriend Bo Peep, the squeaky alien toys at Pizza Planet who think that the arcade claw game they live in is heaven, and of course, the imaginative Andy and the violent and destructive Sid.  

In addition of being a visual ground-breaker, the film also has a great story about friendship and what it means to be a toy. Andy is a very imaginative boy who not only plays with his toys but also loves them. A lot of children are imaginative with their toys when they play with them and the opening of the film establishes the theme with a typical cowboys and robbers conflict in which Woody is the hero and Mr Potato Head as the robber. Children also get sad and worried when their toys are lost. When Woody and Buzz went missing, Andy misses them terribly and wonders where they are and how he lost them. He thinks he lost responsibilities with his toys, but when Woody and Buzz come back to Andy, he's happy that they're back in his life and realizes he's responsible with his toys the whole time.

It also shows us how jealousy can get you to nowhere and how your reputation will tarnish. Woody becomes jealous as he's been replaced by Buzz as Andy's favorite toy. He lost most of his friends because of his jealousy towards Buzz and nobody would believe him. To prove his own innocence, Woody has convince his friends that Buzz is alive. There's a scene in Sid's room when Woody tries to convince his friends that Buzz is alive but Buzz gives him his severed arm due to his depression when he found out that he's a toy. Woody performs a puppet show with Buzz's arm but that easily backfired and his friends turned his back on him.

In the climactic chase scene when Andy is moving to a new house, Woody and Buzz are separated by Sid's dog, Scud. In desperation to save Buzz, Woody climbs to the moving van and uses a remote control toy car to save Buzz. Thinking Woody murdered the toy car, the toys throw him out of the moving van but Buzz and the car teams up with him, finally convincing them that Woody is innocent. They tried to save them but the battery is dying. But Woody lights the rocket strapped on Buzz's back by Sid, the toys finally got back to Andy and lived happily after ending. It's a well written and suspenseful climax in my opinion.

Overall, Toy Story is a masterpiece with stunning animation, rich story, strong morals, interesting characters, a thrilling climax, and great performances, especially from Tim Allen and Tom Hanks. 4 years later, we got Toy Story 2. Will it be in line with the original or will it be a disappointment? Tune in next time.

RATING: 4/4

Christmas in July Special - Alpha's Magical Christmas (1994)

Ever since i was a kid, I thought it was odd that people sometimes celebrate Christmas in July. I know December is a summer month in Australia but that's because of the climate. I'm talking about other countries like America, in which we watch Christmas specials and sometimes listen to Christmas songs in the summer. I figured if some people review holiday specials in December, why not July. For this Christmas in July special, the subject is the 1994 Power Rangers Christmas special, Alpha's Magical Christmas.

Before I begin, here's a little history. Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers was based on a long running Japanese superhero show called Super Sentai and some of the action scenes were actually taken from that show. The show focuses on six teenagers chosen by a wise wizard named Zordon, to be his superheros so they can save the world from the evil sorceress Rita Repulsa and her husband Lord Zedd. The show is crap. The heroes are goodie-goods, the special effects are cheap, the story-lines are thin and preachy, yet somehow, it's entertaining for what it is. A goofy, dumb, fun TV show. Now how and why do they make a Christmas special out of that?

To solve the problem, they focused on Alpha 5, Zordon's robotic assistant who sometimes feels lonely when the Power Rangers were off fighting evil. This was an idea from co creator Haim Saban's wife, Cheryl Saban, who seeks a desire to sell Alpha 5 toys to increase the character's popularity with very young children. Alpha 5's voice actor, Richard Steven Horvitz, believed that the special was a smart marketing idea. However, Alpha 5 toys were never manufactured until 16 years after the special. Is the special worth watching, or was it made because the show was so successful? Let's take a look!

It's Christmas time and Alpha feels lonely and friendless when the Rangers are at work. This time of year, the Rangers are helping Santa Claus deliver toys to children throughout the world instead of fighting monsters from Rita and Lord Zedd, who for some reason decided that ruining Christmas isn't worth the cost. (There is an episode in the show which they tried to ruin Christmas but i'l discuss that when i review more Christmas specials.) Realizing Alpha is bored, Zordon decides to have children from around the world to celebrate Christmas at The Command Center, Zordon's secret base for The Power Rangers.

There are so many things wrong with this plot, I don't know where to begin or end. First of all, if you seen the show, you should know that no one has access to The Command Center without a Power Coin, the source for the Ranger's powers. How is it possible that Zordon and Alpha let these kids in without power coins? Second, they took these kids without their parent knowledge. The parents would freak if their kids went missing and there would be a worldwide search for them. Third, how do these kids know Zordon and Alpha, considering the fact that this is their first time in The Command Center and yet they know them by name? And lastly, The Command Center is not the place to celebrate Christmas. It's a very secret base for the Rangers to have meetings on what Rita or Zedd were up to and Zordon told them to keep their identity a secret. These kids would already know who the Power Rangers are and they could easily tell their parents on who they are and where they work. Nice job blowing your own cover Zordon.

Anyways, there isn't really much of a story, just Alpha and the kids singing classic Christmas songs, baking cookies, decorating The Command Center etc. This special is just filler and padding and the constant singing and overly happy and cutesy tone panders to young kids, young kids who enjoy the show for all the action, adventure, and creativity that made the show popular in the first place. It's also very ironic that the special acknowledges that love for one another is the true meaning of Christmas yet the special's main purpose is to sell Alpha 5 toys.

The special ends with Alpha 5 and the kids singing "I'll Be Home for Christmas" and we get to see a clip show of previous and future episodes of the show featuring the Rangers, the kids went home through a vortex, Tommy (The Green Ranger, which makes no sense because in the clip show we saw footage of Tommy as the White Ranger and replacements of the Red, Black, and Yellow Rangers in the second half of Season 2) Kimberly (The Pink Ranger) and Billy (The Blue Ranger) visiting the Command Center to wish us a Merry Christmas, and they lived happily ever after.

So this is Alpha's Magical Christmas. This is an example of when you make a holiday special just for marketing reasons, it ended up being a corporate product that falls flat in it's face. The plot is ridiculous and makes no sense, the tone is too cutesy and saccharine, and it doesn't do the Power Rangers justice thanks to the constant singing and padding. The special may have it's fans, but if you think that making a Christmas special about The Power Rangers is a bad idea, it's better if you don't see it and watch the show instead.

Behind The Scenes Drama of The Big 4 of The Disney Renaissance

1989 to 1994 was an important era for Disney Animation, beginning with The Little Mermaid and ending with The Lion King. Critics, families, ordinary moviegoers, and animation/movie buffs praised these movies for their animation, characters, Broadway-style musical numbers, stories and themes and they sold a lot of box office tickets, home video copies, toys, and video games. Unfortunately, these movies were not always easy to make. This article deals with the nightmares the animators and writing staff went through, dealing with such topics such as studio interference, long work hours, Then-chairman Jeffery Katzenberg's impatience with animation, and writers and directors struggling with what the story should be. I'm excluding The Rescuers Down Under (1990) because there wasn't much production conflicts i can find and despite positive reviews from critics and animation fans, not that many people remember it thanks to Katzenberg pulling off TV ads after the opening weekend didn't meet expectations.

The Little Mermaid (1989) - Walt Disney attempted to adapt Hans Christian Anderson's fairy tale as a short subject for a package feature back in the late 1930s but the film never came into fruition. During the production of The Great Mouse Detective (1986), co-director Ron Clements was doing research at a bookstore and came across Hans Christian Anderson's fairy tale. Jeffery Katzenberg, who was promoted as Chairman of Disney in 1984, was reluctant to green light the film because the studio was working on a sequel to the 1984 hit comedy Splash, with Tom Hanks and Darryl Hannah. But later changed his mind after he read Clements's treatment of the film and the Splash sequel was cancelled and turned into a made for TV movie in 1988. Nobody knew that Walt planned to adapt The Little Mermaid until work from Dutch illustrator Kay Nielsen was discovered at the Disney archives. The iconic song "Part of Your World", about Ariel's desire to go to the human world, was nearly cut from the film because it reportedly bored children at a test screening and Katzenberg thought of doing it but Ariel's animator Glen Keane and songwriter Howard Ashman demanded the song to be kept in the film, which happened after a successful test screening with a different audience. The Little Mermaid was the last Disney animated feature to use cels, sheets of plastic used for tracing the front of the animation drawings and color them on the back. The labor was intense so some of the animation was done at a Chinese art facility near Beijing. Unfortunately, this was taking place during protest at Tienanmen Square. Due to the intense labor, Disney decided to use Pixar's CAPS (Computer Animation Production System) to finish the film. It was used in only one shot in the film when the mermaids waving goodbye to Prince Eric and Ariel while King Triton casts a rainbow on top of the ship. Despite these difficulties, production was smooth compared to the next 3 films.

Beauty and the Beast (1991) - Like The Little Mermaid, Walt Disney attempted to adapt the Beauty and the Beast legend but never paid off due to difficulties of adapting the story and French filmmaker Jean Cocteau already made his version in 1946. During the production of Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988), the project was resurrected. Roger Rabbit's director of animation, Richard Williams. was approached to direct the film but he was focusing on finishing his pet project called The Thief and the Cobbler (1993) but he recommended his friend Richard Purdum to do the job. Purdum's version was very different than the finished film. It was close to the original tale and was not a musical. When Purdum pitched his idea in 1989, Jeffery Katzenberg was dissatisfied and turned the film into a musical. Purdum quit the project. Following Little Mermaid's success, songwriters Alan Menken and Howard Ashman were hired to do the songs. Unfortunately, Ashman was HIV positive since 1988 and was slowly dying so he had to do work at the Residence Inn in Fishkill, New York. He sadly died in his hospital bed in March 14, 1991 at age 40. As bad as things have been with Ashman's health and death, the situation with the animation department was even worse. The animators were given no vacation time in order for the the film to look perfect. Several marriages were broken, there was little time for them to raise kids, hands would shake while holding drinks, and they developed Carpal tunnel syndrome. This happened when Aladdin was in production too. Katzenberg had made a meeting with the animators to ask them what it's like working with him and when they told their stories, he was in tears.

Aladdin (1992) - Unlike the last 2 films, Walt never made plans to adapt the story of Aladdin. It was a pet project Howard Ashman developed in 1988. His vision of the film was closer to the plot and characters of the original story, but envisioned as a campy 1930s Hollywood style musical. Sadly, the studio dismissed Ashman's treatment and he and Alan Menken were removed from Aladdin to save Beauty and the Beast. Screenwriter Linda Woolverton, who wrote Beauty and the Beast, took on Ashman's treatment and included elements from The Thief of Baghdad (1940). In April 1991, a month after Ashman's death, Jeffery Katzenberg hated the story ideas that was given him and encouraged the writers and directors John Musker and Ron Clements to start all over. Several characters were deleted, including Aladdin's mother, Princess Jasmine was changed from spoiled brat to a rebellious princess who is forced to marry a prince, and changed Aladdin's personality into a Harrison Ford type. Worst of all, Katzenberg refused to change the November 1992 release date. The story and characters were re written in 8 days and Katzenberg finally green lit the project. Robin Williams chose to do the voice of The Genie on the condition that the studio should not overexpose him because he was working on Toys, a movie which director Barry Levinson was working on for 10 years and Williams was underpaid by Disney. When The Genie spread massive publicity, Williams refused to work for Disney ever again until Jeffery Katzenberg's departure in 1994.

The Lion King (1994) - The Lion King was an idea developed by Disney executives Jeffery Katzenberg, Roy E. Disney, and Peter Schneider in 1988 during a plane trip to Europe while promoting Oliver and Company. Katzenberg has said that the film was a little bit about himself, referring his to his early life into politics when he was a teenager. Scripts flew around over the years from several writers, from Thomas Disch, to Linda Woolverton. Early drafts were far different than the final film, one focused on a war between lions and baboons. It was not intended to be a musical and was more like a National Geographic type film. After a 1991 research trip to Africa, the film changed into a musical, causing co director George Scribner to quit the project and be replaced by Rob Minkoff. In early 1992, producer Don Hahn felt that the script was lacking a clear theme and he established the theme of accepting responsibility. He teamed up with directors Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff, Beauty and the Beast directors Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise, and head of story Brenda Chapman to rework the story in 2 days and changed the title from King of the Jungle to The Lion King because lions don't live in the jungle. Screenwriters Johnathon Roberts and Irene Mecchi wrote the screenplay the following months and rewrites were frequent, with scenes being reanimated due to dialogue changes. The release date changed from Thanksgiving 1993 to Summer 1994. Disney had little to no faith in the project, as the studio expected Pocahontas (1995) to be the hit instead of The Lion King. Katzenberg views Pocahontas as "West Side Story with Dances with Wolves" while he views The Lion King as a weird experiment (ironic as the film was partially his idea). Disney's top animators chose to do Pocahontas while the animators on The Lion King were either first timers or animal lovers. The animators also had a rough time finishing the film. In January 1994, The Northridge earthquake caused Disney to close down, so the animators had to finish the movie at their homes.

In-spite of their production difficulties, these movies were eventually made and were big successes. Years later, these films have still held up to us. Even if we have our opinions on the films and the making of these films were difficult, these movies still have a place in our hearts, with dazzling animation, interesting stories, characters we cared about, and entertaining songs.