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

The Summer Movies of 1980's (1980)

It's the mid to late 1970's. Jaws and Star Wars have been huge critical and box office hits and were responsible for the summer blockbuster trend. Special effects technology was getting better and Hollywood is now interested in high concept films and big budget spectaculars while the "New Hollywood" era was coming to an end. As the decades progressed, many moviegoers are flocking to see escapist entertainments, some good, some bad. Everyone has their favorite era for summer movies but mine is the summer movies of the 1980's. Even though I'm born in 1995, I've always have a strong interest in them. I'm not going into every movie for this series. If there's a movie I never saw or if I saw parts of a movie but didn't have time or interest to finish it, that movie will be excluded and will be reviewed on it's own.

What better time to start the series with the summer movies of 1980. We have a long awaited Star Wars sequel, The Blues Brothers heading to the big screen, and Bill Murray chasing a gopher. The summer of 1980 has it all.

FRIDAY THE 13TH
RELEASE DATE: MAY 9th

PLOT SUMMARY: After the success of John Carpenter's Halloween (1978), producer-director Sean S. Cunningham has created the popular Friday the 13th series, about a mad slasher stalking and killing a group of teenagers in the haunted Camp Crystal Lake. It's been 22 years since the camp was closed after several camp counselors have been murdered and a new group of kids are planning to reopen the abandoned camp ground. Unfortunately, the same killer (Betsy Palmer) is murdering the new kids and it's up to a counselor named Alice Hardy (Adrienne King) to stop her.

MY OPINION: After Psycho and Halloween, more slasher films were being made and this was an era when slasher films make money at the box office, regardless of the quality, violence, or what the critics thought of them. I watched the film with an open mind and I don't think it's that bad. Yeah, the characters were kind of hard to care about and there are random scenes and filler, such as a snake in the cabin and the characters playing Monopoly, but Tom Savini's gore effects were good, the cinematography was atmospheric, even for a low budget film, and Betsy Palmer did a great job of playing the culprit. It's no masterpiece, but it's not a terrible film either. Still, despite negative reviews from critics, the film made enough money at the box office to convince Paramount Pictures to green light a sequel, but we'll get to that in 1981.

STAR WARS EPISODE V: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK
RELEASE DATE: MAY 21st

PLOT SUMMARY: After the destruction of the Death Star, Luke Skywalker and his friends continue their rebellion against the Empire in this long awaited sequel to Star Wars. This time, Luke Skywalker learns the way of the Jedi from the wise Jedi master Yoda (voiced by Frank Oz from The Muppets), Han Solo and his friends take shelter to Cloud City after the ice planet of Hoth was invaded, only to be caught by Darth Vader (voiced by James Earl Jones), and we now discover that Vader is Luke's father.

MY OPINION: This is one of the great achievements in the history of film and it's a rare sequel that's better than the original film, which is also a great movie. In addition of being a great special effects spectacular, this also a surprisingly mature and moody film that has a life goes on ending instead of a traditional happy ending and the mythology and themes are as strong as it is in the original film. It's not just a great Star Wars film, it's one of the best films of all time and already the summer of 1980 has just gotten started.

THE SHINING
RELEASE DATE: MAY 23rd

PLOT SUMMARY: Acclaimed filmmaker Stanley Kubrick brings us his own unique adaptation of Stephen King's haunted house story. Recovering alcoholic and writer Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) has been hired as the caretaker of The Overlook Hotel and has his wife and son to come along with him. Unfortunately, the hotel has a haunted past and Jack has been influenced by the supernatural forces and plans to murder his family.

MY OPINION: I've read early chapters of the book but I couldn't finish it because real life gets in the way. So I decided to see the movie with an open mind for this article and I enjoyed the film for what it is, an ambiguous psychological thriller. There's has been criticism on how the film diverged from the book and Stephen King himself disowned the film, but I greatly enjoy the film. The ambiguous visuals and pacing is hypnotic, the creepy music has some bizarre charm, and I loved Jack Nicholson's performance.

BON VOYAGE, CHARLIE BROWN (AND DON'T COME BACK)
RELEASE DATE: MAY 30th

PLOT SUMMARY: Three years after Race For Your Life, Charlie Brown, Paramount Pictures decided to make another movie based on the Peanuts comic strip by Charles Schultz. This time, Charlie Brown and the gang decide to take a field trip to France as foreign exchange students. A young and mysterious French girl has written a letter for him to invite him to her chateau. When Charlie Brown and his friend Linus arrive to the chateau, they realize that the girl is living with an unkind uncle and the boys don't feel welcome.

MY OPINION: I've been a fan of the Charlie Brown cartoons as a kid but I haven't seen them in ages. So, I decided to watch this film for the sake of this article and I found it charming. It was harmless, inoffensive, and it's now making me go back to the cartoons I've enjoyed back as a child. Sure the animation was cheap but the film survives because of it's likable characters and decent comedy between Snoopy and Woodstock.

THE MOUNTAIN MEN
RELEASE DATE: MAY 30th

PLOT SUMMARY: In the 1830's, two fur trappers (Charlton Heston and Brain Keith) get caught up in a war against Native Americans while an Indian woman (Victoria Racimo) runs away from her abusive husband (Stephen Macht). The two fur trappers protect her, unaware that her husband has rounded up his tribe to search for her.

MY OPINION: Charlton Heston has been a big star since the 50's and 60's with hits such as The Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur, and Planet of the Apes. But since the 70's and 80's, his career seems to be on a downward spiral. He's been in movies that are so campy, they could have been made in the 50's. This film is no different. The action is standard cowboys and Indians, the comedy is not funny, and the music is kind of campy and silly. The Mountain Men was forgotten back then and deserves to be.

THE BLUES BROTHERS
RELEASE DATE: JUNE 20th

PLOT SUMMARY: Jake and Elwood Blues (John Belushi and Dan Akroyd) team up on a mission from God to reunite their R&B band so they could raise money to save an orphanage from foreclosure while the team is targeted by Neo-Nazis, a crazy woman with weapons (Carrie Fisher), a country band, and the police.

MY OPINION: This is another summer movie from 1980 worth remembering. This film is a great mixture of rhythm and blues, action, and comedy. John Belushi and Dan Akroyd made a great team, the music and action scenes are exciting and the comedy works. This film was reportedly very expensive to make, costing $30 million, and you can tell that director John Landis put a lot of effort into those action scenes. This film deserves to be remembered.

HERBIE GOES BANANAS
RELEASE DATE: JUNE 25th

PLOT SUMMARY: In this third sequel to the 1968 Disney comedy, The Love Bug, the lovable Volkswagen with the mind of it's own teams up with an orphaned pickpocket (Joaquin Garay, III) and a couple of American tourists (Charles Martin Smith and the late Stephen W. Burns) to travel on a cruise ship to across Central America while the pickpocket unknowingly carries important information from 3 crooks and wacky hi-jinks ensue. Mel Brooks regulars Cloris Leachman and Harvey Korman co star.

MY OPINION: I have vague memories of the Herbie franchise. I only saw the original film and this film and I haven't seen them in years and I never saw other films in the series. After watching this one, I've come to conclusion that the Herbie series is just not my cup of tea. I just didn't think the comedy is funny and I think the talented people involved were in the film to cash pay checks. I never was a fan of Herbie and I like to keep it that way.

AIRPLANE
RELEASE DATE: JULY 2nd

PLOT SUMMARY: Writing and directing team Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, and Jerry Zucker tackle 1970's disaster movies in this classic comedy about a man with a fear of flying who saves an airplane from crashing after the pilots became ill of food poisoning. In addition to parodying disaster films, the filmmakers also make fun of Jaws and Saturday Night Fever.

MY OPINION: Prior to the crap from Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg (Epic Movie and Meet the Spartans), movie parodies were made with actual effort, especially parodies from Mel Brooks and The Abrahams and Zucker Brothers team. Airplane is a great example of the effort and hard work into the film. In addition to the quotable dialogue and funny sight gags, the cast clearly had fun with the performances, especially Leslie Nielsen, who later became a comedic star after his past as a dramatic actor. This is another summer movie of 1980 that deserves to be remembered.

USED CARS
RELEASE DATE: JULY 11th

PLOT SUMMARY: Prior to his successes of Back to the Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and Forrest Gump, director Robert Zemeckis has made this raunchy satire on used car dealerships. After used car dealer Luke Fuchs (the late Jack Warden) dies of a heart attack, hot shot salesman Rudy Russo (Kurt Russel) tries the best he can to save the business and keep it alive while competing against Luke's brother and rival, Roy L. Fuchs (also played by Jack Warden).

MY OPINION: I remember having mixed feelings when I first saw the film. But after re watching the film for this article, I began to enjoy the film more. I felt there was joy in the performances, I laughed at most of the comedy, and the film's climax showcases Zemeckis' talent as a director and his style and storytelling improves through the course of his career. This looks like a fun movie to make and it shows in my opinion.

CADDYSHACK
RELEASE DATE: JULY 25th

PLOT SUMMARY: A down-on-his-luck caddy (Michael O'Keefe) works at a golf course to get money for college while comedic situations are taking place. There's a gopher who wrecks havoc while Bill Murray tries to stop it, a rivalry between co-founder Ted Knight and obnoxious golfer Rodney Dangerfield, Chvey Chase's bizarre philosophy, and a candy bar that gets mistaken for fecal matter in a swimming pool.

MY OPINION: Boy, a lot of good comedies had came out that summer did they? First The Blues Brothers, then Airplane, then Used Cars, now Caddyshack. Sure the plot kinda meandered but the comedy works, the characters were fun to be around, and the dialogue is very funny. It's crude, crass, and juvenile, but it's also a very funny and smart comedy and worth checking out.

XANADU
RELEASE DATE: AUGUST 8th

PLOT SUMMARY: A frustrated artist for album covers teams up with Gene Kelly and Olivia Newton John to open a disco club called Xanadu. But as the artist falls in love with Newton John, he begins to realize that she's a muse from Greek mythology.

MY OPINION: Wow! What a bizarre, incoherent mess this movie really is! I knew it was a critical and commercial flop, I knew the Disco era was starting to decline, I knew that this film helped inspire the infamous Golden Raspberry Awards, but I was not prepared for this at all. The story was making things up as it went along, the characters are bland and uninteresting, and the musical numbers and special effects really don't hold up. If you're interested in this kind of film, give it a watch. If not, then avoid this one.

This wraps up the Summer Movies of 1980. Before I go, I just like to say that I'll only post entries of the Summer Movies of the 1980's series once in a while because these articles are hard to do and I'll also focus on real life activities like school, other series I plan to do on this blog, writing articles on RetroJunk, and making VLOGs I can post on this blog.

My reviews of the Summer Movies of 1981 will be coming soon. As Siskel and Ebert always say, "The balcony is closed".

I now have a Retrojunk account.

First of all, I just like to wish you all a happy belated new year.  I hope you have a great time so far this year and I'm almost done with my first entry of my Summer Movies of 1980's series. What I'm writing today is that I now have an account on a pop culture site called RetroJunk, which you can upload movie trailers, TV commercials, and write articles on what you're passionate about. I have written 2 articles so far and you can click on the links below.

https://www.retrojunk.com/article/show/5354/the-making-of-the-big-4-of-the-disney-renaissance

https://www.retrojunk.com/article/show/5353/why-is-star-wars-so-popular

Have a safe new year everyone.

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