lodi_70005 Reviews

Santa with Muscles (1996)

The Hulkster must smoke rock

[24 August 2006]

I am sure most of the posters here are not wrestling fans. Therefore, I will clue you in on a couple of things. Hulk Hogan is an ego maniacal jackass that demands creative control over anything he is involved in.

This movie might not have been a classic when it was first written, but I will be fair and say it had average potential(a rating of 5). The movie probably had a different title at first until......Hulkamania arrived.

Hulk Hogan has this remarkable ability to turn something good or average into unwatchable garbage. Original title may have been "When Santa got Rich" or "Santa CEO" or something slightly stupid. Hogan looks at the title and says "no way brother, my fans don't know nothing about no CEO(the first true words to come out of the mouth of the Hulkster in twenty years). So he called it "Santa with Muscles" because no project involving Hogan is allowed to go 5 seconds without referring to the "24 inch pythons" After adding scenes where blow up candy canes are used by Hogan with results comparable to the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Hogan finally has gotten his wish. He ruined what might have been an enjoyable movie experience for two year olds and those who are "mentally challenged" or retards as Hogan's faithful redneck fans may call them.

I am not surprised at how bad this film turned out. Wrestling fans with half a brain have hated Hogan for years. He exercises creative control when he is told that he is going to lose and this ends up boring anyone with a below average iq on up to tears. Hogan may have turned wrestling into a million dollar industry with a lot of help from the master marketing machine named Vince Mcmahon. Many good people sacrificed their wrestling careers by falling prey to Hogan's trademark "leg drop of doom" and now some poor director is probably living under a bridge in Los Angeles damning the day he got involved with Hulk Hogan. Hogan may have helped turn wrestling into mainstream entertainment, but he also singlehandedly destroyed the same industry(his tired act help put WCW into the ground) he helped build by never learning more than three moves. Punch, back scratch, high boot and leg drop. Oops that is four moves. Some things never change. In the ring the bad guy always loses to Hulk via leg drop. In the movies, Hogan expands his creative horizons by having the bad guy lose via Plastic candy Kane.

American History X (1998)

Great until the end

[8/10 · 24 August 2006]

This movie definitely deserves a spot in the top 250. I gave it an 8 out of ten, but I can easily see why other posters would give it a ten. I could not give this movie a ten because it is not one of those classics that I can watch over and over. The movie is a roller coaster ride that I felt should have ended on a high note. Sure, I am not a fan of the cliché "perfect Hollywood ending". However, this is one film that I felt should not have ended in the most depressing way imaginable.

I have read some comments on IMDb.com about the director having problems with the ending. He even went so far as trying to have his name taken off the credits and replaced with "Humpty Dumpty". I must say that I agree with him. Since I know that the younger brother will die in the end it prevents me from watching this movie very often as it is just too depressing. I think a good alternative ending would have Norton's character held back for the rest of his life by his record. He is way too intelligent to enjoy life while having to work as some sort of laborer for the rest of his life. The irony would have been "an eye for an eye" as he ruined lives by committing manslaughter and there is nothing worse for an extremely smart person to dig ditches for a living. This is something I can definitely relate to. However, his younger brother often supports him financially in the future as a payback for saving him from a life of "naziism". Norton's character is punished for his sins, yet there is some redemption for turning his back on the nazi's which regarded him as a hero.

That is how I would have ended the movie if I was given the script. This alternate ending would be far from your stock "Hollywood happy ending", without being so depressing.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

What do people expect?

[9/10 · 24 August 2006]

Few films have the ability to cover the whole "grade" spectrum, however, leave it to Tarantino to pull it off. I have read many comments on this film and if I didn't know any better I would have to use the term controversial to describe Quentin Tarantino. What other word could better describe a film that receives icon status with the obligatory perfect 10 rating from a reviewer only to be followed by a "bomb" 1 or 2 rating. Well, I gave the movie a 9 and if someone would start a drum roll I will tell you why.

Normally, I would have given this movie a perfect ten due to the fact that I never tire of watching it. If I need a laugh, throw Pulp Fiction into the DVD player because it never fails to deliver. However, I had to go way back to 1994 to remember why I have to give it a nine. Pulp Fiction almost lost me when I watched it the first time. I described the movie in 1994 as "very slow in the beginning, but stick with it and it all pays off". I use the term "lost me" because it best describes the art form that I most love and even perform on a regular basis.

I am a stand up comedian. You may be saying so what? Well when you watch this movie from my point of view, then you might appreciate it for what it is(which I will get to in a moment if I don't lose you). Stand-up comedy if not for the faint of heart. Unless you are a well known commodity(Chris Rock, George Carlin), audiences will not give you time of day. If you don't grab their attention in the first thirty seconds, then you have probably lost them for good. It doesn't matter if the rest of your act would make the warden from "Shawshank Redemption" roll over in his chair barely able to breathe from laughter, its a lost cause. Well, the first time I saw Pulp Fiction, the film was about ten seconds from losing me in the first 45 minutes. Now that I have developed an appreciation for the movie, it never comes close to losing me as I am watching a masterpiece unfold. The problem with people who give this movie a 1 is that they take "filmwatching" too seriously.

Pulp Fiction is not Citizen Kane. Surprise!! Pulp Fiction did not want to be Citizen Kane. Not every movie is made with the intention of making you look deep into your own soul to discover the meaning of life. There is nothing wrong with movies that have a profound positive impact on people. "Shawshank Redemption" is my favorite movie of all time and I admit that it always brings a tear to my eye. There is nothing wrong with movies that teach you something about people of a different era or race. I love "The Color Purple" and "Driving Miss Daisy".

I would give all three of the above mentioned films a 10(Shawshank, Color Purple, Driving Miss Daisy). I know some of the people who have coined Pulp Fiction with terms like "i worry about the world I live in when I see people rating this trash a ten" are probably thinking that I must be bi-polar.However, when you look at these four films as a whole, there are many recurring themes. Rape occurs in most of the above mentioned films and all the films have racial overtones. So if these classics have so much in common, then why such a disparity in the way these films are graded? Pulp Fiction isn't trying to say that rape is cool. Tarantino is simply taking a very dramatic experience and finding a way to derive some humor from it. Often, the best laughs come unexpectedly and for a comedian like me not to see the punchline coming from a mile away is very much appreciated. You must admit that Tarantino has some filming courage. I can only imagine the crew on the set of Pulp Fiction during the car scene. To have blood and human brains splattered across the car while listening to Tarantino asking Samuel Jackson and Travolta to be funny with the dialog must have been hilarious. Only a very skilled filmmaker could make the following quote funny. "What now? Let me tell you what now. I'ma call a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' n-word, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch. You hear me talking', hillbilly boy? I ain't through with you by a damn sight. I'ma get medieval on your ass. Very few people could read that dialogue and make it funny.

I'll close with this. . Just loosen up a bit and watch the movie with lowered expectations. Criminals do have everyday conversations. They don't just talk about killing people all day. In fact they probably don't discuss it much at all. Didn't you learn anything from The Godfather or Goodfellas? Its always "take care of that thing with that short guy from the south". That is the point that Tarantino is trying to establish in the opening scenes with the whole "Royal with cheese" dialogue that people whine about so much. Once you loosen up and realize that this isn't one of those groundbreaking films that teaches us values blah blah blah....then you might see that Pulp Fiction isn't that different than some of your favorites. Most of the classic films tackle issues like rape, racism, and violence. The difference between Pulp Fiction and the other classics is that sensitive issues are dealt with in comedic fashion rather than the standard dramatic flair that most of us are use to. Psychologist always recommend humor to "break the ice" prior to dealing with sensitive issues. So think about that before you throw a one out of ten grade to a film that obviously deserves better.