Change Your Image
cppguy
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Devil's Mile (2014)
A nearly pedestrian horror film with some redeeming twists
Sometimes I watch a movie because I'm doing something else that's fairly dull and want a little action. That was my reason for watching "Devil's Mile" on Amazon. Adjusting from 5 scale on Amazon to 10 scale on IMDb, the viewers there are giving it a 7.2. Now that I've seen it, I have to agree.
The standard creepy elements are all there. This film isn't breaking any new ground, but then that's never stopped people from making and watching movies before. There are even things I was predicting that showed up as expected. It's actually when the female leads get talking seriously that the story moves along. There's a creepy dude that shows up in what seem like flashbacks. He only really begins to make sense to the story when you get near the end... and I did not predict the end.
This movie simply is not as bad as the overall ratings make it out to be. But then, consider the limited number of reviews this film has had.
The Wicker Man (2006)
Yeah, really, just 1
Every time I see someone give a 1 rating to a film, I ask "did you really find it worse than 'Manos: the Hands of Fate?'" I have actually re-watched "Manos" a few times for its unintentional humor. I watched "The Wicker Man" just once and definitely found it less watchable than "Manos." At least "Manos" could be forgiven for being completely produced by amateurs. "Wicker Man" can't use that excuse. I have a few other high-production value films that I give horrible ratings for simply because, in the end, they don't rise above the level "Manos" and other films like it.
Oddly enough, I generally like Nick Cage. I have enjoyed a lot of his films. I don't think he performed any better or worse than normal. This film's problem came from over-rating the value of the script. There are just some things that shouldn't be committed to film regardless of production values. "Wicker Man" was one such film. Cinema Sins wasn't nearly as kind to it as I would have been, and yet they ripped so many new ones only "new ones" were all that was left.
Deadpool (2016)
Gotta be a better way to rate this
I watched this today and had a good time. It wasn't really more or less than I expected. Top 250 quality? Hmmm... iffy. The Marvel franchise really needed something R-rated (like "Kickass") and this seemed to do the job. I got a kick out of the 4th wall jokes (I like movies that poke fun at themselves). I thought the pacing was good except for the sex/romance scenes. There were some funny moments, but it dragged sometimes there and felt too much like movies from around 1980 where sex was inserted whether you liked it or not. (I would have had a less trouble with this, but some fool brought a girl into the theater who couldn't have been more than 8 years old. I can appreciate bawdy humor, but that's the stuff for grownups.)
For the most part, the writing is good. Characters are fun. Opening scene is very creative. CGI is what I expected. Deadpool seems to carry the Spiderman dark humor, just raunchier.
For those who gave 1-star reviews, I'm going to get Deadpool, Dr. Forrester and Pearl and make you sit through movies until you give better ratings. "Gigli" anyone?
Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)
I wish I had watched this in theaters
What a fun romp this film was. Oh, sure, it's a typical action film and a lot is predictable and no new ground is broken. However, main character Eggsy is quite likable. Usually characters in this role initially seem unredeemable, but we know he's got what it takes from the start. I guess that's a refreshing change from the usual.
It was also fun to see SL Jackson play a very different role than usual. I had to check the trivia section on IMDb to confirm, but I was pretty sure that his lisp in the movie was his own idea. It was.
Overall the film manages to have the right balance of comedy and over- the-top action movie violence. It's a great film for an evening you just want to relax and let your mind check out for a while.
The Veil (2016)
Not a bad little horror flick
I usually expect crud from this sort of movie. I certainly wouldn't spend money at the box office, but for a bit of diversion on Neftlix it did a good job. Acting was decent, pacing not bad, and I think it had a better reason for the creepy crawlies to be who and what they were. Too many horror movies follow a pattern of having the nasties seem a bit like they are being lazy near the beginning, and only in the last minutes of the film do they finally seem to rise to their alleged nastiness. Fortunately for "The Veil" we start getting in the swing of things not long after we've got our characters established. We also get a bit of "found film" even though this isn't a "found film"...er.... film.
Curl up with some popcorn, or iron your laundry while you watch. You'll get some decent watching from "The Veil."
Gone Girl (2014)
Gone Girl... fated for a lower rating?
I hesitate to write yet another review of this since there are so many. I generally get very frustrated with so many reviewers giving films a 1-star rating because I think to myself "Really? 1? You thought it was less watchable than 'Manos: the Hands of Fate?'" Well, there, I did it; I gave it 1-star. I thought it less watchable than "Manos."
So many positive reviewers ask "how can anyone possibly think this movie stinks?" Well, then let me explain: story-trashing plot holes. The first part of the movie had some awkward moments that others have complained about in other reviews, but I'll let those go for the sake of a review. But mid-way through the film (the point most of us are fussing about) all brains go away.
If you watch anything like CSI, that's how the police are at the start. It's really needed for the plot for them to have some brains. That's the first part of the movie.
If you watched "Manos..." you might recall a scene where there is someone firing a gun at someone else outdoors. In the next camera shot, you see two police officers standing on either side of their squad car. They walk forward to the front of the car, peer into the distance to see the source of the gunfire, then look at each other, shrug and return to get in the car and carry on like nothing happened. "Manos" had the excuse the it was an amateur production with a camera with only 30 seconds of film time and lighting that only illuminated to the front of the car. It was inadvertently comic. However, this generally is how the cops take to behaving in the second part of the film.
I'm avoiding film details, but you can read about all plot holes in other reviews, but suffice to say I started saying out-loud "that can't happen" or "in what universe is this supposed to be taking place?"
I'm not going to toss out a lengthy review of the acting (it's mixed in other reviews, but I thought it was OK). Nor did I find a problem with the directing and filming. I DID notice a trend among 10-star reviewers in that they felt need to mention Fincher's many other film triumphs as if to say "Gone Girl" required a superb rating (perhaps even given without actually watching it).
It's shocking that this film is in the top 250... not that there are others in the list I don't care for, but at least I understand why they are there. I think (hope) that over time this movie drops out of the top list. It simply doesn't belong there. And maybe those of use reviewing this dog so badly scared off people that they never watch... and then never vote. Time will tell.
Compliance (2012)
Compelling, yet misunderstood
I found it interesting to read all the 1-star reviews. I came to one conclusion after reading them: the reviewers weren't writing about the movie, but about the real-life people that prompted the story. One person condemned the writers for coming up with a preposterous story and he was clearly unaware that it's a true story. Of course, there's the old saw that truth is stranger than fiction because truth doesn't have to make sense.
I also find it interesting to see how many people think that even if this movie is a true story, it has to be an anomaly: a totally bizarre twist of human behavior that is just too weird to be made into a movie. But that is exactly what makes a movie interesting. You don't make a movie about a guy who loses his job and finds a new one; end of story. You make a movie about a guy who loses his job and then goes postal and shoots people at his old job and takes them hostage.
But it seems the stupidity shown in the movie are just all too common. If it weren't so common, such websites as failblog.org or the "not-always" family of websites wouldn't be filled with so much content. "Compliance" is just a movie-length failblog entry.
As for the film's actual filming, content aside, the actors manage to convey the sort of banal stupidity that the original people entered into. Such touches as the store manager giving a typical lame "let's hustle" speech at the start of the shift give an air of reality. But the mere fact that this movie made so many people squirm to watch it (particularly one rather shocking bit that was mostly self-censored) compels me to give this film a good rating.
As for the content, I consider this a must-see film. I suppose I could explain many reasons why, but I'll use an example. Just before I wrote this review, I read a news article about a woman released from prison after 20 years because DNA evidence exonerated her of killing her baby. But if she didn't do it, how could there be a conviction by a jury? Unfortunately, too often jurors just figure the authorities have it right and convict. (I'm told the situation is even worse with grand juries.) Bottom line: if you were arrested for something you didn't do, would you want your fate in the hands of the people with the mindset of the people in "Compliance?" Or would you want a jury of people who have seen this movie and were moved by it?
Contracted (2013)
Belongs among the worst
I can actually think of worse movies, so I won't give this 1 star. Others have covered the movie as a whole, so I'll center on something specific.
The main character *finally* sees a doctor despite her symptoms that should have sent her to the emergency room day 1. I have to conclude from the scene with the doctor that the script writers have never once in their lives been to a doctor. The doctor she visits confines his examination to peek in her ears and a glance at the gangrenous rot at her crotch and then suggests moisturizer. Moisturizer? SRSLY?! I once had a milder rash in the nether regions and that got me a direct diagnosis and a prescription.
I can hear the script writers now: "If we had a doctor actually *be* a doctor, then she would have gone to a hospital, been treated and we wouldn't have the movie we made." That's right, you morons: it's called a "plot hole!" You write something else. Perhaps instead the doctor could have misdiagnosed or the hospital could have been the incubation point for spreading the contraction to others, but, no, the doctor became the yenta next-door saying "oy! just rub a little lotion on your bleeding crotch-rot and you'll be OK." Now transfer this stupidity to the actions of all the rest of the characters in the movie and you've got a good idea of what you're getting into... or avoiding.
Billy Jack (1971)
Ratings seem age based
I've given this a low rating for one good reason: I did what someone else suggested I do and that's not compare "Billy Jack" to films of today but compare it to the films of 1971. Gosh... lessee... OK, compare it to "Fiddler on the Roof," "A Clockwork Orange," "The French Connection," "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory." Should I go on? Those of you who were 14-21 back in 1971 need to face a simple fact and that is "Billy Jack" was a low-budget "message" film that managed to resonate with your age group. My sons stumbled on me watching this today and one remarked "the acting and dialog are terrible." They are majoring in media in college and know the difference between good and bad film-making.
I was 9 when "Billy Jack" came out and the whole hippie thing was already becoming nostalgia by the time I was old enough to have been a part. Consequently, the movie felt more like watching old clichés come to life than anything either nostalgic or inspiring.
That said, the movie isn't really a train wreck. I thought it was worth watching to see the sketches done by Howard Hesseman (Johnny Fever from "WKRP") and his friends from the Committee. The hold-up scene felt like "who's on first?" collided with the Monty Python crew.
The Pyramid Code (2009)
A load of rubbish
I didn't give this the worst possible rating simply because it does an OK job of looking like a real documentary.
However, don't let that fool you. I know a few reviewers have said "keep an open mind" but there's no room whatsoever in documentaries for suspension of dis-belief... something you must engage in to appear to have an open mind towards this nonsense.
The scientists interviewed to give credence to this series are fringe scientists. For example, their physicist is a goofball who is into chi and psychic healing.
If you get all excited to be informed by this "documentary" that the rooms in the pyramids have "resonance frequencies" then this is for you. If you realize that every enclosed space has a resonance frequency, maybe it isn't quite so exciting.
In summary, "The Pyramid Code" has more in common with "Chariots of the Gods" than real documentaries.
The Host (2013)
Good date movie
"Kiss me like you want to get slapped" says the alien. The line is marvelous in context.
I hated the move "In War and Peace" because it had elements to offend and bore both men and women. "The Host" is the direct opposite. Sci-fi and action for the guys; emotions and relationships for the gals. How can you go wrong?
*sigh* Apparently, according to many reviewers, lots of inexplicable ways. Let's get real: this is not "Citizen Kane" or "Shawshank Redemption" nor is it "Gigli" or "Manus." If you gave this movie a 1 or 10 rating, for the sake of us who love movies, quit reviewing them... you're a moron.
I suppose there are dozen ways to push this movie from a 6 to a 7 or 8, but they didn't happen. I'll settle for a nice ending. (note: this review completed 5 minutes before the film ended... the ending was unexpected. Enjoy.)
Tower Heist (2011)
Sadly forgettable
There is nothing terribly wrong with this movie. The problem is, I started watching this movie for a second time and realized only partly through it that I had seen it before. It's a good but forgettable movie.
The cast is delightful and comprised of some good pros. It's a great date movie or fun to watch with friends. There are some good laughs and Ben Stiller gives one of his better performances. Alan Alda plays the villain, but as villains go, the role is lame. (Don't blame Alda for the role... the script didn't make him sleazy enough. On the other hand, you can blame me for complaining that the sleaze-bag was a more realistic character for not being over-the-top nasty. This is a tough call.)
This is a very watchable movie in many adult/teen contexts. Pull out the snacks and pop in the video and be amused for 100 minutes.
Wedding Crashers (2005)
What a stupid movie.... but....
... so much fun. Yeah, plot is thin, there are no special effects, there's nothing new to see here, but it's a great date movie. I always enjoy Christopher Walken on screen. I normally can't stand Owen Wilson, but he's a bit more subdued here and the role fits him.
For those who like to analyze movies, let's get to the point: The first 6-7 minutes of the movie give us a riotous montage of our two protagonists doing what they do best: picking up chicks. It's rubbed in our faces. This totally frees us to spend the rest of the movie enjoying watching our heroes pulled out of their comfort zones and having to cope with... OMG! relationships! Bag o' popcorn and snacks, some beer and/or wine, S.O. or a few good friends over for movie night and this is a good choice. It's not "Citizen Cain" nor "Shawshank Redemption," but it's a good movie.
Wasted on the Young (2010)
The ultimate 5
I found it tough to rate this movie. First off, the acting and cinematography are great. The plot idea is superb. There are some great political and social overtones. (Kudos to the reviewer who said this was "Lord of the Flies meets Facebook." That's a great analogy.) It's clear that this is a "Peanuts" world where adults are out there somewhere, but can't be seen or heard. However, if the writers wanted to go that direction, they can't create a world with adults that's totally without them. In Golding's vision, the adults were simply not present. In this world, the adults are there, but totally inert. This ruins the movie in a few ways. I won't give away plot elements here, but there's a fight in the film. It's preceded by a chase through library, halls, classrooms, etc. and students pour out of those rooms. The fight continues unabated until one of the protagonists is defeated and hauled off. Yet no teacher intervenes when students abandon classrooms; nobody appears to halt the fight, help the injured or otherwise restore order. This is rubbish and the plot point could have been written many other ways to accomplish the same purpose.
I'm not giving a rating below 5 because it's not that bad. However, the basic plot and social situations exploited in this film had huge potential... potential I'd have given a 9-10 rating for... yet somehow flopped. Maybe in 10-20 years someone will give another go at this plot. In the meantime, only watch it if your current string of movies-to-see lacks better rated movies.
Die (2010)
Once again, reviewer fail
Those of you giving this a 1 rating need to explain why it's worse than "Manos, the hands of Fate." Those giving it a 10 star need to explain why it's better than "Shawshank Redemption." The cast is good. The plot sufficiently convoluted. I recently watched "Rampart" and I considered that a grand waste of time. At least "Die" was compelling.
I have said that movie reviews often say more about the reviewer than the movie. Gunot213 says "I've never given a film 1/10 before..." but his only other review is of "Halloween" to which he gives a 1 star. Get a clue before you give a review.
This is no "Saw" clone any more than "Saw" drew from other sources. If any comparisons are made to "Saw" it should be that the "teacher" wants his "students" to succeed in "Die." It makes "Saw" hypocritical by comparison.
"Die" is watchable, not totally predictable, imperfect in some ways, but has proper production values, cinematography, acting and plot. Anyone giving this film 1-2 stars should be subjected to perpetually watching the Justin Bieber movie until a proper review is given.
Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle (2003)
Made it through 5 minutes
Considering that you couldn't turn a speeding truck out of the way of a hurled snowball in time, we're expected that one can suddenly steer out of the way of a tank shell. In the slightly less than 8 seconds it would take to fall from the top of the world's tallest dam, we're expected that you can uncover a helicopter from the same truck, unstrap it, attach the rotor blades, start the engine, push the person you're rescuing into one of the seats of the helicopter (while in free fall no less) while being hampered by the truck which somehow slows down and speeds up relative to the helicopter, and then everyone else clings on as the helicopter takes to flight near the bottom of the dam.
All this in the first 5 minutes of the movie. If I'm supposed to laugh at stupid, I can think of far better comedies to watch. If this is an action film, I wasn't prepared to watch another hour and a half of stupid.
The Fury (1978)
Did I watch the same movies as others?
I read Wayne Malin's review of this film and I have to agree with the particulars. There's far too much talent that went unused in this film. Robin was a twit who seemed like he was in a bad high-school play. Was this really a Brian DePalma film? Did I really hear John Williams write light string music to a dramatic chase? Why was Kirk Douglas' so rambling and confusing? Was he just collecting a paycheck? Just what was I, the viewer, supposed to get worked up about? Too much of this movie lacked cohesion. Perhaps I should ask how this got a score of 6.5 on IMDb. Maybe everyone else got a different film than this fiasco.
I give this a 4 (not worse... as if I can correct for the unusually high global ranking for this film) because I've definitely seen worse movies. I suppose I could give a better ranking if it got the MST3K treatment, but that never happened.
The Adventures of Tintin (1991)
Faithful reproduction of the books
First, this is basically done in classic Saturday morning cartoon style. After all, that was its budget and target. It's a mistake to expect it to be a Disney movie. Next, it's better than most animations in its class... especially since it benefits from keeping all the plots and comedic details of the original books. The 19th century adolescent delighted to the tales by Mark Twain and those of us adolescents of the middle 20th century got Tintin and related to the adventures in the books. I only recently discovered that this series existed on Netflix and I'm happily reminiscing some of the stories I knew and freshly enjoying some of the stories I missed.
Note: I own several of the books (including a couple in Esperanto) and I felt the animation was quite faithful to the original art. I'm not quite sure why others are saying it's not.
At the time of this writing, the series has an 8.5 rating on IMDb with over 4000 votes. If it were a movie, it easily would be in the IMDb top 250. If you're not yet a fan, have a watch of the TV series, recent movie, or any of the books. You'll soon be hooked.
How to Beat the High Cost of Living (1980)
1980 Spot on
After years of skipping watching this flick I finally had a casual moment to watch it. I skimmed the other (mere 22) IMDb reviews and most seem to have this film pretty well pegged. (However, the 10 scores were a little ridiculous: this film isn't anywhere in the league of "Oceans 11" or "The Italian Job" as caper movers.) Nice to see a caper movie starring women. This film was clearly written and filmed in the waning years of the Carter administration (as indicated by release date of 1980) and I can say that the Heroines' frustrations were understandable. If you don't remember the era, trust me, the fears and attitudes are real. Sorry. I didn't mean to sound heavy. This is a fun film. It's a perfect retro film to watch with your S.O.
Limitless (2011)
A Pox on the long and bad reviews
Ignore the reviews giving under 5. They don't know how to review movies. I curse them to be forced to watch "Super Babies" over and over until giving 1-star to a decently made movie gives them pain. Skip the long reviews, too: this film doesn't need a long review. If you like dramas with a little kick-ass thrown in and a little escapist fantasy, this is a great film. I should probably develop my own scale for date movies and rate them accordingly. That in mind, it's not a chick-flick, but also not a pure testosterone film, though it leans more toward the guy side. De Niro's presence automatically adds at least 4 points to any film review, though you can scale that down a bit for "Limitless" due to his relatively short screen time. That said, his screen time for plot purposes is good.
Summary: get out the popcorn and soda, or wine plus crackers and cheese and summer sausage and cuddle on the sofa for a balanced film.
Dot.Kill (2005)
Other Reviewers are Correct
At at glance, I noticed the reviewers mostly gave this movie a higher ranking than the hoi polloi. While this isn't the best movie you could watch, I don't think it belongs below a 5 rating.
Speaking broadly about movies and TV shows that feature net related activity, the bigger budget movies go with computer effects that defy any reality (think "Jurassic Park" and the line by a child "ooh! this is Unix. I know this.") while less self-obsessed low budget films are stuck with using stuff the rest of us actually use from day to day... and are therefore more realistic.
This isn't academy award material, but it's not as bad as the couple pathetic reviewers make it out to be. Any reviewer who gives a 1-2 star rating for a properly produced film should be doomed to watch "Manos" or Justin Bieber movies for life. Netflix popped it up as an average selection for me and it was some good filler time while I got some work done. It beat the heck out of old "X-File reruns."
Passenger 57 (1992)
Flawed but fun action film
I admit I gave this an extra point just because I think too many reviews under-rated this movie.
First, it's a typical action film. About my expected number of fails showed up. The IMDb list of errors is about right. I spotted lot of them before I cross-checked the list.
Second, I gave a good nod because the secondary good guys aren't made out to be drooling idiots. Local good-boy sheriff gets scammed, then when he realizes it, gives the finger to the scammer and helps the good guys. SRSLY. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Stereotypes grabbed; stereotypes examined; stereotypes dropped.
Finally, the dialog is decent enough. For once the villains are shallow and the heroes are ... well... deeper anyways. Evil people are simple. It's the good that wrestle with themselves.
+A lot of action + sensible heroes + dialog - expected ending - plot holes + C for not insulting me too badly = decent action flick. Do you like action films? Enjoy one of the under-rated ones.
Courageous (2011)
Good movie, but hard to rate
I know that the cast and producers of "Courageous" also made "Fireproof." I personally feel that the latter is the better movie or I'd have rated this higher than a 6. Sadly, "Courageous" is the sort of movie that, like "The Book of Eli," gets either a 1 or a 10 depending on personal feelings toward content rather than a proper review. However, I don't rate movies that way.
I admit I cried numerous times while watching this film; it's part of my nature to do so, especially when family issues are involved. While I feel that parts of the movie got excessively maudlin, I credit the writers for taking some moves that I simply didn't expect... moves that were a serious emotional jolt.
On the flip side, the movie tossed in some of the best casual comedy I've seen in quite a while. The whole "what's your full name?" scene rivals "who's on first?" for comedic value.
Summary: "Courage" isn't very deep on plot. It's emotional, but it's no chick-flick... and better yet, guys can get points with their gals for taking them to see this one. The comedy is good, acting fair, points made about the role of fathers is very good (though, 25 years ago I already knew the material that they imply is only a recent discovery) and the action stays constant. It's a low budget film that outperforms its budget.
And, guys, if you really want to win points with your woman without having to agonize through watching "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" followed by "Thelma and Louise," get her to watch "Fireproof" and "Courageous" back to back. Trust me: I'm sparing you much pain. :-)
Doctor Sleep (2002)
This one slipped past me
It's good to see the overall rating of this movie is above 6. It's a unique little thriller. I like horror films which leave you wondering if it's really supernatural, or just natural and a bit out of kilter. Frankly, I hit the end of the film and still wondered.
I think the novelty of this film was the proper use of a practical hypnotist and his own peculiar genius in manipulating people and events and his own struggle with his distinct abilities. One other reviewer thought this was a prelude to a sequel. I really doubt that, but it's a shame that it's unlikely... not now that 9 years have passed. The hero's abilities would be a good hook for additional films or a TV series. A proper hypnotist should encourage and enlighten, and so he does. We're given enough to make us want more of the hero.
"Close Your Eyes" has some reasonable action, good acting, a unique plot, enough surrealism to keep you guessing. Downside is some predictability. Well, you can't have everything. If some of the flaws were cleared, I'd boost my rating to 8 or 9. As it is, it's decent film... it's not a bad 100 minutes spent. Frankly, I'd like to see more. You get some very good "oh, s***" moments which make this worth watching. However, I wish the "evil" factor got a bit more play.
Kudos to the next director/producer to take this film a step further.
Beer for My Horses (2008)
Grab some beer for you, relax, watch, laugh
Please bear with the prelude because I think this is the only place to tell this story and it has something to do with the movie:
I rent the house I live in. I was hoping to buy it, but it got bought out from under me, so I continue to rent while my youngest finishes high-school. Just before the house changed hands, I took a walk with my wife and met some guy in a cowboy hat and jeans, coat and work-gloves ripping out all the brush that lined the road across from our house (good thing... it was ugly). He told us he had just bought the land and was going to build a house on it. It was some 20 acres. We thought some housing developer was going to put in a new division.
I congratulated him on his purchase and I said I was glad it was a solo owner. You can count the residences in the neighborhood on one hand, so I introduced myself and said "howdy neighbor." He told me his name was Rodney Carrington. I asked "what kind of work do you do, Rodney?" I got a stunned deer look from him as it was obvious my wife and I had never heard of him. After he told me what he did, my wife and I made a little more small-talk and we walked home. On a whim, I looked him up on YouTube. OMG! Then I found out who Rodney was... and later that he bought my house. I'm now his tenant.
Before I get to the review, I will say that I find Rodney very funny, and he's quite the regular guy. He's a hard-working comic in the tradition of Will Rogers (though less g-rated) and he and his family make mighty fine neighbors.
Now, to the movie rating. "Beer for my Horses" isn't a bad movie, nor is it a must-see movie. There are some serious plot failures (no, you can't cross into Mexico the way they did), the bad guys are sadly cartoonish and the story is overall very pedestrian.
However, the acting is competent, the cast of stars was a pleasant surprise, and we're spared the cliché of making "The Man" (Tom Skerritt's role as the sheriff) seem like a jerk or a buffoon. He recognizes his rogue subordinates as at least trying and joins in the toasts when they seem appropriate. Rodney is only really turned loose for the rest-stop scene (and it's actually worth watching the movie just for that scene). Ted Nugent is there to act up with the weapons and his best moments are at the start of the film.
Summary: If you're not sure what to watch and you need a comic moment, grab some shots and beers and watch "Beer for my Horses."