Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Review #2308: Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

Cast: 

Robert De Niro (The Creation), Kenneth Branagh (Victor Frankenstein), Tom Hulce (Henry Clerval), Helena Bonham Carter (Elizabeth Lavenza Frankenstein), Ian Holm (Baron Alphonse Frankenstein), John Cleese (Professor Waldman), Aidan Quinn (Captain Robert Walton), Richard Briers (Grandfather), Robert Hardy (Professor Krempe), Trevyn McDowell (Justine Moritz), Celia Imrie (Mrs. Moritz), Cherie Lunghi (Caroline Frankenstein), and Ryan Smith (William Frankenstein) Directed by Kenneth Branagh (#041 - Thor)

Review: 

"Frankenstein feels like an ancient tale, the kind of traditional story that appears in many other forms. It appeals to something very primal, but it’s also about profound things, the very nature of life and death and birth—about, essentially, a man who is resisting the most irresistible fact of all, that we will be shuffling off this mortal coil. It was sent to me as I was rehearsing a production of Hamlet, and it seemed to me that the two things were linked. Hamlet and Victor Frankenstein are each obsessed with death. Hamlet’s whole story is a philosophical preparation for death; Victor’s is an intellectual refusal to accept it."

On November 4, 1994, audiences got their chance to see a big-budget adaptation of a classic novel that had seen a dozen (or so) films that cribbed from it since the 20th century began. You might remember that Francis Ford Coppola had spearheaded a production to make a lavish adaptation of a famous horror novel for which the result was the lavishly mediocre Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992). But one can't stop there as a producer, I suppose, as here we are looking at the other horror movie that had Coppola involved, albeit not as director; the source material, as one already might know, is the 1818 novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley. The movie was originally written by Steph Lady prior to Coppola buying the rights to it; he planned to direct the film before deciding to ask Branagh to direct the film while also saying the importance of casting Robert De Niro as the Creature. At the time, Branagh was rehearsing a production of Hamlet and he perceived links between it and Frankenstein when it comes to the obsession with death (you can inquire about Branagh's mindset prior to the release of the film here, for example) You might remember that the Belfast-born Branagh had trained at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art before eventually becoming a director with Henry V (1989), the first of several adaptations of the work of William Shakespeare. Frank Darabont was brought in to do a second draft by Branagh. Audiences didn't really go out in droves as compared to the folks that saw Bram Stoker's Dracula (it wasn't a failure of course with its $45 million budget). Darabont later called it "the best script I ever wrote and the worst movie I've ever seen", stating that Branagh was entirely to blame (or give credit to, if one liked the film) for what essentially became an "operatic attempt at filmmaking". According to Lady, his script was used by a friend who taught at a film school about when a good script is "in the hands of a bad director." The makeup from Daniel Parker, Paul Engelen and Carol Hemming at least earned attention, receiving an Academy Award nomination (and it certainly seemed deserving, the creature does look pretty good here).

There is something at work in one's soul to try and understand where it all went up for a monumental example of being forgotten. How do you manage to make a movie with such a noted actor like De Niro and not end up being thought of first or even second in Frankenstein-adjacent movies? How do you make a movie with loads of amniotic fluid and eels to go along with a deliberately phallic tube...and not have any great lasting appeal? Even the defenders of Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) can point to the style of the film as a lasting legacy (I personally put the legacy in that stupid look of its title character, but your milage may vary), but this is merely a movie that seems to fall by the wayside even with two memorable actors trying to lead the way. Branagh was once quoted as not being able to resist having a scene involving re-creating Elizabeth despite its difference from the novel because "it seemed to make psychological sense", one that could be different from the "high camp" from the two James Whale films. This seems to be amusing because of how much he figuratively seems to eat the movie right from under De Niro, gallivanting as if this really was a show for the stage. In his attempts to mine tragedy in what essentially is a war of creation, you get a performance that is purely in the middle-ground that (unfairly or not) really does remind one of better days with Peter Cushing as Frankenstein. Maybe that is just the curse of doing a Frankenstein film that ends up having to do things that might remind you of one of the more famous adaptations because you just expect it, even if it tries to repulse you with the idea of something that could just be possible somewhere beyond imagination. De Niro actually does pretty well with his performance (apparently, he studied stroke victims when it came to finding the voice for the Creature), it just so happens that he falls upon the strange double-edged sword that comes with being such a noted presence in acting that may be a bit lost among the makeup and the aforementioned bombast behind him. But the sequence with him taking shelter within a barn and a downtrodden family that features him seeing and learning about people on some sort of level is still a worthwhile one to view as a highlight, particularly with the end result of a creature that now has its worldview confirmed of hatred surrounding its existence. The dangers of the obsession with trying to win the game of creation pulls handily with Carter for a confused performance that at least has one shining moment: right around the climax, the book and film get to collide with each other in having a would-be bride be interrupted by the Creature...only here she gets her heart ripped out (okay, there's a scene right after that too, but it is more fun to let one be only a little bit surprised by revealing only the obvious moment of interest). The rest of the actors are left to sway at the weird execution of a film that veers between melodrama and disturbing (poor Cleese doesn't get much time underneath that wig, but I appreciate the effort), which mostly means Hulce and Quinn are left on the wayside a bit. The 123-minute runtime is probably a bit too much to really hold things together for what the movie believes itself to be in great tragedy, but at least it does try to keep the foot on the pedal of frantic filmmaking, for better or worse. Processing the film ended up where I liked the movie just enough. I don't know about calling it "profound" in being disturbing, but it is fairly entertaining even in profound averageness, so I suppose that is better than nothing. Highly ambitious even with its ultimate short-sighted execution, you might find something worth watching for a film that now can celebrate a third decade of anniversary. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Blair Witch 2.

Fight Club.

Review #1284: Fight Club.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (Tyler Durden), Edward Norton (The Narrator), Helena Bonham Carter (Marla Singer), Meat Loaf (Robert Paulson), Jared Leto (Angel Face), Zach Grenier (Richard Chesler), and Thom Gossom Jr. (Detective Stern) Directed by David Fincher (#586 - Alien 3 and #705 - The Social Network)

Review: 
Two decades after its release, what can one say about a film like this? The polarizing adaptation of novel of the same name from Chuck Palahniuk certainly has quite a following in the time following a mild run in its initial box office run. One wonders what sort of expectation is to be expected for something like this, a dark satire that happens to have a few fights and a compact cast that make for a fine movie. Sometimes you do need a film that will make you squirm a bit, and this film sure does fine with making some useful points through a run of 139 minutes that runs the gamut without hesitation, never seeming to stumble in trying to deliver a quirky story that hits more often than not. One can appreciate the effort made to deliver something that resembles The Graduate and Rebel Without a Cause, with a conflict involving a generation of all-singing, all-dancing stuff of the world and themselves, where beating people to oblivion seems like a good release. That, or causing mayhem, but that's neither here or there.

Undeniably, the highlight of the film is its main trio of castmates, who are interesting to watch. Norton plays his part with sardonic relish, where his narration carries the story quite well, making for some satirical bite that makes him quite involving to be around, an everyman who happens to visit support groups just to feel something and go to sleep (better than crying or substances, I suppose). It's not hard to recognize something from this character in oneself or others (such as buying things to fill something within themselves is one example I could posit). Pitt is enjoyable, wild as a stick of dynamite that is relentlessly entertaining each time he shows up on screen, filled with marked charisma that does tend to blend well in roughness with Norton, as if it was a coin that always seems ready to land on its side more than anything (which is less of a metaphor than the fighting is, I admit). Carter does fine with the crude side of this triad; she doesn't have as much time on screen as the other two, but she proves worthwhile with dark charm that is somewhat amusing. I'll give credit to anyone who takes a role where you need to wear a bulky harness, especially if one is singer-turned-actor Meat Loaf, who does garner a laugh or two without seeming like a distraction (one of course could insert a reference about other harness performances here, obviously). It sure is striking to see Leto for the brief moments he is on screen in the film's second half. The visual look sure works itself out well, with plenty of unflinching violence alongside other moments. The film was written by Jim Uhls, with several un-credited contributors, including director Fincher and and the movie's co-stars Pitt and Norton. Palahniuk approved of the final product, which he felt kept intact most of the "convoluted plot" of the novel (for which the climax is significantly different) while liking the main three actors when it came to stepping into these characters alongside Fincher's directorial efforts. I can't disagree with that assessment, since the film is well-done in entertainment value while making a concentrated effort to have some sort of meaning beyond fighting or mayhem, where responsibility is the key path instead of some sort of self-serving freedom or something more toxic in its brand. The film is not a perfect one by any means, but I do find it to be an interesting one, holding itself quite well for its start while making its conclusions one to to think about after it ends over a round of discussion with others.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Planet of the Apes (2001).

Review #969: Planet of the Apes.

Cast: 
Mark Wahlberg (Captain Leo Davidson), Tim Roth (General Thade), Helena Bonham Carter (Ari), Michael Clarke Duncan (Attar), Paul Giamatti (Limbo), Estella Warren (Daena), Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa (General Krull), David Warner (Senator Sandar), Kris Kristofferson (Karubi), and Erick Avari (Tival) Directed by Tim Burton (#040 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, #262 - Corpse Bride, and #316 - Batman Returns)

Review: 
On the cusp of a new film from the Planet of the Apes franchise (of which I've covered three of them: #347 - Planet of the Apes (1968), #615 - Rise of the Planet of the Apes, #662 - Beneath the Planet of the Apes) , I figured that it made sense to cover the 2001 film of the same name that was a remake and an attempt to start the franchise up again; I remember my dad watching this on DVD one quite a bit when I was growing up, and the only part I remember vividly was the ending, so perhaps that colors my thoughts on the movie (although it is the probably the only part of the film anyone remembers). Not only does it try to be based of the 1968 film, it also is based off the novel La Planète des Singes (known in English as Planet of the Apes) by Pierre Boulle. So how does this "reimaging" do?

How is it a movie with a good deal of production value like this manage to feel so shallow? What is it about this movie that springs an energy of mild but not quite there sense of entertainment? How is this not as good as the original? Unlike the ending, these are questions that the movie can provide answers for. The easiest way to say why the movie isn't particularly exciting is the fact that the story and some of the acting seem hollowed out and not as appealing as in the original 1968 film. Wahlberg doesn't do a terrible performance, but he also never really springs much enthusiasm as a lead hero; even a scene where he laments the loss of a crew looking for him doesn't have much emotion to it. It's not that he is inherently unlikable, it's just that he also isn't inherently one to really root for. Not to compare it with the original too much, but Heston's character was someone the audience could go for and want to see succeed, and he actually viewed the environment he landed in with a better sense of shock, as opposed to Wahlberg's space jockey attitude. Technically he has two love interests in the film, though neither have particularly good chemistry with him and it predictably goes nowhere. Roth steals the show with his militaristic, scenery chewing performance that gives the film a bit of life, even if his fate is somewhat of a letdown. Bonham Carter is fairly decent, but she doesn't really give too much depth or life to the character that one probably would've wanted from the role. Clarke Duncan and Hiroyuki Tagawa are fairly decent standouts as well; Warren doesn't really have too much expression nor impact, and Giamatti does fine in a smarmy role that probably had more screen-time than it probably should've had. Charlton Heston has an uncredited cameo appearance, having a somewhat pivotal role that is interesting in the one scene he appears in. The prosthetic makeup by Rick Baker is commendable and quite an upgrade from the original, with this likely being the only shining achievement in the movie. The plot is a bit muddled, and with no real character to go for and care about, there isn't much to want to watch happen. It's watchable as an action flick, but not so much as a science fiction movie. Burton does direct the movie fine enough, with the movie looking pretty decent, but the way that the movie operates with its characters sinks its hopes.

And of course there's the ending. To some, the ending could be viewed as a reasonable way to end the movie and leave the possibility of doing a sequel (as Burton has stated), or it could be viewed as one that doesn't make much sense. It's interesting, considering the ending falls in line with the novel that it is based off of. For me, it was weird watching the movie in full and then getting to the ending and finding myself giggling at it. Who knows how Thade beat Leo to Earth? Who can care to speculate about what the ending is supposed to mean? After all, this is a movie that never really kicks into full gear, with the ending that is like the movie: mild, without much substance. It's not awful, but it also doesn't feel entirely necessary either.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Hamlet (1990).

Review #913: Hamlet (1990).

Cast:
Mel Gibson (Prince Hamlet), Glenn Close (Queen Gertrude), Alan Bates (King Claudius), Paul Scofield (Ghost of Hamlet's Father), Ian Holm (Polonius), Helena Bonham Carter (Ophelia), Stephen Dillane (Horatio), Nathaniel Parker (Laertes), and Michael Maloney and Sean Murray (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) Directed by Franco Zeffirelli.

Review:
I had read this play when I was in senior year of high school (are you surprised?), and I felt that it was a great play, though (naturally) I read it just once. Around two years later, it only made sense that I get around to seeing the 1990 version of Hamlet, compliments of my British Literature class. Whether one interprets the play as one dominated by an inability to act or one of revenge, the movie Obviously the movie takes liberties with the play (after all, it only lasts 134 minutes), but the best thing I can say about the movie is that it is competent enough in the right areas to overcome any doubt of feeling not needed. I will admit, the first half of the movie did not exactly give too much hope; it wasn't a terrible half, but it didn't exactly inspire too much confidence in Gibson (nor the film) having the right kind of passion. However, the second half of the movie does bring itself some well needed tension, where Gibson, Close, and Bates get their chance to show their talents in the climax. It's a swift and satisfying one, where the fencing sequence with Gibson and Parker being a key highlight, obviously.

This is the kind of movie that may vary heavily depending on how one views Gibson in the role of Hamlet. It took me a while to really get invested in Gibson, but he manages to excel at times when having to make madness feel mad. His take on the famed "To be, or not to be" soliloquy has a degree of raw sincerity that works with the carnal nature of the film. Close and Bates are acceptable, with the former being good at showing the motherly love that creeps into the psyche and provides for a particularly interesting scene in the last half of the film. Bates does a decent performance, managing to balance a demeanor of power and sinister nature pretty well. The sets and costumes look well made, looking deft without being too distracting. For me, the movie is well crafted and slick enough with its energy that work in the right places. But I can't find myself wanting to watch this film again, and I think it's because it would be like trying to read Hamlet again; sometimes you just have to let things lie where they are. It is a movie worth recommending for at least one viewing, though I should note there are numerous adaptations of the play as well. There is the 1948 version with Laurence Olivier (which won Best Picture and three other Oscars that year) or the 1996 version by Kenneth Branagh that was the first unabridged theatrical film version of the play (which runs at just over four hours). Of course there's also the 2000 version that updates the setting to the modern day...or the story done with lions in The Lion King. Whatever the case, this is a decent enough film.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Corpse Bride.

Review #262: Corpse Bride.

Cast
Johnny Depp (Victor Van Dort), Helena Bonham Carter (Emily), Emily Watson (Victoria Everglot), Tracey Ullman (Nell Van Dort/Hildegarde), Paul Whitehouse (William Van Dort/Mayhew), Joanna Lumley (Maudeline Everglot), Albert Finney (Lord Finis Everglot), Richard E. Grant (Lord Barkis Bittern), Christopher Lee (Gallswells) and Michael Gough (Elder Gutknecht) Directed by Tim Burton (#40 - Batman, #107 - Beetlejuice, #132 - Alice in Wonderland, and #196 - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) and Mike Johnson.

Review
Once again I'm reviewing a Tim Burton film, and it is filled with familiar faces (This is the 3rd review with Johnny Depp, the 8th with Helena Bonham Carter, and the 7th with Christopher Lee.) So how is this film? It's...Good. Not great, but good. The animation is stellar, and it does have a well developed story. The acting is stellar, Depp and Carter do a fine a job along with the rest of the supporting cast (One standout being Richard E. Grant portraying an excellent villain) It has some good moments combined with good animation and acting to make a good film. A good success in all in all. The month is nearly over, but October is still going well.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Alice in Wonderland (2010)

Review #132: Alice in Wonderland.

Cast
Mia Wasikowska (Alice Kingsley), Johnny Depp (The Hatter), Helena Bonham Carter (Red Queen), Anne Hathaway (White Queen), Crispin Glover (Knave of Hearts), Michael Sheen (The White Rabbit), Matt Lucas (Tweedledee and Tweedledum), Stephen Fry (Chesire Cat), Alan Rickman (Absolem the Caterpillar), Barbara Windsor (Mallymkun the Dormouse), Timothy Spall (Bayard the Bloodhound), Michael Gough (Uilleam the Dodo), and Christopher Lee (Jabberwocky) Directed by Tim Burton.

Review
Tim Burton is known for his dark films (Batman - #040), Edward Scissorhands, Corpse Bride, Beetlejuice - #107, Ed Wood, etc), and this is no different. It feels like a tale of fun with many things along the way. Granted, they may be CGI, but they at least do look like they were meant to be in Wonderland. Wasikowska does a good job as Alice, making you feel for her and her struggles. Depp does a good job as well, making you interested in the film. The rest of the cast (Carter, Hathaway, Sheen, Rickman, Fry) do good jobs as well. But the two that while not having lines that stand out are Lee and Gough. Lee feels like the Jabberwocky, with that still deep voice. Gough does a decent job in his final film role, doing his best. This film tries to be great, and it works until you realize that it feels like it runs into the same thing over and over again as we get a fight that doesn't feel special given all we have seen. I have not seen the other film adaptions or even the book, but this is at least a good flick.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2.

Review #124: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Ralph Fiennes (Lord Voldemort), Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Evanna Lynch (Luna Lovegood), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom), Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange), Maggie Smith (Minerva McGonagall), Bonnie Wright (Ginny Weasley), Ciaran Hinds (Aberforth Dumbledore), Jason Issacs (Lucius Malfoy), Julie Walters (Molly Weasley), James and Oliver Phelps (Fred and George Weasley), Mark Williams (Arthur Weasley) with Gary Oldman (Sirius Black), David Thewlis (Remus Lupin), Adrian Rawlins (James Potter), Geraldine Somerville (Lily Potter), and Warwick Davis (Filius Flitwick/Griphook). Directed by David Yates.

Review
This film is the final one for the week and the series of Harry Potter, and it ends with a bang, as we get closure in terms of legend in sorts. The acting takes a slight sidestep to the action, as it should be for once given the circumstances. We get some revelations and all, even if (as usual) some of the book is omitted, such as Pettigrew, Potterwatch, and some others, but that does not matter too much as the film makes sure that all the stops have been put out in a great climatic end to the films. It all ends with a farewell scene, years later, and it is rather touching, making you remember back to the first book and the wonder that it had then and now. Looking back on all eight films, it has been fun. From 2001 to 2011, (2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011) there was a sense of magic and fun in the films, with a plentiful cast of good actors and all. Now that it is over, what happens now? We shall look back on the films and everything as the others hopefully go to other roles. It reminds me of another film series, The Star Wars Saga. Those actors (and the films) filled the air with wonder and adventure, as some of those actors went to fame for other roles, while others did other roles, yet they will be remembered for their roles in that series. Harry Potter will also be remembered for being a great film series, and it will live on for time to come.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1.

Review #123: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Warwick Davis (Griphook), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Ralph Fiennes (Lord Voldemort), Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), Brendan Gleeson (Alastor 'Mad-Eye' Moody), Richard Griffiths (Vernon Dursley), John Hurt (Garrick Ollivander), Rhys Ifans (Xenophilius Lovegood), Jason Isaacs (Lucius Malfoy), Bill Nighy (Rufus Scrimgeour), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), and Fiona Shaw (Petunia Dursley) Directed by David Yates.

Review
This film begins the final adventure of this saga, and it figures the most important of them all gets two parts to accompany it (even though there were rumors Goblet of Fire could have been separated into two) Anyway, this film has good acting from the main three once again, with the others following nicely. The film has one abundant thing for about 30-40 minutes, and that would be in the woods. The film doesn't suffer that much from the walking, talking, and fighting. One thing I must bring up is that they cut the departure scenes out of the film, I feel that it should've been included as it bringed closure for the Dursleys and Harry, but we don't get that. The quest is a giant one, with risk at every trail. The story delves deeper and deeper, connecting things, especially from Sorcerer's Stone (Hard to believe that it was released in 2001 wasn't it?) The action is alright, as we get closer to the battle of a lifetime, with two sides fighting...And only one can win. This ends Part VII. Stay tuned for Part VIII...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

Review #122: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Michael Gambon (Albus Dumbledore), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Jim Broadbent (Horace Slughorn), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Robbie Coltrane (Rubeus Hagrid), Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix Lestrange), Maggie Smith (Minerva McGonagall), Evanna Lynch (Luna Lovegood), and Warwick Davis (Filius Flitwick). Directed by David Yates.

Review
This film is the last of Harry Potter's school years, as all is not well in Hogwarts, and the film is darker and better for it. The acting is good again, with Gambon, Broadbent, Felton, and Rickman being the standouts in all of this, as the film intrigues you with not just magic and wonder, but a sense of mystery and tragic nature. I think it's better then Order of the Phoenix and Goblet of Fire, just tying itself with Sorcerer's Stone. The film doesn't have much light-heartedness, as it omits the lightness to make a better film, as we get closer to the past of the wizard known as Tom Riddle. A good film that set the tone for the final parts in this great series...This ends Part VI of Harry Potter Week. Stay tuned for Part VII...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Terminator Salvation.

Review #090: Terminator Salvation.

Cast
Christian Bale (John Connor), Sam Worthington (Marcus Wright), Anton Yelchin (Kyle Reese), Moon Bloodgood (Blair Williams), Bryce Dallas Howard (Kate Connor), Common (Barnes), Helena Bonham Carter (Dr. Serena Kogan/Skynet), and Michael Ironside (General Ashdown). Directed by McG.

Review
So. We have seen how the films have evolved in a sense. From a good sci-fi film, to a great sequel, to Arnold saying "Talk to the hand", to...this. The only reason that the casting credits is different from others is because this cast has done other, better films then this. This is the fourth film in this series, and it is the worst. The film feels like a prequel, as we already know who lives since the film is set years before Resse is sent back to 1984. We already know what happens, so what's the point of the film? I...don't know. It's supposed to jump start the series again, to get the action rolling. Well, you get the action, but not much else. The name of the film "Salvation" is the exact opposite of what happens. The shades in the film are brown, black, and...not much else. One of the terminator reminds me of Transformers, which doesn't make me feel better... The acting is just standard, but with no memorable actors to help, such as Arn- (He's in for one scene, with CGI. It looks really impressive for the most part) The film is standard stale, with a non-memorable plot that differs from the first 3 and has little else, actors that do standard jobs, and dull colors to make you just forget it. It makes you wonder why would anyone want a Terminator 5, considering that you really can't do much with the series anymore. Now then. Let's get to a better reality. Where are those two I asked for? Countdown stars now. 10...This ends Part V of Robot Week.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.