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.

The Adventures of Pluto Nash.

Review #1930: The Adventures of Pluto Nash.

Cast: 

Eddie Murphy (Pluto Nash / Rex Carter), Randy Quaid (Bruno), Rosario Dawson (Dina Lake), Jay Mohr (Anthony Frankowski / Tony Francis), Peter Boyle (Rowland), Luis Guzmán (Felix Laranga), Joe Pantoliano (Mogan), James Rebhorn (Belcher), Pam Grier (Flura Nash), John Cleese (James), Burt Young (Gino), Lillo Brancato (Larry), and Victor Varnado (Kelp) Directed by Ron Underwood (#808 - City Slickers)

Review: 

"I knew we didn’t have the kind of wit and the fun that I would want...I felt that it was not really working fully...But it wasn't very obvious how to correct it." 

Poor Ron Underwood. He was an exchange student in what is now known as Sri Lanka for AFS Intercultural Programs, and it inspired him to become a filmmaker by what he saw there. He studied at the USC School of Cinematic Arts (after changing his mind from studying at Occidental College as a pre-med student). After doing short film and television projects, Tremors (1990) became his very first film as a director, and he also served as a co-writer. Underwood did four further films in the 1990s such as City Slickers (1991) and Mighty Joe Young (1998). When he was finishing work on the latter film, he received an offer to work on a script by Neil Cuthbert that had Eddie Murphy attached that dealt with a colony on the Moon. The Cuthbert script had been bouncing around Hollywood for years, first being brought as a project at Universal...in 1983. 1989 even saw an attempt to see at Universal with Peter Faiman (the director behind Crocodile Dundee) as director. Keep in mind, when Underwood was brought in, he joined in with the understanding that they had 7-9 months to work on the script before Murphy could join in to help with shooting. Underwood felt that there was an issue with the main core in the script, and yet it never came together. Murphy did not care for the script that was presented to him, nor the handful of scripts presented afterwards, and he seemingly wanted a film that was written for someone like Sylvester Stallone or Harrison Ford that would have him bring the comedy...which meant a straight draft. Underwood stuck with Castle Rock Entertainment because of the obligation he had to friends that worked with there despite the fact he had other offers while the film process "seemed to just be going and on"...the result was that he was on the production for four years.

The film was such a tremendous failure with audiences and critics, being one of the few $100 million movies to not even make ten percent of its budget back. Underwood would direct for television on a fairly regular basis in 2003 (one year after this film) while having just one film credit since that film: In the Mix (2005), although he at least seems happy by what he gets to direct. Even Eddie Murphy made light of the failure of the film, although if anyone is to be blamed for this film, it is him (Underwood, while being charitable about him being nice, thought Murphy wasn't feeling funny in production). The problem with the movie is that it isn't particularly funny, and it desires an actor with some sort of energy to it due to how the bland story is not particularly interesting as an adventure nor as a "mystery". It doesn't feel particularly like a science fiction worth gawking at, looking like the world's cheapest expensive film, never insipiring curiosity over the time or tech beyond demo levels. The only highlight might be Quaid, having a bald head while trying to play an old robot. Somehow, he proves the quirks that are just begging to be let out here, having the rare distinction of being funnier than the actual lead. Murphy has the "in it for the money" face, not inspiring anything for comedy or for adventure, and the fact that he has a double role as the villain doesn't do him any favors either. The only one to possibly pity would be Dawson, adrift in a film with no energy for her to tap into/absorb for fun. John Cleese being in this film in the shape of a hologram is the very definition of "phoned in", as if he was tricked into believing that he had to top Eric Idle in phoned in supporting performances (hey, speaking of Idle movies...next year?). Faking one out with a few seconds of Alec Baldwin is more amusing than the gags presented (such as Hilary Clinton being on a $100 bill or a Trump Realty sign), sadly. The less said about Pantoliano, Boyle, Guzman, and Mohr, the better. As a whole, what we have here is a movie that is not particularly funny, not particularly adventurous, and not particularly fun. It is a snooze fest for 95 minutes that only avoids being called one of the absolute worst after 20 years because there isn't even enough to remember in how bad it is. 

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Last one: Valley of the Dolls.

Rat Race.

Review #1714: Rat Race.

Cast: 

John Cleese (Donald P. Sinclair), Breckin Meyer (Nicholas "Nick" Schaffer), Amy Smart (Tracy Faucet), Cuba Gooding Jr. (Owen Templeton), Seth Green (Duane Cody), Vince Vieluf (Blaine Cody), Lanei Chapman (Merrill Jennings), Whoopi Goldberg (Vera Baker), Jon Lovitz (Randy Pear), Kathy Najimy (Beverly "Bev" Pear), Brody Smith (Jason Pear), Jillian Marie Hubert (Kimberly Pear), Rowan Atkinson (Enrico Pollini), Dave Thomas (Harold Grisham), and Wayne Knight (Zack Mallozzi) Directed by Jerry Zucker (#585 - Top Secret!, #664 - Airplane!, #1274 - First Knight, #1626 - Ghost)

Review: 

Do you remember It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963)? Stanley Kramer wanted to make a epic comedy movie, and he certainly did so with a frantic and diverting movie that stuffed its audience with plenty to try and laugh with, having plenty of comedic talent of the time and folks from yesteryear. Naturally, it inspired a few films that wanted to cash in on making an ensemble comedy involving folks trying to cash on greed and luck. These films included Scavenger Hunt (1979) and Million Dollar Mystery (1987), with the latter even having a sweepstakes to locate money (and yes, a teen won the $1 million contest). Of course, really one film that comes to this film when it comes to star-studded madcap mess movies, the easiest film to correlate with this movie is The Cannonball Run (1981). Neither movie earned much respect from folks who think they know better than audiences, but each has certainly had their own legacy in the decades that have followed each release. I say this for a movie that has turned 20 years old in Rat Race, and I would like to note that I have finally closed the circle with Zucker, in that this is the last feature film to be directed by Jerry Zucker (of course, I have forgotten about Ruthless People (1986), but that was a collaborative effort, so...), and I suppose it makes sense that the last one is a comedy after directing two films meant to be taken seriously (one with chuckles, one with unintentional chuckles, mind you). Of course, he hasn't stopped making things entirely, as he has added producing to his foray, but it is odd to see the last effort of a director best known for his work with his brother David with making spoofs that were, you know, pretty funny.

To make it short, Rat Race is not any of the films I have mentioned. Rat Race is quite disappointing, mostly because it manages to waste one's time in mediocrity, a movie that surely looked better on paper. Sure, one can always make the excuse that a comedy involving greedy folks that behave like cartoon characters doesn't have to have its head 100% straight, but there is really one requirement when it comes to making a silly movie: having consistent gags that land. Of course, it would also have helped to simply not pack so many cast members in there for one to try and follow. For a film that has six distinct groups of folks among 10 adults (and two children, but does that really count?), I find that less than half of them are effective in actually generating laughs. It is the 112 minute equivalent of stepping on a rake, where one brief moment of relief can then be followed by stepping into something that could have been avoided for no pain. The film was written by Andy Breckman. He wrote for a variety of projects such as radio, Saturday Night Live, and a handful of feature films (such as Arthur 2: On the Rocks (1988)), although the most notable creation by Breckman came the year after the release of this film with Monk. So yes, I suppose there is a lesson to be learned here or something. I think the best lesson is that sometimes, you too can cast a whole bunch of famous people who seem like they can be funny and pair them into an experience that never goes above "bare minimum" at any point for more than five minutes at a time, managing to accomplish a movie of dummy characters that do dummy things. 

There are basically two highlights: Cleese, who seems to revel in a role full of momentary eccentricity (i.e. rich people being weird) that lets him have fun without trouble. Lovitz is the second best thing, if only because he revels in the smarmy circumstances that bring everyone together for money the best - he gets stuck in the weirdest scenarios but actually lands them for chuckles, such as stealing a Nazi car or inadvertently doing a salute to WWII veterans. He seems craven enough to make it work for actual interest, while Najimy does okay when paired with Lovitz. Honestly, the others can be ranked like this in terms of mediocrity-to-less fun: Green/Vieluf, Meyer, Goldberg/Chapman, Smart, Atkinson, and Gooding Jr. Trust me, having Meyer as your attempt at a straight man is a wobbly sign already (Smart might have been a better choice, but hey, I guess flying a helicopter dangerously is meant to play for c-r-a-z-y laughs). Green and Vieluf aren't consistent, but at least one can see where things were meant to be funny. You would think an actor who won an Academy Award for essentially comic relief would be just fine here, but Gooding seems quite lost here, as if he is being befuddled by lame scenario-making that goes from something typical (i.e. losing clothing) to painful (suffering the indignity of a group of Lucille Ball impersonators). Goldberg (oh hey, that previous sentence applies here too) and Chapman don't get that much to do besides an interminable cameo involving Kathy Bates and a stupid squirrel, while Atkinson might as well just sleepwalk through his role with how bland it is. Watching a bunch of folks you probably aren't meant to like plunder depths for money is a boring idea, point blank. The ending is especially insulting, because if you are making a comedy about folks willing to go the extra mile in racing for $2 million by any greedy means necessary, you better have a conclusion that seems amusing enough to make it all fit together. Having all of them crash into a Smash Mouth concert for food donations is not that. It is a lazy ending, a bare minimum ending that might as well be equivalent to having the characters all go to a soup kitchen after a heist on Christmas. Again, not to steal from the well of citing better movies, but Mad World managed to see all the characters get their just desserts in a hospital bed that made a good punchline without seeming like a cheat. Playing "All Star" helps no one. Going around and giving money to a concert to the horror of a rich guy isn't really as funny as it could be, and it is probably because the movie has plodded around for too long with being as bare minimum as possible to where it doesn't matter. Two decades later, the only thing one learns from this film is that some movies should just stay on paper. Or perhaps one should just stick with the classics, really.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Review #1448: Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Cast: 
Graham Chapman (King Arthur / Voice of God / Middle Head / Hiccoughing Guard), John Cleese (Second Swallow-Savvy Guard / The Black Knight / Peasant 3 / Sir Launcelot the Brave / Taunting French Guard / Tim the Enchanter), Eric Idle (Dead Collector / Peasant 1 / Sir Robin the Not-Quite-So-Brave-as-Sir Launcelot / First Swamp Castle Guard / Concorde / Roger the Shrubber / Brother Maynard), Terry Gilliam (Patsy / Green Knight / Old Man from Scene 24 (Bridgekeeper) / Sir Bors / Animator / Gorilla Hand), Terry Jones (Dennis's Mother / Sir Bedevere / Left Head / Prince Herbert / Voice of Cartoon Scribe), Michael Palin (First Swallow-Savvy Guard / Dennis / Peasant 2 / Right Head / Sir Galahad the Pure / Narrator / King of Swamp Castle / Brother Maynard's Brother / Leader of The Knights Who Say NI!), Connie Booth (The Witch), Carol Cleveland (Zoot / Dingo), Neil Innes (First Monk / Singing Minstrel / Page Crushed by the Rabbit / Peasant #4), Bee Duffell (Old Crone), John Young (Dead Body / Historian Frank), and Rita Davies (Historian's Wife) Directed by Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones.

Review: 
"It was always a series of sketches linked together and we kept tightening and tightening it in the writing. It doesn't outstay its welcome and rather than wind down at the end it just stops abruptly."

"One of the things we tried to do with the show was to try and do something that was so unpredictable that it had no shape and you could never say what the kind of humor was. And I think that the fact that "Pythonesque" is now a word in the Oxford English Dictionary shows the extent to which we failed."

What is there to say about Monty Python that hasn't been said before? I suppose it has developed into one of those lightning rod kind of things to hear about in comedy - once you've seen it, you're either attracted to it for life, but if you don't it'll stick in your head for a while anyway. Far be it from me to say anything different from the obvious: Monty Python is one of the most famous comedy groups of all time, The group, which performed for the first time in 1969 for their sketch comedy series Monty Python's Flying Circus for the BBC, which ran for five years and 45 episodes. The six members all aligned in the late 1960s from different ways, since Jones and Palin performed with the Oxford Revue, Chapman and Cleese met at the University of Cambridge (where they first wrote for the amateur theatre club Cambridge Footlights), while Cleese had met the animator/strip cartoonist Gilliam while performing on a Broadway show, which led to him animating sequences for Do Not Adjust Your Set (1967-69), which featured appearances from people such as Idle, Jones, and Palin (who all except Gilliam had collaborated on The Frost Report prior to this). This was the second Monty Python film, but it was the first with a plot, since And Now for Something Completely Different (1971) was comprised of re-created sketches seen from the first two series (seasons) of the television show that was meant to introduce the group to the US market. When it came time for filming, the budget was set at $400,000, which eventually attracted investors such as rock bands Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin to contribute 10% of the budget each.

As one expects, the film is written completely by the group, and Jones and Gilliam were tasked with directing (Jones would direct the two remaining Python features while Gilliam has gone on to direct further films for four decades), with casting being done by who wrote what scenario (for the most part). Adjusting to a low budget is nothing new, so having to do coconut shells to mimic horses galloping because one can't afford horses is a pretty amusing one (this also played into the climax). Understandably, it must've been a strange time filming a medieval film with chain mail and knitted wool armor in Scotland. Three decades after release, the film was adapted into a musical comedy in Spamalot (Idle co-wrote the music while contributing the book and lyrics), which proved a hit on Broadway in its initial run of 1,575 performances. Obviously the film has a tremendous legacy to it, and you can add this to the pile as well, since this is a fun experience to be had, a fascinating achievement for its six comedy stars/writers in its ridiculous nature and silly charm that make for a clear delight for 92 minutes. When the film grabs you, it doesn't let go, a testament to folks who know what works in timing and comedy while doing a whimsical King Arthur tale with sharp awareness for what makes a good tale with actors doing many parts for themselves. Chapman makes the best straight man to helm a film like this with deadpan finesse. The others prove just as funny, as one can expect from a film with so many quotable lines that are stated by folks that it only makes sense to note one highlight for each for a film with too many to say: Cleese and his well-timed retorts as a Black Knight to be dwindled away by Arthur near the beginning, Idle and his retorts with truthful minstrels, Gilliam and his animation talents and his one roar-inspiring quip about a shot of a castle, Jones and his creative ways of determining a witch involving wood, and the prolific Palin, up to the task of numerous characters with interesting quirks (one who says Ni! and wants a shrubbery) for effect. On the whole, if you didn't already know that this was a great film to check out, then go do so by all means, since it is a classic for its era that works itself for laughs across the pond (or in this case, medieval pond) regardless of how familiar one is with humor like this film possesses (which even led to its own word in the dictionary). Knowing the lines in advance doesn't hurt the best of comedies if one's head is (mostly) in the right place, and this proves no different in making for silly fun.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Silverado.

Review #1102: Silverado.

Cast: 
Kevin Kline (Paden), Scott Glenn (Emmett), Kevin Costner (Jake), Danny Glover (Mal Johnson), Brian Dennehy (Sheriff Cobb), Rosanna Arquette (Hannah), John Cleese (Sheriff John Langston), Jeff Goldblum (Calvin "Slick" Stanhope), Linda Hunt (Stella), Joe Seneca (Ezra Johnson), Ray Baker (Ethan McKendrick), Thomas Wilson Brown (Augie Hollis), Jeff Fahey (Tyree), and Lynn Whitfield (Rae Johnson) Directed by Lawrence Kasdan (#1059 - The Big Chill)

Review: 
It is not hard to admit that Silverado is a fine Western, completely successful as an adventure (written by Lawrence and Mark Kasdan) that showcases a finely-tuned cast and capable action that shines fairly enough with its plot structuring to make a fair winner. It isn't anything that proves to be great entertainment, but it serves as good quality fun, with a spirit that makes it worth watching. With its 133 minute run-time, it certainly likes to take its time to build its characters and situations complete with everything you'd expect in a film involving cowboys, shootouts, and a variety of other things, but it does so without lingering in cliches, being something well accomplished for the tradition that you would expect for entertainment. The main four of Kline-Glenn-Costner-Glover manage to click fairly well, having a sort of watch-ability to them that makes for good adventure, and they each have their own interesting moments, whether with each other or others. Kline comes out the best in the sense that he exudes a certain energy and care that makes him interesting to view when engaged with the plot, whether with humor or charm. Glenn does just fine with his role, playing this reserved role without hesitation or any sense of dullness, playing this pretty handily. Costner (in only his tenth film appearance) plays this goofy if not immensely entertaining character pretty capably, never verging on becoming too silly for the film's taste while also proving to be a capable hero in his own right. Glover does a fine job with making this an interesting role to follow with and care for, being as sure and confident as one might expect from him. Dennehy plays his part with a fair degree of balance between his stated role and what ultimately comes on screen without becoming unsubtle or too obvious, having a quality that makes for an interesting performance. Arquette is okay, but she doesn't have too much to do within the story, particularly within the second half, where the adventure outweighs any sort of semblance of romance (whether that hurts the film at all is up to you). Cleese, Goldblum and Hunt fit their roles just fine with the narrative, each sticking well within the spirit of the film's intent in their own ways that have useful moments without seeming like sore thumbs sticking out. The action sequences are well done and capably executed, and the music by Bruce Broughton makes it all the more entertaining to sit through. The climax is fairly riveting, making up for a film that occasionally likes to build itself up with twisting its story to try and be mildly complex (for better or worse), complete with each of the main four getting their chance to shine. It won't stick out as adding anything particularly new to the genre in terms of its story quality, but what turns out on screen is something that is at the very least a finely tuned machine worth checking out once.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: A Fish Called Wanda.

Review #428: A Fish Called Wanda.

Cast
John Cleese (Archie Leach), Jamie Lee Curtis (Wanda Gershwitz), Kevin Kline (Otto West), Michael Palin (Ken Pile), Maria Aitken (Wendy Leach), Tom Georgeson (George Thomason), and Patricia Hayes (Mrs. Coady) Directed by Charles Crichton.

Review
It has been 25 years to the day that this film was released into theaters (U.S. and Canada theaters anyway, it wouldn't be released in the U.K. until months later for some reason), and it was a major hit when it first came out, with Kevin Kline garnering a Best Supporting Actor award at the Oscars and the film also had other various nominations, but enough about that, how is the film? It's pretty good. The actors do pretty well, and Kline does steal the show after a while, but Curtis and Cleese do manage to keep the focus going, and Palin slides in and does a well job, given his character and all. The story itself isn't lost to stupidity, or to disgusting gags with no point or too much vulgarity unlike some recent comedies, the story in this is coherent, it actually flows well without a misstep, the actors and the story matter, and the comedy comes in later, this movie could actually work as a drama, but the comedy is abundant enough to work as a comedy as well. And the film isn't dated, it could still be believable after 25 years, and when a film can do all that, clearly that is an accomplishment, which it was 25 years ago and still is today.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Shrek Forever After.

Review #209: Shrek Forever After.

Cast
Mike Myers (Shrek), Eddie Murphy (Donkey), Cameron Diaz (Princess Fiona), Antonio Banderas (Puss in Boots), Walt Dohrn (Rumpelstiltskin), Jon Hamm (Brogan), Jane Lynch (Gretchen), Craig Robinson (Cookie), Julie Andrews (Queen Lillian), and John Cleese (King Harold) Directed by Mike Mitchell.

Review
The last time I mentioned this movie was while back ago: I called it "Better, better then this film [Shrek the Third]" And...it hasn't really changed. The story feels less like the last two, trying to go back to the film series' roots. The acting is decent, yet we still after 10 years, feel for them. This is after all the last Shrek film (There were rumors that there would be a fifth, but it was decided to end the franchise with this, which was a good idea) It isn't as good as the first or second, but it at least is a fitting end to the film series. And yet it goes on in other ventures, such as a Musical, TV specials, a spinoff, comics, and more.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Die Another Day.

Review #174: Die Another Day.

Cast
Pierce Brosnan (James Bond), Halle Berry (Giacinta 'Jinx' Johnson), Toby Stephens (Gustav Graves), Rosamund Pike (Miranda Frost), Rick Yune (Zao), Judi Dench (M), Will Yun Lee (Colonel Moon), Kenneth Tsang (General Moon), John Cleese (Q), and Colin Salmon (Charles Robinson) Directed by Lee Tamahori.

Review
Greetings to any viewer who clicked the link from the review of Kingsman: The Golden Circle. Enjoy this review from 2012, to a movie that fails to live up to the other three Pierce Brosnan James Bond films, mostly because it just doesn't have the right spirit that other Bond films have, feeling more like a souped up version of a Roger Moore Bond film - for better or for worse. 

This is the last film to star Pierce Brosnan, and it is the 20th released on the 40th anniversary in 2002. The film has some of the same charm as the other three, but it is missing one thing: Plot. This film is basically action and just that, ignoring plot for over the top action. The one thing I find worse is the invisible car. Look, there's having high tech spy gadgets, but this is just ridiculous. The only thing more ridiculous is if Bond went to space-Oh, well. Ouch. Brosnan does do a good job as always, along with the others, but the film just doesn't have the spirit most films have. After this, the series would be on hold for 4 more years until a new actor was found. This film will be remembered as one of the middle of the road Bond films.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The World is Not Enough.

Review #172: The World is Not Enough.

Cast
Pierce Brosnan (James Bond), Sophie Marceau (Elektra King), Robert Carlyle (Renard), Denise Richards (Christmas Jones), Robbie Coltrane (Valentin Zukovsky), Judi Dench (M), Colin Salmon (Charles Robinson), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), John Cleese (R), and Samantha Bond (Miss Moneypenny). Directed by Michael Apted.

Review
This film is the penultimate film for Brosnan, and it is decent enough to end the 20th century. Brosnan once again does an excellent job, keeping the film float. Richards on the other hand just isn't convincing as a nuclear scientist because of something I call the "Copy and Paste Principle" That is when someone is trying to speak like the role they play, but sound like they read it off a script rather then act the role. The plot is decent, giving us a twist for once, but not too much of a twist. This film has an action packed style that keeps you interested no matter what.

Overall, I give it 007 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Shrek 2.

Review #162: Shrek 2.

Cast
Mike Myers (Shrek), Cameron Diaz (Princess Fiona), Eddie Murphy (Donkey), Antonio Banderas (Puss in Boots), Jennifer Saunders (Fairy Godmother), John Cleese (King Harold), Julie Andrews (Queen Lillian), and Rupert Everett (Prince Charming) Directed by Andrew Adamson, Kelly Asbury, and Conrad Vernon.

Review
This film is possibly better then the first (which I could not review due to not having the disk, though I have watched the film in the past), with more character introductions and more fun. the voices are good, especially from Banderas, who reminds me of Zorro (which he also has done in the past). The film is darker in tone, with people being forced in love, ogre-killers, and other things. My only question is a small possibly non relevant question: Near the end at the prison, how do Shrek's friends (Gingerbread Man, Wolf, the pigs) get to the prison that quickly? We see earlier that Far Far Away is indeed far away from the swamp. Perhaps the prison is not exactly in Far Far Away, but it's not a big flaw. This film sets the tone for the third film, which could be a good thing or a bad thing...This ends Part III of Dreamworks Animation Week. Stay tuned for Part IV...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Planet 51.

Review #130: Planet 51.

Cast
Dwayne Johnson (Captain Charles "Chuck" T. Baker), Justin Long (Lem), Jessica Biel (Neera), Gary Oldman (General Grawl), Seann William Scott (Skiff), and John Cleese (Professor Kipple) Directed by Jorge Blanco.

Review
This film has an alright cast, with Johnson not having to do some gimmick to attract the viewers (Such as being a Tooth Fairy, a Quarterback with daughter issues) The plot is meh to say the least. The animation is decent, with reasonable voice acting. This film is not exactly a good film, being simple, but it does manage to make you chuckle or giggle at least a few times, being enough to entertain you for at least 91 minutes. Relatively harmless, but decent enough.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

Review #117: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

Cast
Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid), Alan Rickman (Severus Snape), Ian Hart (Professor Quirrel), Fiona Shaw (Petunia Dursley), Richard Harris (Albus Dumbledore), John Cleese (Nearly Headless Nick), Tom Felton (Draco Malfoy), Richard Griffiths (Vernon Dursley), John Hurt (Mr. Ollivander), Harry Melling (Dudley Dursley), and Warwick Davis (Filius Flitwick) Directed by Chris Columbus (#038 -  Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief)

Review
The film is of course based off the highly popular book series by J.K. Rowling, this being the first. As such, the film is a bit light hearted in tone for bits of the film, with some allright action, as it then gets dark in the later parts, where it gets better, with good acting along the way (A rare sign of good child acting) The film has a sense of wonder, with a bit of magic in the first scene (Rule of films to have something big in the beginning scenes) to help get the film started. The film omits a bit of the book, but it does a good job overall. This film begins The Chosen O- I mean Harry Potter's years of his tales and such. This begins Harry Potter Week. Part I is done. Stay Tuned for Part II....

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.