Reviews by Joshua "LF"

*This review contains spoilers from the book, "The Scarlet Pimpernel."*

The Scarlet Pimpernel, by Baroness Orczy, has been adapted into several films over the years. One of the most notable versions is the 1934 adaption- mainly for Leslie Howard's performance as the title character. But how well does it hold up today?

Taking place during the French Revolution, the Scarlet Pimpernel is an elusive Englishman that rescues French aristocrats from the guillotine. His identity is a secret, but the wicked Chauvelin has convinced Marguerite Blakeney- a social icon in London- to discover the Scarlet Pimpernel's identity. Little does Marguerite know that the Scarlet Pimpernel is actually the idiotic Sir Percy- Marguerite's husband!

This adaption of the Scarlet Pimpernel has aged nicely, but it still a mixed bag. There are moments of brilliance, and moments of glaring weakness. And while there are various portions of the film that fall under both categories, they are mostly divided into comedy and drama.

The comedy works extraordinarily well. The humor (coming primarily from Sir Percy) is almost always successful, and there are laughs to be sure. Much of the reason the humor works so well is because of the killer delivery from Leslie Howard (portraying Sir Percy and the Scarlet Pimpernel).

Unfortunately, the more dramatic moments are far less enjoyable. These moments of drama feel completely pedestrian, and it's not all interesting. Part of this is the script, which falters in the film's more serious moments. The other part is the characters which- with the exception of Sir Percy- are hugely undeveloped. In the book, the characters are very fleshed out, and are given clear personalities and charming intricacies. In the film, they are but cardboard cut-outs, with character development nonexistent- resulting possibly from the brief 95 minute run-time.

There are- of course- many differences between the book and film. One of the biggest changes is the attention the main character is given. In the book, Marguerite Blakeney receives most of the attention. In the film, it is Sir Percy (though considering Howard's genius performance, this is more than acceptable). The ending has also been dramatically changed, and while it might bother die-hards of the source material, I personally found it a refreshing change, and it kept me wondering what would happen.

Despite the less-than developed characters, the acting is solid (though Raymond Massey seems terribly miscast as Chauvelin). Alas, the only notable performance is Leslie Howard as Sir Percy/The Scarlet Pimpernel. He steals every scene he's in, and he's the only thing we're thinking about in the scenes he's not in. His performance brings life and excitement to the picture.

I only note the score (composed by Arthur Benjamin) because there is almost no music in the film. There is perhaps 10-15 minutes of music in the entire film, and none of it leaves an impression.

The Scarlet Pimpernel has its charms (mainly deriving from Leslie Howard's terrific performance), but on the whole, the more serious moments fail to deliver, and the production is a bit forgettable. It's harmless fun for those seeking a serviceable adaption of the source material, but those expecting more will merely be underwhelmed.

Is the rough economy getting you down? Frustrated with taxes? Do you hate the government? Are the feelings mutual? If this is you, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire just might be the feel-good movie of the year. It shows the audience that as bad things are for some today, it's nothing compared to what could happen in the future.

For those unfamiliar with the Hunger Games universe, there are 12 Districts, and once a year, one boy and one girl from each district are selected randomly to compete in the "Hunger Games." The Hunger Games are a barbaric fight to the death, where the lone survivor is the victor. Previous victor Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark showed some daring defiance during their year in the Hunger Games, which the Capitol is not pleased with. They are threatened by the ominous President Snow, as Snow realizes that the rebellion of Katniss Everdee could cause a massive uprising.

For those who can't take a joke, Catching Fire is NOT the feel-good movie of the year. Far from it; it's dark- much darker than the first- and we witness the brutal deaths and punishments of many individuals. Those unfamiliar with the books will almost certainly be shocked at many intervals.

While the first movie focused primarily on the Games themselves, as well as the effect it has on those in the 12 Districts, Catching Fire is more about the politics of the Hunger Games universe. And while that may not sound especially exciting, Catching Fire is never less than entertaining, and it's rarely anything but gripping. The thought-provoking themes of the original are greatly expanded, and Catching Fire treats audiences with surprising intelligence. This is especially impressive for a YA film adaption; a genre that rarely reaches this degree of intellect.

Just like the first film, there's some killer social commentary, and yes, there is another Hunger Games which puts previous victors in the Games- including Katniss. But this new set of games isn't quite what you would expect if you've seen the first film.

The build-up to the Hunger Games is strong, but not nearly as strong as that witnessed in the original. The original had me on the edge of my seat before the Hunger Games even started. This time around, I was very much intrigued before the Games, but rarely in much suspense.

And even when the Games start, they're not as savage and frantic as the Games in the original. Most of the time, competitors are running from obstacles in the environment, rather than other competitors. (At the end of the day, there are reasons for this, but I don't want to reveal any spoilers).

Catching Fire embraces various elements that weren't in the first film, or weren't as evident. For instance, Catching Fire can be very funny at times. The original film had some laughs as well, but not as many as this one (likely due to the extended amount of social commentary). There are also some wonderfully creepy and just plain weird bits. And no, I'm not referring to the goofy makeup on the Capitol members- though while we're talking about it, Hair and Makeup, and the Costumes are very much worthy of Oscar nominations, though it's a coin toss to predict if it will get them.

Also noteworthy is that the cinematography is much improved from the original. It reaches a compromise between those who liked the raw look of the shaky cam, and those seeking a more clear and less dizzying effect. The shaky cam is gone, but the camera still moves around slightly, like it's a home video, therefore giving you the best of each. Though there is one dancing scene that, while technically proficient, made me a bit dizzy.

The biggest issue with Catching Fire is the same as it was for the original- the romance. For 90% of the film, Catching Fire treats the audience with respect and intelligence. The script is good, and the acting is great. But both of these things falter when the romance takes stage. Just like in the first film, it's very poorly written- though there are no lines quite as cringe-worthy as some of the dialogue in the first ("I watched you going home everyday. Everyday."). Still, these scenes drag the movie down, and they're the only thing that stops Catching Fire (and the first film for that matter) from becoming a film that audiences can watch and say they enjoyed without guilt. The romance is simply unbelievable, and immensely hammy.

The cast is excellent. Jennifer Lawrence (who some people are calling the main reason to see this film) is phenomenal as Katniss Everdeen- as she was in the original. The torment she's in- both physically, and psychologically- is totally believable. Donald Sutherland is back as the chilling President Snow, and Woody Harrelson is in fine form as Haymitch. The hilarious comic relief (with even more screentime than in the original) comes courtesy of Stanley Tucci and Elizabeth Banks as Caesar Flickerman and Effie Trinket respectively.

James Newton Howard's score improves on his work in the original. There are many extensions of themes from the first film (most notably the "Horn of Plenty" theme), and the mildly creepy violin theme for Wiress and Betee is exceptional- I only wish it was used more!

While I don't think Catching Fire is better than the original- it's simply not as savagely intense, nor as heartbreaking as the first- this is still a superb win for the Hunger Games franchise, and will leave audiences starving for the sequel(s). The very ending- in fact- will leave fans of the book with a knowing smile, whilst those unexposed to the source material will feel like they were punched in the stomach (in a good way), and they'll be scrambling to get their hands on the third book.

In what roughly equals one third of Mission: Impossible, I could only ask myself, "What the heck is going on?" Mission: Impossible can be so hopelessly convoluted at times, it's impossible to understand the film's plot. This is especially odd, as the plot isn't even especially complex, it's just presented in an needlessly complicated way. Still, all story and screenplay issues are easily redeemed by the thrilling action scenes and nifty (and dated) espionage scenes.

Ethan Hunt, framed for murdering his entire mission team, is out to clear his name. And while that's the gist of the film, it is very possible that you won't understand what's going on for significant portions of the film.

There are several "twists" throughout the film, but few of them really register as surprising or stunning, as the audience is often scratching their heads, wondering what just happened. Mission: Impossible does not have a strong story, but it's made worse by a poor script and convoluted story-telling.

Thankfully, the action scenes are fun enough to make one temporarily forget the filler in-between. Sure, they're all a bit ridiculous (not to tell a bad joke, but Mission: Improbable anyone?), but they're reasonably entertaining, and at times, highly suspenseful.

Still, one feels like the impact of the action scenes could've been heightened by more interesting characters. There is not a single memorable character in this film (with one exception, though it would be a spoiler to say whom this character is). The characters have absolutely no personality, which hurts the film dramatically.

As a result of the bland characters, the performances are bland, but at least serviceable. The actors and actresses try to get as much out of their weak characters as possible, but it doesn't make anybody more memorable.

The score, composed by Danny Elfman (utilizing themes by Lalo Schifrin) is really fun at times. The use of the Mission: Impossible theme is great, but the score doesn't rely entirely on the use of this theme, which is refreshing for a film like this. The only problem with the score (which doesn't have anything to do with Elfman himself) is the ear-bleedingly terrible arrangement of the Mission: Impossible theme during the credits by Larry Mullen, Jr. and Adam Clayton.

While Mission: Impossible is heavily convoluted and not especially original (one scene involving a telephone call is highly reminiscent of 1993's The Fugitive), but there's enough entertaining action sequences to make up for this. Mission: Impossible isn't exactly sophisticated fare, nor is it as breezily fun as other popcorn flicks. But it's got enough thrills to justify a watch- and enough issues to justify a pass.

There have been dozens of adaptions of A Christmas Carol over the years. Some better than others, but with each bringing something new or interesting to the beloved story. Now, I don't consider myself to be an authority on A Christmas Carol- I haven't read the book, and I certainly haven't seen all of the movies. But I can say with certainty that Scrooge will likely please even the grouchiest of humbugs.

You know the story: An old grump named Ebenezer Scrooge is visited by three ghosts representing the past, present, and future respectively. They have come so that Scrooge might see the error in his ways, and redeem himself before he permanently dooms himself in the afterlife.

Scrooge does everything a Christmas movie should do. It provides a Christmas-y atmosphere, it references plenty of Christmas carols, and it leaves you all warm and fuzzy inside when the film ends. If you love Christmas, you will more than likely enjoy yourself while watching Scrooge.

Something worth noting is that Scrooge is a musical, and therefore has a large number of songs. Though some merely consist of characters saying rhyming dialogue without even singing. The songs are generally likable, though I found many to be forgettable, and one was borderline annoying ("Thank You Very Much"). The only song that really stands out is "Christmas Children," which is a beautiful song that perfectly captures the feeling of Christmas. Also notable is "A Christmas Carol" which opens the film during the opening credits.

The performances are solid all around. Albert Finney is especially impressive as the title character, Scrooge, perfectly selling the old miser, despite only being 34 at the time of this film. A performance that often gets overlooked, despite it being really excellent is Alec Guinness as Marley's ghost. Also very notable is Edith Evans (Christmas Past), Kenneth More (Christmas Present), David Collings (Bob Cratchit), and Richard Beaumont (Tiny Tim).

The score, composed by Leslie Bricusse (who also wrote the songs and the screenplay) is appropriately Christmas-y, but not especially memorable. Then again, most of the score is covered with lyrics, as there is little music without song.

Scrooge is not a perfect movie. It has some small pacing issues, not all of the songs are good, and I suppose one could say that this film is pretty cheesy. And yet, I would be lying if I didn't say that I definitely cried at the end. Yeah, Scrooge has some problems, but when a film fills you up with so much Christmas cheer as this one did, it's relatively easy to forgive its few problems.

"What?!" That was the first thought I had when the end credits started rolling for Ender's Game. This is partly due to the fact that the story is incomplete, and the film ends, essentially, with a cliffhanger. Some might say it's less a cliffhanger then a hook for a potential sequel, but the story is not wrapped up, so in my eyes, the film ends with a cliffhanger. In addition to this, the ending is just plain weird. I will avoid spoilers in this review (very difficult, considering many of my problems with the film revolve around the last 10 minutes or so), but let's just say that anyone that has not read the book (I am included in this demographic) will be baffled, confused, and decidedly weird-ed out.

The premise of Ender's Game, is that in the future, gifted children are to be enrolled a sort of military school, so that they can be trained to attack against an alien fleet that threatens the existence of the universe. An especially gifted young boy named Andrew "Ender" Wiggins is accepted into this school, and is the one that Colonel Graff believes will end this long-fought war.

It really is a shame that so much of Ender's Game doesn't work, because there is so much in this film that works really well. The acting is generally solid (though not without some less-than-superb performances, which I'll detail later), the visuals are good (and at some points, absolutely gorgeous), and the premise does have a lot of potential. I like the main character, Ender Wiggins, and I like the development in the relationships Ender makes throughout the movie.

Unfortunately, for every good thing there is in Ender's Game, there's at least one bad thing. The ending, for instance is a major issue. As I mentioned before, there will be no spoilers, though frankly, I have a lot of opinions about the last 10 minutes that would likely take at least 2 reviews to fully detail.

One (of several problems) with the ending is its big "twist." Maybe my expectations for this fabled twist were a little high. I was especially curious because many that had read the book complained that the twist was revealed in the trailers. The twist, in fact, is hardly a twist. It's hard to explain without giving anything away, but this twist- while not predictable- really isn't much of a shocker. I didn't see it coming, but I wasn't shocked, nor surprised. The twist just doesn't feel consequential, or meaningful, and there are a number of reasons I can think of as to why this might be, and how it could've been fixed- though I, of course, can't detail them without spoilers.

In addition to the ending, there are a significant number of scenes that just had a really awkward feel. That's really the best I can describe these scenes- awkward. Maybe once or twice, this was done intentionally, but I really do think most of these occurrences were completely unintentional, and it makes one feel a bit squeamish. Sometimes it's because of the dialogue, others because of the cinematography, but there are enough of these kinds of scenes that it's worth mentioning here.

Also disappointing is how little is done to enunciate this dark premise of children learning warfare to fight in a galactic battle. It's briefly touched upon, but this sort of controversial and thought provoking premise is given little in-depth discussion in the film. Movies like The Hunger Games have done an excellent job of properly displaying the darkness of its twisted premise, but Ender's Game makes almost no attempts to do so.

The acting, as I mentioned before, is generally solid, but not without mis-steps. Asa Butterfield is good in the role of Ender Wiggins, but I couldn't help but feel like this was a step back from his near flawless leading role in 2011's Hugo. Harrison Ford as Colonel Graff is solid, but his character is missing the wit, energy, and charm that we're so accustomed to seeing Ford deliver. Ben Kingsley's small role as Mazer Rackham is not without merit, though his makeup job is silly and distracting. Also notable for their good performances are Viola Davis, Nonso Anozie, Hailee Steinfield, and Abigail Breslin.

The films involvement with children, unfortunately, does lend itself to some expectedly bad "child performances," but for a film with this many kids, the acting is all right. The main problem here is Moisés Arias as Bonzo. In addition to being completely miscast, Arias just feels really off in his entire performance. He's really more laughable than menacing.

The score composed by Steve Jablonsky is simply atrocious. Offensively so, actually. The score for Ender's Game is, essentially, trailer music. In other words, it has loud percussion, far too much electronic influence, and no personality. It's completely anonymous sounding, and the gimmicky uses of viola and cello frustrate me. If trailer music is your thing, then you'll probably really like this score, but to me, it just sounds like stock music, and bad stock music at that. This score is especially disappointing when one considers that James Horner was initially attached to compose for this film before leaving the project. Surely even Horner at his absolute worst would've been a massive improvement over the drivel we have to suffer through here.

Ender's Game has a lot of problems (believe me, I've barely started to name them all), and the missed potential here is a bit crushing. But there is a lot that Ender's Game does right. I'll be honest, there were significant portions of the film that I found to be relatively gripping. If nothing else, I was hardly ever bored during Ender's Game (especially notable because of its near 2 hour length). Unfortunately, a terrible ending, less than intelligent handling of the premise, awkward scenes, and a horrendous score (among other problems) stop Ender's Game from being the enjoyable Sci-Fi entry it wants to become. Ender's Game obviously wants to start a franchise (and early box office numbers suggest this may happen), but there's going to have to be some significant changes made if it hopes to be a truly notable YA adaption.

Many children have grown up reading the work of Roald Dahl, and I was no exception. To this day, The Witches remains my favorite book by the prolific children's author, being more frightening, creepy, and wickedly twisted than any book I had read at the time. The movie manages to convey these traits of the book (sometimes better, sometimes worse), but in a manner that could potentially traumatize younger children. In other words, The Witches doesn't hold back on being as dark as it needs to be- that is, until the unfortunate twist at the end that Dahl himself spoke publicly against.

As explained in the film, witches appear to be normal, and harmless-looking woman, but that's what makes them so hard to spot. Witches hate children, and will do anything to get rid of them. Few are aware of the existence of witches. One of these few are an elderly lady named Helga, grandmother of a young boy named Luke, whom she now cares for, as Luke's parents have died. But things get interesting when Luke stumbles upon a meeting composed of witches (quite by accident), and is subsequently turned into a mouse.

The Witches, even to someone like me who has read the book, feels like something completely new and original. The set designs are clever, the cinematography is unique (if a little clumsy at times), and while some bits might seem a little dated for some, the dark charm The Witches possesses cannot be ignored.

Does this film have problems? Well, yes, but most of these would involve comparisons between the book and the film, which leads to tiresome nit-picking, so I'll try to avoid detailing this.

However, I must briefly address the ending (though I will not spoil anything), which differs dramatically from the book, and all but destroys the tone the film was going for. The Witches strives for darkness and frights. So much so that The Witches really does push the PG envelope. In fact, I think the ending is all that saved it from getting the PG-13 it probably deserved. And it's because the ending is so absurdly happy, as something occurs that perfectly wraps up the film, and makes everything all right, and this is not how it should be at all.

The ending for the book was perfect, and the only reason this change could be considered necessary, is to insure that children won't find themselves further disturbed by the book's non-typical ending. But the content before this ending is so un-friendly to children, this change didn't need to be made. This is the equivalent of running a marathon, only to give up a few steps away from the finish line.

Ending aside, The Witches boasts some truly terrifying visuals (at least, terrifying for a family film), and some surprisingly grim moments. But that's the beauty of it; it's a dark, horrifying film, disguised as a movie for families. This is exactly the kind of adaption that a Roald Dahl book deserves, and I'm sure Dahl would've loved this movie had it not been for the ending.

Child actors usually get a bad rap, and while Jasen Fisher as Luke is completely inoffensive, his performance also doesn't require much depth. For most of the film, Luke is a mouse, and even before Luke is turned into a mouse, his screen presence is limited- at least for a main character.

Anjelica Huston's performance as the Grand High Witch is solid, though her spotlight is stolen by her purposefully grotesque appearance. Whether this is the result of a mask, prosthetics, or special effects, the make-up job is fantastic. Also notable is Mai Zetterling as Luke's grandmother, and Rowan Atikson as a hotel manager- both actors are solid in their roles.

The score, composed by Stanley Myers, enhances the film (especially during its more suspenseful moments), but it's completely forgettable. There's not a single musical moment I can recall, which is unfortunate.

The Witches a fresh, and wickedly entertaining production, but it certainly won't appeal to everyone. Some of the campier aspects of the film will certainly bother some audiences (for example, I'm certain that at least a half-dozen of the witches were actually male), while children will likely be scared spit-less by some of the more frightening images. But fans of the book should enjoy themselves (while nit picking throughout), and those in the mood for an offbeat, darker-themed fantasy should find themselves immensely satisfied.

If only it weren't for that ending...

Years from now, Gravity will be the film that countless directors will credit to being the movie that first opened their eyes to the world of cinema. You may have seen movies about space, and you may have seen movies about astronauts, but you have NOT seen a movie like this. Gravity is unlike any other movie I've ever seen, and unlike any movie I ever will see. Perhaps it is unwise to say so, but I'll say it anyway; stop reading this review this very second. Go see Gravity while it's still in theaters, and see it in 3D. The less you know about Gravity before you go in, the better. This is an experience, and I would not suggest risking it to be hampered by knowing too much about it.

The crew of the Explorer is finishing up on their space mission, preparing to go home. Our female protagonist, Dr. Ryan Stone is especially happy to be home, as she has found space to be decidedly unagreeable. And yet, everything goes wrong as debris from a Russian satellite accident begins to rain upon the group, and the result is disastrous. Dr. Stone is stranded, floating around in space, only accompanied by space veteran Matt Koawlski, as the two struggle to survive in the unknown that is outer space. Still, while Matt Koawalski is an important and memorable aspect of the film, this is Dr. Stone's story, and it is her that we invest in.

Gravity is an experience like no other. This film takes you on a journey, a struggle of life and death, and it doesn't let go until the credits start rolling. For some, it may even be long after that. Like I stated in my introduction, there's not a doubt in my mind that many, many future filmmakers have just made their first step into the world of movies by watching Gravity.

But what specifically makes Gravity such a fantastic film, worthy of the praise that has been showered upon it? Well, just about anyone you ask that has seen this film will immediately point out the visuals, and they are stunning. Every frame of this film is gorgeous, and any given shot could have been used as a movie poster with zero editing to the picture itself.

The cinematography is gorgeous, and often awe inspiring. And the way Gravity is filmed is also very unique, as there are very few "takes" in this film. The first half hour of Gravity almost appears to be one long, fluid shot. The visuals are jaw-dropping at times, and I began to wonder how some of these shots were filmed. All of this is enhanced by 3D. Indeed, even the most malicious of anti-3D spokespeople would have to admit that the use of said technology in this film is masterful to say the least. And yet, Gravity is so much more than just pretty pictures.

There is a story behind those images. You notice that I mentioned that I was curious as to how portions of this film was shot (and these shots will likely inspire future directors and cinematographers), but Gravity doesn't give anyone the time to think about the technical aspects of the film for long. The story, while simplistic on the surface, is gripping and involving. If Gravity doesn't grab you, you're probably dead or lying. Check your pulse; it may have stopped.

Throughout Gravity, I was alternating between sitting on the edge of my seat, and holding back tears (and occasionally reminding myself to breathe). The moments of intense action and impossibly stressful situations are done to perfection, but Gravity doesn't forget to give us a reason to fight for Dr. Stone.

Dr. Stone seems like a bit of a party-pooper at first. But it doesn't take long for us to invest in this character. We learn bits of her back story, and we feel her struggle. The emotional aspect of this film was done so well. There were several times in this film where I had a lump in my throat, and I was holding back tears (often unsuccessfully). Thank goodness I could hide behind those 3D glasses.

Sandra Bullock delivers a stellar performance (if you'll pardon the pun). Bullock makes you fight for this character (and I often found myself quietly cheering her on in my seat). There are scenes that, on paper, shouldn't work, but Bullock makes them work. In fact, she makes them shine. And then there's George Clooney as Matt Kowalski, who seems to be getting the cold shoulder in many reviews as the guy who's just "there." But for me, Clooney's performance almost matches Bullock's. He's a character you love and grow attached to. He delivers the emotion when he needs to, and as he assures Bullock's character that everything will be alright, he adopts a warm, fatherly persona like few others can truly accomplish.

The score, composed by Steven Price, is perhaps a touch electronic for my tastes. But that doesn't mean it doesn't work. On the contrary, I can't imagine any other score in place of the one used for Gravity. It's intense at times, and at others, emotionally satisfying. The music has problems, but it really does improve and enhance the film, and as long as a score does that, I'm happy.

Gravity is an unforgettable experience. It's an intense, roller-coaster of a film that delivers the thrills, but doesn't forget that heart and strong characters are essential to make this kind of film work. Mix in flawless visuals, pitch-perfect acting, and many tear-jerking scenes, and you've got yourself one of the greatest space movies ever made. Gravity is going to inspire audiences and filmmakers for years and years to come, and perhaps attribute a few grey hairs as well.

There is some truth to the saying "You can't judge a book by its cover," but at the same time, it doesn't always apply. In the case of Epic, I got exactly what I anticipated; a generic kids' fantasy film, with not an original bone its body. And yet (perhaps this is where that old saying comes into place), this is hardly a the trudge I thought it would be. Despite its many flaws, Epic is a fairly entertaining fantasy film. It's practically guaranteed to enthrall children, and will give their parents or babysitter a chance to nap, or perhaps watch and find themselves mildly engaged.

The premise of Epic is that there is a secret, hidden world, just outside, where flowers can walk and talk, bugs can likewise speak and thrive, and there are little tiny people that look just like us. A girl named Mary Katherine (she goes by M.K.), is skeptical of this world (though her eccentric father has devoted his life to the subject), but she quickly believes when she is shrunk down to the size of these tiny people, and gets involved in a matter of life and death, good and evil. She is now on a quest, and is accompanied by a stern general named Ronin, an independent young man named Nod, and two slugs named Mub and Grub.

Epic certainly gets off to a bit of a slow start. In fact, the first half of the movie did little to nothing to entertain me. The generic story and plot, and weak characters hardly engaged me, and while it wasn't disastrously bad, Epic was shaping up to be a relatively boring experience.

However, it pleases me to say that the second half of the film is significantly better than the first. The gags are stronger, the characters are a bit more likable, and the production is far more entertaining as a whole. The story is still familiar and old, and I wouldn't expect anything to really surprise you, but as far as generic fantasy films go, you could do worse.

One of the best elements of this film is the relationship between M.K. and her nutty father, as well as the (admittedly few) scenes regarding M.K.'s parents separating. These scenes are surprisingly thoughtful, and even a bit touching, and provide an emotional backbone that's necessary for almost any film- animated or not- to really work.

Some of the most amusing bits involve the two slugs, Mub and Grub. While they're irritating at first, they begin to grow on you. Indeed, by the end of the film, I found myself (somewhat guiltily) laughing at their jokes.

The voice cast does their job, but one wouldn't be wrong to have hoped for more out of such a star-studded cast. Surprisingly enough, the best performance of the film comes from (Lord help me) Beyoncé Knowles as Queen Tara. Her part is played surprisingly meaningfully, and her role remains one of the few memorable characters in this film. Also notable is Jason Sudeikis as Professor Bomba; M.K.'s father.

Danny Elfman's score is good fun at times, though it's not especially memorable. There are some fun moments of inspired instrumentation, and while I wouldn't rank it among his best work, it's still a joy to hear Elfman in his element- which is, of course, fantasy films.

The place where Epic really excels is in animation. Some shots are simply stunning, and it's always pretty to look at. This might be one of the best looking animated film I've seen that hasn't come from Pixar or Disney.

If you're looking for an animated film to keep your kids occupied for an hour and forty minutes, Epic should suffice. It's not likely to entertain adults as much as the efforts of Pixar, Disney, or even Dreamworks, but if you can excuse the extremely familiar story (and the slow first half), you'll find that this is far from the worst of the childrens film crowd.

Shrek- like the Dreamworks CGI film that preceded it, Antz- attempts to target an older audience in comparison to competing companies like Disney and Pixar. And yet, curiously enough, most of Shrek's jokes are just plain childish. Surely the absurd amount of gross-out gags contained within the the first 5 minutes of the film weren't meant to entertain adults, were they? Yes, there is some edgy content that will appeal more to adults, and some humor that kids won't get, but for the most part, nearly everything contained within Shrek is just kids stuff. And pretty weak kids stuff at that.

Shrek is sort of a parody to the classic Disney films, and various fairy-tales. Shrek, an ogre, has his swamp suddenly populated with fairy-tale characters. Furious, Shrek complains to the person responsible- the villainous Lord Farquaad- and demands to have his swamp back to the way it was. Lord Farquaad offers to give Shrek his swamp back, but only if he saves Princess Fiona from a tower guarded by a dragon, and brings Fiona back to his castle. This is so that Farquaad can marry Fiona and become king. Shrek agrees, and so he embarks on this quest, along with a talking donkey named...Donkey.

Shrek isn't funny enough, nor emotionally satisfying enough to compete with even the lesser efforts of Pixar or Disney. The humor is rarely very funny, as much of it appeals to a much younger audience than what we're led to believe by its much stronger parody elements. And sadly enough, these bits of parody humor are only evident in the first half of the film. After that, Shrek is your run-of-the-mill children's flick. Ironically, Shrek ultimately becomes the very thing it's poking fun at, except immensely watered down.

Had the film focused more on its parody humor, and less on its generic romance story, Shrek could've been a reasonably good time. But alas, Shrek decides to abandon one of its only working components in the second half of the film, resulting in a largely uninteresting 90 minute trudge that feels much longer than an hour and a half.

While a number of the fairy-tale oriented characters are pretty funny, the main three characters that the film chooses to focus on (Shrek, Donkey and Princess Fiona), are an absolute bore, if not completely unlikable. Shrek is an uninteresting character (and his grumpy nature makes him extremely unlikable at times), and Donkey is rarely funny, and is more often obnoxious. Fiona is a cardboard cut-out of the "girl-that-fights-for-herself-and-has-an-attitude" that we've all seen far too many times to care much about.

The more interesting characters, like Gingy (the Ginger-Bread Man), the three blind mice, and the three little pigs, get little more than a line or two in their measly roles. They're funny when they're onscreen, but they get, perhaps, a minute and a half total of screen time. The fairy-tale creature with the most screen time is the Magic Mirror of Snow White fame, though even his role his relatively small.

Mike Meyers as Shrek is instantly forgettable, and is accompanied by a half-hearted Scottish accent. Eddie Murphy is easily the best of the voice talents, providing energy and excitement to the character, even with less than engaging material. Cameron Diaz and John Lithgow are forgettable in their roles, and don't make any kind of lasting impression.

The animation, while not quite up to today's standards, still holds up pretty well. The character designs are nothing to write home about, and the humans are a little clunky, but the environments look pretty good, and there are some relatively impressive sequences.

The score, composed by dynamite duo Harry Gregson-Williams and John Powell, is very good at times, especially when utilizing the heroic main theme. But when the soundtrack kicks in, utilizing dated pop and rock songs that feel completely out of place in the film, Shrek begins to feel more and more like a mere product as opposed to a film.

While it's not unwatchable, Shrek lacks the laughs and the heart to compete with Disney or Pixar. The parody elements are used far too little, and the the bland characters and predictable plot that the film chooses to focus on will likely bore older audiences. There are brief moments of inspiration and clever humor, but they don't come nearly often enough to make up for the tired and helplessly blah story it encompasses.

If I didn't feel like ruthlessly tearing this film apart at the moment, I could simply copy and paste the majority of my review of Shawn Levy's The Pink Panther, as many of my points in that review apply to Johnny English (not to mention that both films are nearly identical). And yet, Johnny English is even worse, and while at least the Pink Panther provided a meager handful of infrequent chuckles, Johnny English has little to no working gags. Once again, I am disgusted by the low standards of live action children's cinema- that is, if I dare to refer to this inexcusably terrible piece of formulaic tripe as cinema.

There's hardly any plot in Johnny English. The majority of the film is made up of loosely related action/comedy scenarios that are neither exciting, nor comedic. The bare bones plot of the film is that Johnny English- by account of an absurdly violent incident at the beginning of the film resulting in the death of every other agent in the country- is the only living secret agent in England, and therefore, the only person that can uncover the secret behind some stolen jewels. Teamed with his partner, Angus Bough (who contradicts the film's previous statement that all of the other agents have died), they must uncover the missing jewels, as well as stop an evil "genius" from becoming king.

Johnny English has almost nothing that will appeal to anyone over the age of 9 (and I am sorry to insult those 1-9 year-olds in this manner). All the children's film cliches are here, including poop jokes, silly dancing, a bumbling main character, and dozens of other unfortunate elements.

The humor is also subject to not one, but two shots of a man's bare bottom (one of which is an extended bit), and an alarmingly raunchy scene of innuendo that struck me as completely out of place for a PG film. In addition to quite a bit of violence, and a surprising amount of language, I can't imagine what parent would feel comfortable letting their kids watch this.

And yet, as I stated before, there is nearly nothing here that could possibly be enjoyable to anyone whose age is in their double digits. At times, Johnny English is downright insulting in it's stupidity, and general laziness.

We've seen everything in this film before in other movies. Just rarely this poorly. Johnny English is also an extremely predictable movie, with gags that can be predicted before they even begin to occur. There's not an original gag in this film, and I struggle to think of any funny one(s).

Rowan Atikson tries hard as Johnny English, but he cannot make the material work, no matter how silly his faces. John Malkovich as the villain, Pascal Sauvage, sports what might be the worst, unintentionally bad French accent I've ever seen in a feature film. Supporting actors like Ben Miller and Natalie Imbruglia are so forgettable and weak in their roles, that they're hardly worth mention.

The only vaguely bright spot about this film is its half-way decent score, composed by Edward Shearmur. Purposefully emphasizing on spy cliches, the score is actually pretty fun at times, if somewhat formulaic.

Unfunny, even vulgar, and an utter failure in almost every respect (not to mention sloppily edited, and poorly shot), Johnny English is one of the worst kids films I've seen in recent memory- an impressive feat. Consistently defying logic, physics, and my tolerance, Johnny English is an aggressively bad film. Other than acknowledge the score again, the best thing I can say about Johnny English is that its only 88 minutes. And yet, that is certainly 88 minutes too long.