That said, it's still a good movie. You just have to go in with your expectations low enough. Me, I just wanted it to be better than LXG. And it certainly succeeded there. Admittedly, there were some rather large plot holes (e.g. how, exactly, do you have two different full moons within the span of a few days?). But these don't disturb the overall flow (such as it is). The characters are engaging. I'll see anything for Hugh Jackman anyway. Kate Beckinsale has really proven herself as an action heroine (she can now be forgiven for "Pearl Harbor"). Richard Roxburgh plays a campy, but very Lugosi, Dracula. And all the supporting characters do an excellent job as well (the Brides, Carl, Frankenstein's Monster, etc.) Even the effects weren't too bad, and they're a tremendous improvement over "The Scorpion King," so Sommers should be congratulated. Bottom line . . . don't expect too much, just go an be entertained. After all, it's only a movie. (8/10)
Reviews
18 Reviews
Wide Sargasso Sea
(1993)
Beautiful landscape, perplexing plot (some spoilers)
14 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
This film was gorgeous; Jamaica is a beautiful country. This film, however, had serious flaws. One was the rather bizarre use of "erotic" scenes. They were incomplete and contributed little, if anything, to the plot. The viewer only gets a glimpse of the passion that supposedly exists between Edward and Antoinette. Therefore, they should have either gone all the way, tastefully (no pun intended), or have left those scenes out entirely. The most egregious problems, however, regarded the plot. There were enormous holes, which perhaps could be rectified by reading the book. But for those who haven't read the book, there should be enough information in the film itself to keep the reader afloat. From the start it was unclear what was really going on with this family (despite the narration). Why did the ex-slaves keep laughing? (Something vaguely explained in the movie, though apparently fully explained in the book). Why didn't the parrot fly away? What made the mother go nuts? At no point in the movie were Mr. Rochester's "issues", as it were, fully explained. The man gets a letter exposing his wife as a Creole and dumps her like a hot potato, after (as Christophene explains) he was the one who came crawling to her in the first place. What a hypocrite. Again, maybe this is the ultimate point, that Mr. Rochester is a snob and the archetypical Victorian Englishman and that Antoinette is the victim of both his prejudice and that of the Jamaicans. But none of that exonerates the appallingly abrupt conclusion to the film. One minute they are sailing off for England and the next she is the insane woman in the tower who burns down Mr. Rochester's house in "Jane Eyre." There is by no means enough plot development to support such a leap. So, despite the beautiful cinematography, this movie is a hopeless muddle. Stick to the book.
2/5 stars (for the scenery)
2/5 stars (for the scenery)
What a mess . . .
12 July 2003
With such rich backstory, both from the original novels and the modern graphic novel, there was no reason why this movie could not have been a success. From the beginning, this movie was fraught with problems, not the least of which was the overuse of special effects explosions and rather improbable effects situations (e.g. the Nautilus was enormous, yet managed to easily navigate the canals of Venice). Even within the bounds of sci-fi, there was just a little too much stretching.
Another huge impediment was character development and interaction between characters. The movie had a frenetic, jerky pace and there wasn't sufficient explanation of the characters and why there were there. I did some searching before the movie on the official website and only though that was I adequately prepared to understand what was going on in the movie. Not even reading the novels would make understanding the movie easier. What's worse is that these are all talented actors and actresses and they were sorely misused. Half the time I felt as if the actors had filmed their scenes independent of the rest of the cast. The only two for whom the script worked were Peta Wilson and Stuart Townshend. Overall the movie felt like a series of vignettes poorly strung together into an uneven, barely intelligible mess.
Though I realize this was based on a graphic novel, and thereby designed to play out in snappy, quick segments, the writers really should have worked harder to make the scenes fit together as they should have. They could have dropped the Venice scene entirely and simply focused on figuring out the identity of the Fantom and tracking him to his factory.
Perhaps the biggest problem with this movie is the butchery of the classic novels from which the characters are drawn. There are numerous literary quips in the movie that likely won't click for those who aren't well-versed in the Victorian and Regency classics. Most of the literary references are poorly explained (e.g. John Moriarty, Sherlock Holmes and the real identity of 'M'). And I agree with an earlier reviewer who was disappointed with the treatment of many of the charaters (e.g. the suddenly wussy Mr. Hyde and the rather meek vampire Mina Harker).
The ultimate lesson from this movie is that if you are going to make a piece of crap, do it with actors who will draw the bucks to the theater. Which was the only thing the directors did well. This movie was a mess and I would suggest not wasting your money. Rating - 2.5/10.
Another huge impediment was character development and interaction between characters. The movie had a frenetic, jerky pace and there wasn't sufficient explanation of the characters and why there were there. I did some searching before the movie on the official website and only though that was I adequately prepared to understand what was going on in the movie. Not even reading the novels would make understanding the movie easier. What's worse is that these are all talented actors and actresses and they were sorely misused. Half the time I felt as if the actors had filmed their scenes independent of the rest of the cast. The only two for whom the script worked were Peta Wilson and Stuart Townshend. Overall the movie felt like a series of vignettes poorly strung together into an uneven, barely intelligible mess.
Though I realize this was based on a graphic novel, and thereby designed to play out in snappy, quick segments, the writers really should have worked harder to make the scenes fit together as they should have. They could have dropped the Venice scene entirely and simply focused on figuring out the identity of the Fantom and tracking him to his factory.
Perhaps the biggest problem with this movie is the butchery of the classic novels from which the characters are drawn. There are numerous literary quips in the movie that likely won't click for those who aren't well-versed in the Victorian and Regency classics. Most of the literary references are poorly explained (e.g. John Moriarty, Sherlock Holmes and the real identity of 'M'). And I agree with an earlier reviewer who was disappointed with the treatment of many of the charaters (e.g. the suddenly wussy Mr. Hyde and the rather meek vampire Mina Harker).
The ultimate lesson from this movie is that if you are going to make a piece of crap, do it with actors who will draw the bucks to the theater. Which was the only thing the directors did well. This movie was a mess and I would suggest not wasting your money. Rating - 2.5/10.
The Hours
(2002)
Not a film for the superficial . . . (Spoilers ahead!)
17 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
This film is hands-down the best film of 2002! Michael Cunningham's book of the same title was an intense work that, like Woolf's "Mrs. Dalloway," showed us one day in the life of three women: Virginia Woolf, the troubled visionary; Laura Brown, trapped housewife; and Clarissa Vaughn, the modern equivalent of Woolf's Dalloway.
Of the three women, Virgina Woolf is the most compelling and Nicole Kidman plays her to perfection. Woolf's insanity was the quiet variety, slowly eating her away over the course of 59 years, and her suicide was merely the inevitable culmination of a life spent wrestling with her inner demons. Kidman was the perfect choice for this character. Her portrayal was haunting and ironic. Kidman was snubbed last year for the win. Anything less than an Oscar win this year would be criminal.
Laura Brown is a truly pathetic character. Trapped in an unhappy marriage (of her own making, if you've read the book), Brown desires nothing more than to be free of her life in the tidy California suburbs. Brown, however, lacks the determination of Woolf and cannot, ultimately, take her own life. Instead, she leaves her family, spending the rest of her life wallowing in guilt. Unfortunately, She is the least appealing of the three women. She cuts a sad figure, but I really never felt sorry for her. Just annoyed. Much has been made of Julianne Moore's role in both "The Hours" and "Far From Heaven," but essentially they are the same characters and, while well-played, not destined for Oscar.
People have panned Meryl Streep's portrayal of Clarissa Vaughn, saying the character was nothing more than the average of other characters Streep has played in the past. I agree. But you have to admit, she does it well. And this case is no different. Streep does an excellent job playing a woman torn between her lover and the love of her life, a man dying of AIDS. At the very least, Streep should get a nod for Best Supporting Actress.
Ed Harris, Allison Janney, Toni Collette, Claire Daines, and Jeff Daniels carry off their supporting roles superbly. They act well enough to make their mark and subtly enough to let the main characters shine.
I loved this movie. If life was fair, "The Hours" would get Best Picture and Best Actress for Kidman. We'll see how fair life is on Sunday, at the Golden Globes.
10/10
Of the three women, Virgina Woolf is the most compelling and Nicole Kidman plays her to perfection. Woolf's insanity was the quiet variety, slowly eating her away over the course of 59 years, and her suicide was merely the inevitable culmination of a life spent wrestling with her inner demons. Kidman was the perfect choice for this character. Her portrayal was haunting and ironic. Kidman was snubbed last year for the win. Anything less than an Oscar win this year would be criminal.
Laura Brown is a truly pathetic character. Trapped in an unhappy marriage (of her own making, if you've read the book), Brown desires nothing more than to be free of her life in the tidy California suburbs. Brown, however, lacks the determination of Woolf and cannot, ultimately, take her own life. Instead, she leaves her family, spending the rest of her life wallowing in guilt. Unfortunately, She is the least appealing of the three women. She cuts a sad figure, but I really never felt sorry for her. Just annoyed. Much has been made of Julianne Moore's role in both "The Hours" and "Far From Heaven," but essentially they are the same characters and, while well-played, not destined for Oscar.
People have panned Meryl Streep's portrayal of Clarissa Vaughn, saying the character was nothing more than the average of other characters Streep has played in the past. I agree. But you have to admit, she does it well. And this case is no different. Streep does an excellent job playing a woman torn between her lover and the love of her life, a man dying of AIDS. At the very least, Streep should get a nod for Best Supporting Actress.
Ed Harris, Allison Janney, Toni Collette, Claire Daines, and Jeff Daniels carry off their supporting roles superbly. They act well enough to make their mark and subtly enough to let the main characters shine.
I loved this movie. If life was fair, "The Hours" would get Best Picture and Best Actress for Kidman. We'll see how fair life is on Sunday, at the Golden Globes.
10/10
Practical Magic
(1998)
Give this movie a break!
17 January 2003
This movie had no profound message, no deep spiritual meaning, nothing! And I think it's great! It's refreshing to have a movie that has no greater purpose than to let the viewer have a good time. And it is. Nicole Kidman and Sandra Bullock are two of the greatest actresses around today (see Kidman in "The Hours" for proof) and in this film they are just having fun. Dianne Wiest and Stockard Channing are fantastic as the crotchety aunts (I wish they were mine!). Aidan Quinn and Goran Visnjic are entertaining as the polar opposite male leads - one good, one evil. All told, this is an entertaining movie that can be watched over and over just to be charmed.
Another plus: this movie presents the most mature take on witchcraft and paganism of any movie in the whole of film history. Kudos to Alice Hoffman and Robin Swicord!
10/10 (for sheer fun)
Another plus: this movie presents the most mature take on witchcraft and paganism of any movie in the whole of film history. Kudos to Alice Hoffman and Robin Swicord!
10/10 (for sheer fun)
The Emperor's New Clothes
(2001)
Wonderful flick!
20 December 2002
This movie was outstanding! A neat little conspiracy theory about the true last years of Napoleon Bonaparte. Ian Holm is fantastic as both Napoleon and Lenormand. The military strategy of watermelons is hilarious. If you missed this in the the theaters, you've got to rent it! 10/10!
Michael Collins
(1996)
Decent cinematic experience
19 December 2002
Despite the AWFUL linguistic stylings of Julia Roberts (I've never heard such a bad Irish accent before; she couldn't pick between sorta Irish and fully American), this movie wasn't too bad. Liam Neeson and Alan Rickman were fantastic, as ever. Ditto Aidan Quinn, Ian Hart, and Stephen Rea. I'm sure the producers took liberal license with the actual story of Michael Collins, but that didn't detract from the overall worth of the movie itself. 8/10.
Maid in Manhattan
(2002)
Could the script have been more hacked?
14 December 2002
This wasn't a movie. It was a poorly stitched together rag of storylines that we've seen time and time again. Pretty Woman, anyone? The lines were trite to the point that I wanted to gag. The plot holes were big enough you could fall in and break your neck. What was the deal with the mother (or the "abuela," since the writers felt the incessant need to remind us that J-Lo is Hispanic)? I think a little therapy is what they need, not a 2-hour movie. Ralph Fiennes and Jennifer Lopez had so little chemistry I could have been watching two mice mate. The one saving grace of this film was the son, Ty, who had the best lines in the movie.
All in all, save your money and wait for "Maid in Manhattan" to hit primetime. 2/10.
All in all, save your money and wait for "Maid in Manhattan" to hit primetime. 2/10.
The Scorpion King
(2002)
Come on people, what did you expect?
12 October 2002
Some people have panned this movie for everything from poor acting to bad writing, but, come one, what did you really expect? I knew from the trailer that this wasn't going to be a classic. But, since The Rock is funny, it had to be entertaining (the underlying point of all cinema, right?). And it was. I think The Rock has the potential to be a fantastic movie star. He's funny and sexy and can at least deliver his lines. The writing in this was the problem. It's hard to be profound when the lines are trite and hacked (something that hurt all the performances, not just The Rock's). But, all in all, this movie has great action scenes, good one-liners and a generally good group of actors. If you want deep meaning and an emotionally moving storyline, rent "Ghandi." If you just want fun, rent "The Scorpion King." An 8 out of 10 for fun.
The Osbournes
(2002–2005)
I love this show!!!
9 April 2002
Normally, I loathe reality shows. With a passion. But I love "The Osbournes." Ozzy and Sharon are the cutest couple and Jack and Kelly are really normal teenagers. I think it just shows that their family has the same problems every other normal family has (their problems are just more expensive - i.e. throwing a log through the neighbors window). Its a great concept and a wonderful show.
The Time Machine
(2002)
Pretty good flick
10 March 2002
Despite a lack of adequate plot development, this film was really good fun. Jeremy Irons was fantastic, even though his role was abbreviated. Of course, Jeremy Irons is always wonderful. I loved the scenery and the sets. Especially the Eloi cliff tents, which reminded me of the game Myst III: Exile. Also, the transitions of New York over 800,000 years is amazing. Truly incredible. Others have commented on Guy Pearce's appearance, and I have to agree for the first half. He looked innocent and sleazy at the sime time, which is nothing a bottle of shampoo wouldn't have fixed. By the end though, he is rumpled and really quite sexy. ;-) (7/10)
Behind Enemy Lines
(2001)
Ugh, the nausea . . . (may include a SPOILER)
1 December 2001
Warning: Spoilers
I definitely agree with one of the other commenters that the cameraman should be shot. It was like watching the Blair Witch Project, with more missiles and guns (though, I daresay the BWP could have used a few well placed missiles). I'm sure the filming budget included something more than a man with a handheld camcorder running behind Owen Wilson.
As for the characters, again we have Gene Hackman in what is becoming for him a typecast role. As we saw in Crimson Tide, Hackman is the crusty old war hero who knows everything, while all the other characters can't even blow their noses. But then at the end (sniff!), he sees the error of his ways and becomes a better man. Awwww.
Owen Wilson plays a pretty good Lt. Burnett. Another hot-doggin' fighter pilot (think Tom Cruise) wanting to see some action; this is a character becoming standard in any shoot-'em up war film these days, but that's okay. We can handle that! The bad guys are thoroughly bad. And the effects are good, when they aren't bouncing all over the screen. So, if your just in the mood for an okay war film, light on the comedy, light on the drama, heavy on the artillery -- enjoy!
As for the characters, again we have Gene Hackman in what is becoming for him a typecast role. As we saw in Crimson Tide, Hackman is the crusty old war hero who knows everything, while all the other characters can't even blow their noses. But then at the end (sniff!), he sees the error of his ways and becomes a better man. Awwww.
Owen Wilson plays a pretty good Lt. Burnett. Another hot-doggin' fighter pilot (think Tom Cruise) wanting to see some action; this is a character becoming standard in any shoot-'em up war film these days, but that's okay. We can handle that! The bad guys are thoroughly bad. And the effects are good, when they aren't bouncing all over the screen. So, if your just in the mood for an okay war film, light on the comedy, light on the drama, heavy on the artillery -- enjoy!
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
(2001)
Nice combination of Kubrick and Spielberg
2 July 2001
When I was telling a friend about this movie, I accidentally said the director was Stanley Spielberg. In a way, that's correct. Spielberg tried to mesh his own ideas with those of the late Stanley Kubrick, and it really seemed to work. You can see the elements that reflect Spielberg and Kubrick and they don't oppose each other or interrupt the flow of the film. The storyline has that surreal quality (which is upheld also by the visual effects) that permeates every picture Kubrick ever had a hand in, combined with the elegance of Spielberg. Another element I liked was the music. The soundtrack was wonderful and supported the cinematography brilliantly.
There were some potholes in the road trip of this film. The relationship between Monica (Frances O'Connor) and David (Haley Joel Osment) is too jerky, too contrived. The entire pattern of the relationship between David and his "mother" just seems to be missing the essential elements of a truly bonded relationship. Spielburg tends to move quickly from scene to scene, but in a way that is tolerable, where you don't feel as though you have truly missed something. It is only towards the end that you get this impression, when the narration picks up and starts to be used as filler. Kingsley narrates us through the last 20 minutes or so of the movie, which isn't as effective as it could have been. It's like being read to.
However, despite minor flaws, this movie is a masterful collaboration between two of the greatest filmmakers of the last 50 years. Score: 9 out of 10.
There were some potholes in the road trip of this film. The relationship between Monica (Frances O'Connor) and David (Haley Joel Osment) is too jerky, too contrived. The entire pattern of the relationship between David and his "mother" just seems to be missing the essential elements of a truly bonded relationship. Spielburg tends to move quickly from scene to scene, but in a way that is tolerable, where you don't feel as though you have truly missed something. It is only towards the end that you get this impression, when the narration picks up and starts to be used as filler. Kingsley narrates us through the last 20 minutes or so of the movie, which isn't as effective as it could have been. It's like being read to.
However, despite minor flaws, this movie is a masterful collaboration between two of the greatest filmmakers of the last 50 years. Score: 9 out of 10.
The Mummy Returns
(2001)
Entertaining, but could have been better
2 July 2001
This movie was completely devoid of any unique plotline, but that doesn't diminish the entertainment value. If you come into this movie expecting some profound meaning, you will be vastly disappointed by this rehashing of the same plot line that worked for Indiana Jones. Because that is really all it is. A little fighting, a little running, a little humor, shake it, don't stir it and you have this film. But, if you have no expectations (I hadn't even ever seen the first one, though I hear this one was better, which makes me not want to see the first one), than you can just sit back and enjoy the scenery. This movie was filmed in some beautiful locations (Egypt, London, Morocco, Petra, etc). And Brendan Fraser and Oded Fehr are hunks. And the humor kept the audience twittering, even if the delivery was a bit dry and contrived.
Perhaps the worst element of this movie was some of the digital effects. The animation of the Scorpion King at the end was pathetic. There is better animation in Pac Man. The least they could have done was actually use The Rock rather than trying to recreate him digitally. And enough already with the Matrix effects. We've seen enough slow motion kicks and punches to last a lifetime. It's time to put that technique on the shelf and give it a rest.
All in all, this movie won't be a classic, but its entertaining enough (score: 6.5 out of 10).
Perhaps the worst element of this movie was some of the digital effects. The animation of the Scorpion King at the end was pathetic. There is better animation in Pac Man. The least they could have done was actually use The Rock rather than trying to recreate him digitally. And enough already with the Matrix effects. We've seen enough slow motion kicks and punches to last a lifetime. It's time to put that technique on the shelf and give it a rest.
All in all, this movie won't be a classic, but its entertaining enough (score: 6.5 out of 10).
Atlantis: The Lost Empire
(2001)
Sweet!
17 June 2001
This movie was great! It was an excellent rendition of an ancient myth. The animation was somewhat odd, but nothing new from Disney. It was definitely better than expected for a Disney movie with no singing.
The background animation was magical. It was a different level of work for the Disney people. Some of the characters were a little boxy, but it was more than made up for with the beauty and lushness of the scenery. The music was largely instrumental but that was perfect for the movie. This was definitely not a film that needed the characters to bust into song.
Perfect. 10 out of 10.
The background animation was magical. It was a different level of work for the Disney people. Some of the characters were a little boxy, but it was more than made up for with the beauty and lushness of the scenery. The music was largely instrumental but that was perfect for the movie. This was definitely not a film that needed the characters to bust into song.
Perfect. 10 out of 10.
Swordfish
(2001)
Great flick . . . worth it despite what the critics said . . . (Watch it! One teeny-tiny SPOILER!!)
8 June 2001
Warning: Spoilers
This film was widely panned by critics, which was mostly unfair. True, the movie did have the odd drawback. Example: it had a rather cliched plot, but it was covered up with some creative pyrotechnics (i.e. bomb vests, a la "Speed", but with a claymore twist). John Travolta does an excellent and believable job as Gabriel Shear, a diabolical genius with a taste for cash (and a really nice car). Fellow "X-men"-er Halle Berry plays a classic femme fatale, beautiful and brilliant (her breast-baring scene was not the huge deal that the media made it out to be). The crowing character was definitely Stanley (Hugh Jackman, also from "X-men"). He presents a more modern, buffed, cuter, sexier version of the computer geek of the 90's. Overall, the solid delivered a solid performance and the film provided enough twists and turns of the plot to keep the audience interested.
Score - 9 out of 10
Score - 9 out of 10
Moulin Rouge!
(2001)
Brilliant! Delicious buffet for the senses!
8 June 2001
Baz Luhrmann manages, with Moulin Rouge, to take the fast pacing of Romeo + Juliet (which I did not like) and apply it effectively to this extravagant, musical love story. Kidman and McGregor are the perfect pair. His devastating good looks and her timeless beauty fit the scene perfectly. The wild nights of the Moulin Rouge, the famous French nightclub that provides the dramatic backdrop for this tragic tale, third in the "Red Curtain Trilogy" from Luhrmann. Satine (Kidman) is the tragic heroine, "Sparkling Diamond" of the Moulin Rouge. Christian (McGregor) is the Bohemian writer who becomes Satine's truest love and champion. Her beauty drives the Duke to bitter jealousy, which threatens the two lovers. The trailers may make you feel as if you know the end of the movie, but trust me, you don't!
The plot is not complex at all. Its the simple tale of tragic, but pure, love. Satine and Christian represent all that is good, wonderful and right in love and the world; their story shows that love can overcome everything, except nature. The Duke is the evil that can destroy such beauty. All of the relevant details play out in the sumptuous sets of the film. Lavish replicas of the once great club, right down to the elephant, historically acquired for the Moulin Rouge at the World's Fair. The costuming is gorgeous, vivid colors and rich fabrics. Further, there is a wonderfully comical and supportive cast of characters (Zidler, the Unconscious Argentinian, Toulouse Lautrec, etc).
And boy can Kidman and McGregor sing!!!! They are outstanding in their duets and can even carry themselves on their own. They don't hide behind backup singers and studio recordings, they just belt the songs out for our enjoyment. The other songs in the film are wonderful, new renditions of old favorites (Like a Virgin, Lady Marmalade, Up Where We Belong, etc). They are relevant and fast paced, in keeping with the movie. (I must note that there was one musical element that my sister absolutely hated -- the singing moon. It was a bit much. :-))
This movie is a masterpiece and I will be buying it the moment it comes out on video.
My rating for this movie would be off the scale!! Enjoy!!
The plot is not complex at all. Its the simple tale of tragic, but pure, love. Satine and Christian represent all that is good, wonderful and right in love and the world; their story shows that love can overcome everything, except nature. The Duke is the evil that can destroy such beauty. All of the relevant details play out in the sumptuous sets of the film. Lavish replicas of the once great club, right down to the elephant, historically acquired for the Moulin Rouge at the World's Fair. The costuming is gorgeous, vivid colors and rich fabrics. Further, there is a wonderfully comical and supportive cast of characters (Zidler, the Unconscious Argentinian, Toulouse Lautrec, etc).
And boy can Kidman and McGregor sing!!!! They are outstanding in their duets and can even carry themselves on their own. They don't hide behind backup singers and studio recordings, they just belt the songs out for our enjoyment. The other songs in the film are wonderful, new renditions of old favorites (Like a Virgin, Lady Marmalade, Up Where We Belong, etc). They are relevant and fast paced, in keeping with the movie. (I must note that there was one musical element that my sister absolutely hated -- the singing moon. It was a bit much. :-))
This movie is a masterpiece and I will be buying it the moment it comes out on video.
My rating for this movie would be off the scale!! Enjoy!!
Shrek
(2001)
Fun for all ages!
8 June 2001
DreamWorks has done it! They delivered a masterpiece of a fractured fairy-tale, complete with every character from every fairy tale you can possibly remember, though they all seem to need therapists. Shrek (Mike Myers) isn't your traditional dashing-hero-to-the-rescue. Instead, he is a rather bitter, slightly Scottish ogre who just wants to be left alone. Hard to do when your only companion is a donkey (Eddie Murphy) who won't shut up. Off the pair go to a (typical) shadowed castle guarded by an fiery pink dragon to save the Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz), a woman who is not what she seems. Their ultimate goal is to get Fiona to the castle to marry Lord Farquad (John Lithgow), a rather diminutive man who makes up for what he lacks in a decidedly Freudian way. Seamlessly, DreamWorks brings this diverse cast together in a work of computer-generated artistic brilliance. The story carries itself effortlessly, smattered here and there with adult-themed jokes but child friendly fun. The animation is fantastic. It has more depth than any other computer generated film that came before it. The action sequences (odd to think there would be any in an animated flick) are hilarious and will leave you in tears. Take everyone you can round up to this movie!! You will all enjoy it!!
Score - 10 out of 10!
Score - 10 out of 10!
Tell Your Friends