Shrek The Third (Chris Miller and Raman Hui, 2007) Review

Here it is, the black sheep of the franchise. Every franchise has one (don't argue with it, EVERY franchise has one) and, annoyingly, it's usually important to the plot of the franchise. Shrek The Third is no different. It is the worst one in the franchise but does that mean it's a bad film? There's only one way to find out! Let's take a look at the third film in the Shrek franchise that's apparently to good for a simple "3".

King Harold (John Cleese) has died and left Shrek (Mike Myers) the heir to the throne. The problem is, he doesn't WANT to be the king. He then learns that there is one other heir that could take his place: Arthur (Justin Timberlake). Now Shrek, Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and Puss In Boots (Antonio Banderas) have to set out and find Arthur (Artie for short). There is more complication though, since Shrek is away, there is no hero to protect Far Far Away from a new threat. Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) wants revenge on Shrek for the death of his mother, the Fairy Godmother, and is now trying to take over Far Far Away and become King himself. Since Shrek is away, Fiona (Cameron Diaz) and the other princesses have to fight him and his army of fairy tale villains away.

Doesn't sound as bad as the other films does it? I didn't think so at first but something about it seems off. Prince Charming is a great villain, Artie is a pretty funny character that Justin Timberlake surprised me with and even other new characters like Captain Hook (Ian McShane) and Merlin (Eric Idle) are welcome additions to the franchise. What went wrong? Well...it was at this point Shrek had lost it's freshness and overstayed it's welcome. The jokes were starting to get less fun and the whole 'Donkey and Puss swapping bodies' thing was pointless and seemed unnessesary. 

Everything from the last Shrek film is still here: good characters, a great setting and it does expand on this to give more new stuff such as characters (which are still great) and a surprising addition to the cast. Ian McShane surprised me as Captain Hook since he seemed like quite a small role (he's second in command to Prince Charming) and Eric Idle, while good as Merlin, seems like wasted potentional and should have been in the other ones. There's a lot of good stuff here that should have been in the other films.

It's still Shrek though. Fairy tale characters everywhere and the characters are still great. It's by no means a bad film, it's just not as good as the rest and seems sandwiched between two other films. Yeah...there's one more. You heard right and it's the last one (excluding Puss In Boots) so I guess it's almost time to wrap up the Shrek franchise (even though I can see them doing a fifth one in the future).

Verdict:
6/10
The black sheep of the Shrek franchise. Not bad but is overshadowed by the others.

Shrek 2 (Andrew Adamson, Kelly Asbury and Conrad Vernon, 2004) Review

If an animated family film is popular, chances are it's going to get a sequel (Ice Age, Toy Story etc) and Shrek is no different. The thing about Shrek 2 however is that it did something that the other animated family film sequels did. I'm going to leave what that is till the end of the review although, if you've seen both Shrek films, you should already know what I'm talking about. Don't know? Then let's find out.

After Fiona's (Cameron Diaz) rescue by Shrek (Mike Myers) and Donkey (Eddie Murphy), they are now living happily ever after...except Shrek wasn't supposed to rescue her, Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) was supposed to! Now that Shrek has met Fiona's parents, her father (John Cleese) has not taken a liking to him and wants Shrek gone. He goes to the Fairy Godmother (Jennifer Saunders) to use her magic to get rid of him and also enlists the assistance of the mercenary assassins Puss In Boots (Antonio Banderas). Now Shrek has to win over Fiona from the Fairy Godmother's magic and also the respect of the king (and Prince Charming fits in there somewhere...trust me).

The new characters are great! We all know Puss In Boots and we all know that he was popular enough to warrant his own spin-off (already reviewed...go look it up) which is probably a result of his badass attitude, being based on Zorro and his voice actor (considering that they GOT Zorro to do the voice) and, yes, he is my favourite character too. The King and Queen are great characters. John Cleese and Julie Andrews work really well together and are believable parent characters. Jennifer Saunders is excellent as the Fairy Godmother and is great follow-up to John Lithgow's Lord Farqaad (yeah, she's the villain...surprised?). One of the best characters in the series has to be Prince Charming just because of his personality in the Shrek universe. In the fairy tales, he's of course the knight in shining armour that was the dream of all the princess...he is still...but the question is whether he's interested in the princess...or any girls at that. Watch it for yourself...he's a great character.

Shrek 2 offers more than the first film. The location in the first didn't really expand on the Shrek universe that much (since they WALKED to Duloc) but the new location of Far Far Away is great. It offers a more lively background full of people. Plus the scenes where people see Shrek are hilarious. Actually that leads on to my next point, MORE FUNNIES! This film is much funnier than the first and that's a result of one thing...the Gingerbread Man is a much larger character (in more ways than one) along with other fairy tale characters such as the Big Bad Wolf and Pinnochio. What you loved about the first film has been enhanced (except if you're a fan of Dragon, Farquaad or Robin Hood).

Shrek 2 is a much improved sequel of a classic animated film. The cast is the same and the characters are great and the actors do well portraying them. The humour is improved and much funnier. The new location of Far Far Away offers great moments for more laughs. It is a great film that still holds up. The soundtrack is truly fantastic and the music leads to an excellent climax. YES AWESOME CLIMAX YEAAAH! Well, there we go...the two great Shrek films, reviewed! I fear for what's next...ooohhhhh....

Verdict:
9/10
A great animated sequel. The new characters make it all the better accompanied by a great narrative and soundtrack.

Shrek (Andrew Adamson and Vicky Jenson, 2001) Review

Yes, yes we all know Shrek. He is practically Dreamwork's mascot after four films and a spin-off. The films are modern classics...well...the first three....er....first two...*cough* but anyway they are memorable films and somewhat ground breaking too considering that practically everyone knows these films and has at least seen the first two because of how great and funny they actually are. The premise is that they take classic fairy tale characters and give them a twist such as Jack and Jill being famous outlaws or Prince Charming being an ambiguously gay mommy's boy. Let's take a look at the first film.

Shrek (Mike Myers) is an ogre and, naturally is feared by the humans around him but, being an ogre, loves the fear he sends through people. Things go bad for him though when the evil Lord Farquaad (John Lithgow) sends all of the classic fairy tale characters to live at Shrek's swamp. Naturally, he is angry about this so, with Donkey (Eddie Murphy) from the classic fairy tale...something...he sets off to Duloc to see Farquaad. When they beat all of Farquaad's men, he sends Shrek and Donkey out to find Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz) and bring her to him. Now Shrek and Donkey set out to find the Princess and bring her back in order to get his swamp back.

The twist on some of the classic fairy tales are great. Characters such as Pinnochio and Robin Hood make appearances but the most memorable is probably the Gingerbread Man who everyone seems to quote like hell. That's another great point is that a lot of the quotes of this film just because it's a very funny film. The humour in this film is basically pointing fun at the fairy tales. It's good to see that, while it is technically a parody, it holds up (enough for five films apparently) and the humour feels fresh.

The characters in this film go through some great development. Shrek starts as a stoic jerk who relishes terrorising places. By the end, he has opened by to his new friends and even got a new love interest who goes through development as a result of having a dark secret. Donkey starts off annoying and, while he does stay annoying yet funny, he has structure and even a reward by the end...a WEIRD reward but a reward none the less. Lord Farquaad is a great villain that, while there isn't much development, he doesn't dodge the hilarious moments and is one of the best characters in the film.

Shrek was the start of a big franchise that made millions for Dreamworks. There's a good reason as to why that is and that's a result of great humour, well written and structured characters and some great action scenes. It comes together as a great animated film and is a good start to Dreamwork's career of CGI animated films. Sure it wasn't as good as Disney's (until How To Train Your Dragon) but it still had great moments.

Verdict:
8/10
A modern classic. Everyone knows it and everyone loves it. A great twist on the fairy tale classics.

Super Mario Bros. (Annabel Jankel, Rocky Morton and Dean Semler, 1993) Review

No. Oh No. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! If there ever was a prize for the worst adaptation of all time (and I'm sure there is)...this would be a candidate. Maybe even the winner of that prize. If you've seen this then you should know what i'm talking about. If you haven't seen this...then you are a very lucky person. Just thinking about this film makes me want to stomp on someone like a goomba...something that DOESN'T happen in this film...let's just get this over with.

In Brooklyn, New York (at least they got something right), Mario (Bob Hoskins) and his brother Luigi (John Leguizamo) are two plumbers running their own business. Things are normal until Luigi meets Daisy (Samantha Mathis), an orphan who is Luigi's age and his trying to find dinosaur bones under the city. They hit it off but things take a turn for the worst when Daisy is kidnapped by Iggy (Fisher Stevens) and Spike (Richard Edson), henchmen of the evil King Koopa (Dennis Hopper) and is taken to another world where dinosaurs continue to exist. Now Mario and Luigi have to venture to the city and rescue Daisy from the villainous Koopa.


You may have noticed something wrong in my summary. I mentioned Daisy rather than Peach (or I guess Princess Toadstool by this point). If you're going to make a Mario film how about getting the characters right, huh? To it's credit, they did match Luigi with Daisy so they did get something else right but I would have expected Peach instead. Another thing is King Koopa (who should really be called Bowser since it's an American film) is human. I would have imagine that there would be some CGI used if he was the PROPER Bowser. There is also NO Mushroom Kingdom as far as I know. While this explains Peach's absence, that doesn't explain Toad's (Mojo Nixon) appearance...at least Yoshi's appearance is justifiable. Don't even get me started on Mario and Luigi's surname (I guess the name does offer a clue...it's still stupid).

So you may have guessed that this film has little to nothing to do with the games. If it weren't for th efact it was called Super Mario Bros. it wouldn't have been a terrible film. The CGI isn't bad, the actions decent and the characters aren't terrible...it's just the fact they ruin the source material. If it weren't for that then this film wouldn't have been as bad as it was...it would still be bad...just not as bad.

Super Mario Bros. shouldn't exist. It just shouldn't! It takes the fantastic ssn't use it...very well.  years later) and doesn't use it...very well. If someone were to do it again, please follow it closly. "How can Mario have a film based on simplistic narrative?" I hear you ask...either Mario Galaxy or one of the RPGs. They would make great films if they were made by Nintendo with a similar graphic style (obviously much better looking). Ignore this film an pray for a more accurate adaptation.

Verdict:
3/10
Takes the source material and destroys it. Only gets points for some decent moments... especially it you haven't heard of Mario

Cars 2 (John Lasseter and Brad Lewis, 2011) Review

*sigh* I brought this on myself didn't I...I just had to go and review Cars and forgot that there was a sequel. It wouldn't be such as problem if it weren't Pixar's 'dud' film. What do I mean? It's the runt of the litter of Pixar films and is easily, without a shadow of a doubt, the worst one. There are plenty of reasons why this is the worst Pixar films (and the only one to get a rotten rating over at Rotten Tomatoes) so let's drive in (again...I apologise).

After the events of the first film, Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) does a lot less racing now and has learnt to slow down. This was fine until a new grand prix sponsored by the natural oil Allinol created by Sir Miles Axlerod (Eddie Izzard). When Francesco Bernoulli (John Tuturro) challenges Lightning to join in the Grand Prix, he accepts and he and his pit crew (made up of Mater, Sarge, Filmore, Luigi and Guido) head around the world to compete. Meanwhile, a British spy named Finn McMissile (Michael Caine) is trying to uncover a secret plot created by 'lemon' cars headed by Professor Z (Thomas Kretschmann). Accompanied by rookie spy Holly Shiftwell (Emily Blunt), they mistake Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) as an American spy and recruit him to help stop the 'lemons' from their plan of ruining the Grand Prix and killing everyone powered on Allinol.

You may have noticed that their are two plots this time. The racing half is really great. Lightning and Francesco's rivalry is fun to watch and the actors work well with the characters. The other half...feels off. Mater is given the lead role this time, over Lightning, in order to focus more on the spy adventure. This is the problem. The spy parts are great and all but I can't escape the feeling that I would rather watch the racing. I said in my review for Cars that it was for racing fans...not this time. The racing sections are pushed aside to make way for the spy adventure. You can guess that this is a bad thing. I came here for racing and I only got a bit of racing.

This is definitely the most uncalled for film in Pixar history. Of all the films they could have seen get a sequel, Cars was the one that really DIDN'T need a sequel. This film didn't need to exist and, frankly, shouldn't. It isn't a terrible film...only by Pixar standards is it. Sure it's funny and it does lead to a pretty entertaining conclusion, it's just not enough to justify the rest of the film. It's the first Pixar film in a long time to not be nominated to an academy award and after Toy Story 3 and Up, this is just unacceptable.

Cars 2 is the worst Pixar film. It doesn't hold up on it's own very well and it's a real shame that they even made this film. They could have done Brave last year instead and that would mean we would have Monsters University this year but nope, we got this above average film instead. It's worth at least one watch because they are some great moments and it is funny but, again, it isn't enough to justify the rest of the film.

Verdict:
5.5/10
An above average Pixar film. It has some great moments and is funny but it is hands down the worst Pixar film yet.

Cars (John Lasseter and Joe Ranft, 2006) Review

Pixar. I don't think they really need any introduction. They are one of the best animation companies around and there's a good reason for it. They make nothing but masterpieces (well, until 2011) so I thought it was about time I looked at one of their films. I might have to save the best ones for later (like Toy Story and Up) so I thought I would look at one that was as well received but is still pretty decent. Let's dive into (or should that be drive into...I apologise) Cars.

Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) is an arrogant rookie racer who, when racing against rival Chick Hicks (Michael Keaton) and champion The King (Richard Petty), manages to draw against them. On the way to the final race, Lightning's carrier truck, Mack (John Ratzenberger), loses him. While trying to get the race on his own, Lightning ends up trapped in a small town on Route 66 called Radiator Springs. While in town, he ends up destroying the main road through town. Doc Hudson (Paul Newman), the mayor of the town, orders Lightning to fix the road or else he can't leave. Now Lightning has to fix the road and get to the race in California in order to beat his rival and win the title of champion.

Let me just throw this out. Excluding sequels and remakes, this is definitely one of Pixar's worst films. It just doesn't feel as good as the others while watching it. I think "Man, I could really watch Finding Nemo or Monster's Inc. right about now". Sure it has a great cast of characters and actors and the racing scenes are fantastic to watch (probably the high point of the film) but the story is a bit cliché and it just feels a bit off. It doesn't mean it's a bad film by any means...just not Pixar's best.

Cars does have a lot of good qualities going for it. I already mentioned the racing scenes which are fantastic. The character development that Lightning goes through as well as the moral of the film is pretty well done and is believable enough to stand well. It is definitely more of a kids film than previous Pixar so it's harder to enjoy at my age. I would rather watch another Pixar film.

Cars is one of Pixar's worst films but it can be enjoyable especially if you are a racing fan. My dad loves racing an the really enjoys this film. It's a specialist subject type film thingy. Cars is a decent enough Pixar film but it isn't as bad as that film Pixar made in 2011. Luckily that is unrelated to this particular film. Wait a second......oh noooooo....

Verdict:
6.5/10
A decent film that does have a decent moral and some great racing films. Shame about what comes next...

Sonic The Hedgehog: The Movie (Kazunori Ikegami, 1996) Review

What? Confused? Yes, there is a film adaptation of Sonic The Hedgehog but, and this may surprise you, it is actually a faithful and actually pretty decent adaptation of the popular game series. Most films based on video games are usually absolutely terrible and can be considered some of the worst films of all time. Some of the worst offenders are Super Mario Bros. and Street Fighter. Is an animated film better than live action when it comes to game adaptations? Let's find out.

On the island of South Island (which we can assume is in the south...somewhere), Sonic The Hedgehog (Martin Burke) is relaxing by the sea while his friend Miles 'Tails' Prower (Lainie Frasier) is testing out his new surfboard. Suddenly, an old owl called...Old Man Owl (Charles Campell) arrives on the scene in order to inform Sonic and Tails that Dr. Robotnik (Edwin Neal) has kidnapped the President and his daughter, Sara (Sacsha Biesi). Sonic and Tails intervene but are tricked by Robotnik to enter is land. There, they are accompanied by Sonic's other friend, Knuckles The Echidna (Bill Wise) but also have a run-in with Robotnik's latest and greatest invention, Metal Sonic (Gary Dehan). Now Sonic, Tails and Knuckles have to defeat Metal Sonic, return home and rescue the President and his daughter from the clutches of Robotnik.

I mentioned earlier that this is an accurate adaptation. It is. This is rare in a game adaptation as it generally tries to turn the game into a modern film. Super Mario Bros. proved that this is a bad idea by turning Bowser into a human and making Goombas seven foot tall lizards. Accurate, I know. Sonic The Hedgehog: The Movie clearly has the same characters and they act just like they do in the games (then again, this was before they were given proper personalities in Sonic Adventure). I have to give it points for making my favourite Sonic character (Metal Sonic) a badass personality and giving him a Terminator 2 style send-off.

The cast of the film (at least in the English dub) are one of the films lower points. When most people think about the cast of the film, the think of Lainie Frasier and how she gave Tails a pretty damn annoying voice and sounded too much like a girl (hilarious in hindsight if you ask me). While this is true, the voice actors for Knuckles and Robotnik are actually pretty good. Sonic sounds too much like Dee Bradley Baker (look him up) if you ask me and it just doesn't suit him...but I have to remember this was before Sonic Adventure so it's justifiable. Metal Sonic has one line in the film and I would be lying if I said it wasn't out of place. 

Overall, Sonic The Hedgehog: The Movie is one of the best adaptations of a video game to film ever. It's up there with Animal Crossing but I still have yet to see Prince Of Persia and Ace Attorney so I can't say it is the best. The voice acting may turn some people off (in that case, watch the original Japanese dub) and it even got a way with ALOT of rude moments (I pretty sure I saw an intentional middle finger in there somewhere...and Sara calls Metal Sonic a pervert...context) but it comes together as a very good film adaptation of a very good game series (expect 2004-09).

Verdict:

7.5/10

One of the best films based on a video game ever. The voice acting takes off a view points but overall, is a great film.