Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

Last weekend, my wife called a babysitter and we went to see the French documentary “Babies” together.   It felt odd to leave my own little baby with someone else and spend 79 minutes watching other babies.   I think I am not the target audience for this movie.   I couldn’t help but guess the ages of the babies onscreen, think about developmental stages, brain chemistry, parenting techniques, etc.  I’m pretty sure that’s not the effect filmmaker Thomas Balmes was going for.  So just keep in mind – I’m not the target audience here.   Maybe you are.

I think this film would be great fun for a lot of people.   Long distance grandparents, 14 year old girls, young (childless) couples, single twentysomethings,  folks trying to get pregnant or adopt, perhaps even the parents of kids older than 5.   If the idea of babysitting seems even a little fun to you, you’ll enjoy this movie.  It’s like babysitting, but without all the work or responsibility.   Call it babywatching.

We follow four kids from four different parts of the world through (roughly) the first year of their life.   One is the daughter of upscale hippies in San Francisco.  One lives in a dirt hut in Namibia.   One in Mongolia, in a yurt surrounded by steppes and goats.  And the last one in a high-rise in Tokyo.    Balmes works hard to keep politics, or sociology, out of his movie.  This is not about the challenges Namibia moms have to overcome, or about how rural babies are happier than urban babies, or anything like that.   We hardly meet the parents.  There are no talking heads, no interviews, no background info or voiceover or graphics.  There are just babies.  Four different, yet remarkably similar, babies.

Ponijao, in Namibia, breastfeeds alongside her brother, who teaches her how to balance things on her head as she walks.  She plays with sticks and tries to catch flies.  There are always several women nearby, chattering, and laughing.  Hattie, in San Francisco, has a busy schedule.  She goes to the park, to baby yoga class, to the pool, to a music class.   She’s hardly ever home.   Bayar, in Mongolia, never leaves home, and is alone a lot.  She has an older brother who’s not sure he wants her around; at one point, he wheels her stroller out of the house and goes back inside, leaving her there until someone comes along and finds her.  She also must dodge roosters, cows, and goats, who drink her bathwater and threaten to step on her at every turn.   Mari, in Japan, has more toys that beep and flash than I can keep up with.  Her father is a graphic designer who works from home and she likes to play with his gizmos.

The babies are generally content, healthy, happy and enjoyable.  We watch them grow and develop.  I’ve never had such a hard time observing good movie theater etiquette as I did while watching “Babies.”   I wanted to talk to them, cheer them on, give them words.   Maybe this is because I have a baby at home.  I don’t know.

You will either find it enjoyable to watch babies on a big screen or you won’t.  There’s not much to “Babies” beyond that.  No in-depth insights or observations, no talking points or messages.  Just babies. When I asked my wife what she thought of it, she said, “Well, it was fun – but it was a lot like watching someone else’s home videos.”  Yes, exactly.

Dennis Hopper, who I will always remember as the original Zorro and a disgruntled bomb tech holding a speeding bus hostage and Cannibal has died today at the age of 74 ending his struggle with prostate cancer.

NY Times reports:

Dennis Hopper, whose portrayals of drug-addled, often deranged misfits in the landmark films “Easy Rider,” “Apocalypse Now” and “Blue Velvet” drew on his early out-of-control experiences as part of a new generation of Hollywood rebel, died Saturday at his home in Venice, Calif. He was 74.

Starting his career in the early 50s and working right up unto his untimely death the aging actor was a legend in his own right.

Mr Hopper you will always be remembered.

… to the Middle Kingdom, be back next week. By the time you read this the plane should have left the tarmac at Changi.Meanwhile, whatever you do, set some time aside to catch Echoes of the Rainbow, one of the best films from Hong Kong this year, if not one of the best this year thus far. Forget about Freddie’s new nightmare (as if we still need another one), or yet another Hollywood talking

Actor/director/emblem of a generation Dennis Hopper died today at age 74 after a career of extraordinary range that took him from roles in the iconic films Rebel Without a Cause, Easy Rider, Giant, and Apocalypse Now, to a stunning comeback as one of film history’s most disturbing villains in Blue Velvet and an American Enterprise commercial for baby boomers contemplating retirement.

My his rest be peaceful and may his memory be a blessing.

Read this post »

One of the best shows on television right now for teens and their families is MTV’s “When I Was 17.” It’s as simple as the title. Celebrities talk about what they were doing when they were 17 years old. Participants include Drake, Kevin Jonas, Katharine McPhee, Bret Michaels, Queen Latifah, and Lucacris. Whether the stories they tell are about big dreams and opportunities or big fears and failures or both, they are utterly engrossing and inspiring. And they are ideal lead-ins to important conversations about hard work, ambition, taking chances, and dealing with consequences.

When I Was 17

Read this post »

63.  Sideways

I’ll admit it:  I probably like “Sideways” as much as I do because it’s about a critic.   But as Paul Giamatti gives his old buddy Thomas Haden Church a tour of wine country, and Church is mostly interested in getting drunk and laid, the central critic’s dilemma is so nicely illustrated.    If you’re going to love something like wine (or movies, or life) is it better to appreciate the very best of what that thing can be and refuse to settle for anything less,  or are you better off consuming as much of it as possible, paying little or no attention to quality, subtlety, and nuance?  Who lives a better, more meaningful life – the idealist who is never satisfied, or the pragmatist who has no imagination?

Thanks for checking out our Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time review

Genre: Fantasy/Adventure
Directed by: Mike Newell
Staring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arterton, Ben Kingsley, Alfred Molina
Released: May 28th, 2010

THE GENERAL IDEA

Adopted from the streets of Nasaf by King Sharaman of Persia, young Dastan grows up amongst royalty and quickly earns his place as a mighty warrior and prince. As his brothers Garsiv and Tus plan battle strategies, a spy sends word that the Holy City of Alamut has been supplying weapons to enemies of Persia. Taking matters into his own hands, Tus orders an attack on the sacred city and upon its fall Dastan encounters the beautiful Princess Tamina. When King Sharaman dies under mysterious circumstances shortly after, and Dastan is accused of his murder, he flees with the princess on a harrowing mission to clear his name.

THE GOOD

The action was pretty good for the most part except for some of the close combat. I would have liked to see more of the Parkour they show in the trailer, but what was there was pretty good. And the visuals of the vast cities and landscapes look very good.

There is far more story in this film than even the trailer suggests. And I like how it works. I can’t get to indepth without revealing much of the “badguy” twist but everyone acts within character and acts appropriately given their circumstances. At no point did I question anyone’s judgement or their actions. This is a far rare detail in what I expected to be a light fluffy action film. The story had some hiccups, but the Characters were all spot on. Even the pointless Sheik Amar – Alfred Molina (but more on him later)

Also, the statement carries more weight than this one line but its the best movie based on a video game I have ever watched.

THE BAD

The bad is hard to say because there are things they do SO right in this but the bad is just so glaringly bad. They could have cut out Alfred Molina’s part from this movie entirely and it would have made the movie better. The entire side adventure into the “Valley of Slaves” and their overlord Sheik Amar was pointless. No, it was MORE than pointless. It detracts from the movie. I like Alfred Molina, but he was completely useless in this, and his entire involvement takes you out of the setting. Ranting about “government assassins” and paying taxes to “the man” just took me out of the mysticism and setting of Ancient Persia.

There is also a major plothole that had me rolling my eyes is that the guardian of the dagger, Arterton says the only safe place to keep the dagger is in the secret secondary temple… uh… then why didnt you keep such a valuable artifact of the Gods there in the first place? I don’t know why they added that line there aside from a plot device to have them travel to the secret temple.

And as much as I love a good villain, Kingsley was sadly a prop in this movie and I wasn’t motivated to despise him or even feel for him. Kind of a waste really.

And only when they had some really close combat did they resort to that rapidfire camera angle change to make it look more exciting. Frankly I would prefer one shot instead of trying to trick us with thirty.

OVERALL

Overall the film was fun to watch, and Arterton is beautiful. I would love to see this movie with all of Sheik Amar’s parts edited out, or reducing him to a glorified extra. He didn’t need to be in this movie at all.

Aside from that and a little plot forgiveness its a pretty good movie. Would have rated higher without those flaws, but its easily the best movie based on a video game that I have seen.

And that’s why I give Prince of Persia a 6.5 out of 10

Couldn’t quite justify the seven, but its not quite as low as a six either!

Here’s some quick movie news. From what we’ve read and seen online, all of us assumed that Green Lantern’s villain/s would be Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard) or/and Siniestro (Mark Strong). Apparently that’s not all. ComicBookMovie.com has somehow managed to get a hold of the film’s official synopsis. This is what it states:

ComicBook Movie says:

In a universe as vast as it is mysterious, a small but powerful force has existed for centuries. Protectors of peace and justice, they are called Green Lantern Corps. A brotherhood of warriors sworn to keep intergalactic order, each Green Lantern wears a ring that grants him superpowers. But when a new enemy called Parallax threatens to destroy the balance of power in the Universe, their fate and the fate of Earth lies in the hands of their newest recruit, the first human evert selected: Hal Jordan. Hal is a gifted and cocky pilot, but the Green Lanterns have little respect for humans, who have never harnessed the infinite powers of the ring before. But Hal is clearly the missing piece to the puzzle, and along with his determination and willpower, he has one thing no member of the Corps has ever had: humanity. With the encouragement of fellow pilot and childhood sweetheart Carol Ferris (Blake Lively), if Hal can quickly master his new powers and find the courage to overcome his fears, he may prove to be not only the key to defeating Parallax…he will become the greatest Green Lantern of all.

I’m one of the many of who assumed that Hammond or/and Siniestro would play villains in this movie. This news takes me by surprise. I don’t know how they are going to work this into the story. Somehow it feels to me like this character is reminicent of Superman 3’s Bizarro and Spiderman 3’s parasitic Venom. My knowledge regarding this particular character is way low; so if any of you out there does know, please elaborate for us.

The Green Lantern is scheduled for a June 17, 2011 release. Can’t wait!

I played the very first Prince of Persia game in my old PC in the 1990’s and it was a slick game. So when I saw the trailer for the the very first Prince of Persia movie (although it was based on a later version of the game), I was pretty amped up. I figured this could be a good franchise.

But after watching the movie, I hope they won’t make a sequel.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time has the signature of Jerry Bruckheimer film, but it falls flat on generating excitement and memorable action sequences. The chemistry between the titular prince (played by Jake Gyllenhaal) and the princess (played by Gemma Arterton), one of the key parts of the making the movie go forward, is as generic as they come.

The sense of adventure seems to be lost in the whole movie’s preoccupation with sand, time travel, and politics. There’s no major threat to give folks a big reason to root for the Prince. The supporting characters, save of Alfred Molina’s, are forgettable. If you’re a fan of big twists though, you’ll like how the film wraps up.

For me, the ultimate flaw of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time is doesn’t have enough character the great ones have. All you have is just… sand.

Rating: 1.5/5

Technorati: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

Last night I saw Sex and the City 2, starring Sarah Jessica Parker and Chris Noth.

I never counted the television show Sex and the City as a guilty pleasure because in the years that it aired it was considered a smart, sensible enterprise that gave thirty-something single women a voice.

When the first movie based on the same characters opened a few years ago, watching it was like reconnecting with long-lost friends. Sure, it was kind of dark for a group of characters that became famous for talking about sex and fashion, but it still captured the spirit of the show and stayed faithful to the clever writing.

You know what? So did this one, which is why I’m so incredibly baffled by how badly my fellow critics are reviewing it. Was anyone really expecting Gone With the Wind? Sure, it’s silly and no, it’s not the least bit unpredictable, but it’s still enjoyable, and really, that’s all it set out to be, right?

The story centers on the dulling marriage of our heroine Carrie (Parker) and her husband-of-almost-two-years, Mr. Big (Noth). True to form, when Carrie does something she wants and her man follows suit wanting to do the same, she becomes offended and wounded and whiny–ready to make a big mistake, which she may or may not do about 2/3 of the way into the film. Luckily, we have the return of Aidan (John Corbett, looking particularly sexy) to complicate things.

Oh, and the girls get a free trip to the Middle East courtesy of Samantha (Kim Cattrall), who wins the award for being the most annoying cast member in this installment. The menopause jokes got old very fast, as did most of the clothing they draped her in. That said, she still had the best sex scenes (though I dare say SJP took the cake for cleavage).

The most interesting story was that of Charlotte (Kristin Davis), our Polyanna, Jewish wife who is miserable living the perfect life she always dreamed of. If you take away the million dollar apartment and designer wardrobe, her situation is the most realistic, as a mother who wants to hide in closets and cry because her children drive her nuts.

It’s not the smartest comedy ever written, but it’s fun to watch the ladies wear 30+ outfits in the scope of 2+ hours, and gawk at the men who are still at the top of the sexy meter.

To straight men who hate this film: I ask, what were you doing there? If you only came to see scantily clad women and juicy sex scenes, you can’t have been too disappointed.

To gay men who hate this film: I know Liza singing Beyonce was scary, but you have to admit it was appropriate for a Stanford wedding.

To women (lesbian or straight) who hate this film: You must be incredibly bitter about life not to crack a smile at the drama of other women. We’ve all known (or been) characters like the four drawn here, whether we’re proud of it or not.

Take solace in chick flicks from time-to-time, folks. Consider it a beach read and get over it.

~~~

Sex and the City 2

Rated R for some strong content and language.
Genre: Comedy
Running Time: 2 hours 30 minutes

The fun, the fashion, the friendship, it’s all back in Sex in the City 2.

This time around Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda take another bite out of The Big Apple, and beyond. It’s time for them carry on with their busy lives and loves in a sequel to the 2008 box office hit which is a spin off from the original HBO Sex and the City series.

Exactly what happens after you say “I do”?

Carrie of course is the one asking that question after two years of marriage with Mr. Big. Is the sparkle still there? Or, has it just become routine? Everything looks wonderful in New York City, but when the ladies travel to the Middle East, suddenly everything changes. Yes, the trip is an escape for the ladies, but it’s also a time of where the now older ladies are finding themselves in – and fighting against – the traditional roles of marriage, motherhood and more.

How do you map your way through this journey called life? Sometimes it just has to be girl time to figure it all out.

It’s Like Beating A Dead Horse

The TV show was a hit, the first movie was a hit. While the first big screen appearance of the four ladies was somewhat of a let down, this big screen sequel – Sex and the City 2 – is even more of a letdown. I have to admit, I know this is a chick flick and while sitting in the theater watching the movie I did feel outnumbered. As a matter of fact, counting me, there were only TWO guys in the entire theater watching this movie!

But, the buzz from many ladies after watching the movie can be summed up in one word — Letdown!

I have a feeling the only reason filmmakers decided to do a sequel of Sex and the City revolved around the simple fact that the summer 2008 big screen flick filled the coffers in a big way! With a production budget of $65 million, the first Sex and the City movie had a domestic gross income of close to $153 million. Worldwide, the movie made slightly more than $415 million. In other words, those involved with the Sex and the City franchise simply saw dollar signs and decided they could make more money by doing a sequel. While only time will tell just how well Sex and the City 2 does when it comes to the box office, I believe it’s safe to say it will not have the power-punch it did the first time around. All we can do now is hope that those involved with Sex and the City realize the horse is dead and it’s time to get off it because beating it will not bring it back to life again.

Cruise Control Performances

We do applaud the producers for bringing back the original cast. But, they all look like they’re just on cruise control when it comes to performance time. This is probably most notable in the performance of Chris Noth who plays the husband of Sarah Jessica Parker’s character, Carrie. Mr. Big, looks like Mr. Bored. Even in scenes where he simply wants to act like he’s tired and wants to do nothing more than relax, he looks bored. Yes, Sarah Jessica Parker puts her best foot, and best footwear, forward, but even her almost fained appearance of excitement seems forced at times.

When it comes to content it is nice to see the scriptwriters at least making attempts to have each character deal with a different portion of their life. They’re all getting older and the scriptwriters do a decent job of introducing the changes through the years through the opening narration and quick-look flashbacks of what the ladies use to look like.

But, when it comes to agenda, two comments are worth noting.

First off, aside from learning how to grow in marriage, how to grow as a parent, and how to grow old gracefully, you really have nothing new here. The theme is old and tired, while the script may have changed slightly.

Secondly there’s the blatant Hollywood agenda of jumping on a gay-awareness campaign. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – I do not appreciate movies with any kind of political agenda. It does not matter if it’s a left agenda or a right agenda. Hollywood, please remember, movies are meant for entertainment! Especially movies like Sex and the City! This latest installment of the four ladies clocks in at two and a half hours. The first half hour is a total waste of time and nothing more than Hollywood trying to make a statement that gays should be allowed to marry. The entire gay wedding portion adds absolutely nothing to the flow of the movie, nor the content of the movie. If anything, it totally strays from what the original creators were after when Sex and the City was on the small screen.

In a search for dollars, they’ve lost their focus.

Is Sex and the City 2 a total loss? Probably not. But this movie has more bad than good when it comes to quality and even a remote hope of keeping your interest for two and a half hours. The marriage fidelity messages are good, the fact that every marriage needs to find ways of keeping the sparkle are also intriguing. But in the end, Sex and the City 2 falls flat and does not sparkle by itself at all.

Wait for the DVD!
Dr. Rus

Memorial Day Weekend New Movies

Historically Memorial Day Weekend has been what many in the movie business consider the start of summer. As a result, most movies are considered top runners as summer box office smash hits. But, that simply does not seem to be the case this year. For some odd reason Iron Man 2 opened well before the long weekend and honestly, the two new movies this weekend really can’t be considered summer smash hit contenders.

I could be surprised, but I don’t think I will be.

As for new movies this weekend, Sex and the City 2 got a jump on the weekend by opening yesterday. Today sees a new Disney flick hit the big screen.

New Movies This Weekend

Sex and the City 2 – Rated R on 3,445 screens
Carrie, Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda are leaving the New York City for the Middle East. That’s where Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Kristin Davis and Cynthia Nixon reprise their respective roles and continue their adventures in Sex and the City 2. While in the Middle East, Carrie runs into an old flame! Does this spell trouble for her marriage to Mr. Big?

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time – PG-13 on 3,646 screens
Based on the long running video game series Jake Gyllenhaal plays a prince who’s in a race against time to prevent the Sands of Time, which bring great power to its owner and reverses time, from falling into the wrong hands. Ben Kingsley, Alfred Molina and Quantum of Solace and Clash of the Titans actress Gemma Arterton also star in this Jerry Bruckheimer produced action film.

Enjoy the show!
Dr. Rus

“Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” has an uphill battle from the get-go. If you do not know, the movie is loosely-based on the widely successful 2003 game of the same name. So why an uphill battle? Because historically speaking, movies based on games usually go straight to the trash bin. Games and movies just do not mix well. Now we are not experts on the topic but we personally believe that the narrative style of games is very different from movies, which causes the huge disconnection between the two mediums. In any case, we still have high hopes for “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” with Jerry Bruckheimer and the studio that made the “Pirates of the Caribbean” series at the helm. This movie might turn out to be the exception. Can it break the negative mold for movies based on games? Read on to find out our verdict.



Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) was a child living on the streets until the Persian King adopted him due to his courage and good heart. Fifteen years after that fateful event, Dastan is now a Prince of Persia. Together with his two brothers Tus (Richard Coyle), Garsiv (Toby Kebbell) and their uncle Nizam (Ben Kingsley), the Persians plan on attacking the holy city of Alamut in the belief that the city is supplying the enemies of Persia with weapons. The Persians overrun the city and Dustan gets a peculiar dagger from one of his fights during the attack. However though, the Persians are hard-pressed to find the hidden weapons they are looking for. The King is not happy with the haphazard decision of his son and heir Tus (Richard Coyle)and deem him still unfit for the throne. The next day, the King is presented with a holy robe by Dastan. Unfortunately, the robe is poisoned and the King dies. Dastan is accused of assassinating the King and he must now find out who framed him up. There to help him is Princess Tamina, the guardian of the dagger.

“Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” was a good movie but that was about it. The film lacked uniqueness and polish to be really more than your typical fantasy-adventure film. We really cannot pinpoint where exactly the film bombed because there were a lot of areas where it was just barely okay. First, the acting was sub-par – not his typical showmanship for sure. Jake Gyllenhaal was bad playing Dastan and it was made worse by forcing a bad British accent. Much can be said when it comes supporting cast as well. The plot development was also too much for us. The story just moves on without explaining how they get from point A to point B. Things are being introduced into the story suddenly – to be frank, it was more like shoving and forcing these elements to the viewer. They surely forgot the definition of subtlety here. The last time we felt this way was with “Clash of the Titans” and that film did not rank well with our tastes. Just a head’s up, although the ending was pretty good, there was a huge plot hole that was never explained. We won’t say much but it did confuse us and eventually affected how we perceived the film’s ending.

Overall, the film felt more like a B-movie interspersed with first class effects. it does not have that special something that could have catapulted it to greatness. Even with all the bad things mentioned above, “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time” is still a good film to pass time but we won’t be remembering this a few months from now.

Rating: 3.5 reels

Why you should watch it:

- has an interesting story and could surprise you with its plot twists

- action-packed with outstanding effects

Why you shouldn’t watch it:

- Jake Gyllenhaal was bad in this film and it did not help that he had a hard time doing a British accent

- the film lacks proper plot development with things being shoved into the story or really not explaining how characters got into a scene

- the quality of the film is good but not great – it’s your typical fantasy adventure film without any special qualities to be proud of

Everybody knows who Robin Hood is; the thief who steals from the rich people and give the loot to the people. Together with him are the Merry Men. He wears tights and hood to conceal himself and his main arsenal is the bow and arrow. Traditionally, those are the qualities of this character. However, not a single one of them really knows how Robin Longstride became Robin Hood. In this movie starring Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett, the long-known character is given a new birth and identity. Although literally, we are still talking about “Robin Hood” but there are more characteristics of this legendary and heroic character which were taken off just to provide the viewers a new sense of heroism, sensibility as well as fun. Let us go into some details of the movie.



The Budget

Approximately, the movie “Robin Hood” by Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett together with Ridley Scott (American Gangster) and the renowned screenwriter Brian Helgeland (“Green Zone”) had a budget of $130 million to produce the film. The question is, was the budget enough to produce a good movie under the Robin Hood franchise? As for the movie with this caliber, the budget must have just been enough to cover everything. However, it doesn’t mean that the budget can really make the movie better if it were a bit higher than the estimated budget.

The Leading Actor and Actress

Cate Blanchett never loses her charm in front of the camera and still has the characteristic of an Oscar Winner for being a good actress. Thus, she is fitting to play the role of Lady Marion and she really played it well. On the other hand, Russell Crowe is a bit old to play the role of the haggard, robust and ever active Robin Hood. If this movie were shot right after the shooting of “Gladiator” maybe Russell may have had acted better in action and better fitting to play this role. However, since he has advanced in age already, I find him rather unfit for this movie. Nonetheless, he still is a good actor with his own style.

The Action and Dialogues

Unlike the previous movies of the same genre, this movie fell short in action and had too much dialogue. Perhaps, it wanted to convey the meaning of heroism and love more than anything else. But this does not mean that it is not worth-watching any longer. So long as it is Russell Crowe on the screen, action scenes seem natural and realistic even with the lack thereof. You will be satisfied how Russell did all the terrific action stunts. The drama can be contributed to Cate Blanchett though.

The Plot

Well, the whole story is not really how good Robin Hood to his people is or how rebellious he is to the authorities. This movie didn’t dwell much on the traditional story of Robin Hood but rather, it seeks to introduce his true nature and the reason behind why he became Robin Hood. It also focuses more on the love story between him and Lady Marion and touches more political issues in his time which anyone can relate to the political issues of today’s world.

The Bottom Line

In short, this movie is rather unique compared with other Robin Hood movies in the past. Therefore, it is worth your time and appreciation. Thanks to the brilliant minds of Ridley Scott and Brian Helgeland as well as to the outstanding performances of Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett.

This movie review of “Robin Hood” is brought to you by the writers of BigPondMovies.com. For extra news, gossip and reviews on new release movies, check BigPondMovies.com.

Shrek Forever After The Final Chapter 4 (how many names has it gone by now) is typical, summer family entertainment.  Talking animals, enchanted creatures, and the newest staple in animated films, three dimensions worth of action.  All of these elements coalesce into a film that offers fun for kids and adults alike.

Shrek, Fiona, and their brood of ogre babies are back in this fourth installment, along with the rest of the Far Far Away supporting cast. Shrek is enjoying the fruits of his labors and loom, initially, and then begins to feel that his new demeanor has altered his ability to be a real, honest to goodness ogre.  He then makes a deal with the evil imp, Rumpelstiltskin, which results in Shrek being on the verge of losing everything he has gained over the previous three films.

Insert overused bodily function joke here.

While the story itself is a little heady, with the introduction of an alternate reality and alternate history, kids will marvel at the animation, musical numbers, and amusing sight gags.  In the past the quips and ridiculous scenarios took center stage, while the appeal in this installment comes from the visual gags and slapstick humor.  In fact much of the humor is aimed at younger audiences this time around, as opposed to previous installments where the ratio favored the adults

Visually, the film succeeds with more to look at than ever before.  Armies of ogres and witches don the screen, to spectacular effect. The various ogres of different shapes and sizes, along with the aerial stunts performed by the witches on their brooms, sets this Shrek apart from the other films.

With outstanding visuals, a decent balance of comedic styles, and a slew of amusing supporting characters, Shrek Forever After is a guaranteed crowd pleaser.

As the Devil’s Advocate, I found this current incarnation of Shrek to be weak, both structurally and comically.  While the story made perfect sense, the pacing and narrative structure did not blend evenly with it.  Events that look to have taken place over days, took mere moments.  Characters with specific skill sets are introduced, only to be underused. The introduction of an ogre army would imply more action and, perhaps a battle of some sort, but there is little to be seen.   An army of witches fly about on their broomsticks, performing no magic whatsoever.  And while there are funny moments, they are few and far between, and lack the biting edginess that the predecessors displayed.  Not a bad film by any means, but it will appeal to much smaller audience than the others.