Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know."

In the early days of full sound movies, The Marx Brothers made a name for themselves as one of the many gurus of the comedy genre at the time. Animal Crackers is the second outing of The Marx Brothers. I do not consider myself a massive fan; however I am slowly becoming even fonder of the trio (or foursome depending on what film you watch).

With this film, Animal Crackers is of course thin on plot. The little plot development is an excuse for the brothers to showcase their many skills in the field of comedy. The film moves from scene to scene of classic Marx Brothers humour. In this film you'll find such great scenes as: cost of the musician, cost of a taxi, madman with a rifle, marrying two women, African lecture, card shark and so many more.

Groucho Marx plays renowned explorer Captain Jeffrey T. Spaulding (the 'T' stands for Edgar) who has just returned from the darkest parts of Africa. Upon arriving back home he is the house guest of a certain Mrs. Rittenhouse (Dumont). Then a very amusing plot emerges concerning the purchase of a valuable old oil painting. Two lovers staying at the estate want to get married but the man is only a poor artist with little reputation. They hatch a plan to switch the genuine oil painting with a copy the man had painted years earlier. Then there are some other people who have the same plan: to replace (what they think is) the original oil painting with a version they had made. At the same time there are to bumbling, clumsy thieves who want to steal the original painting. Thus paintings are stolen, with different versions surfacing all over the place.

This synopsis does give away a bunch of the movie; however this will allow you to forgive the confusing plot and instead watch it for the laughs that The Marx Brothers are so famous for.

There is no doubt that contemporary audiences will immediately overlook this film because of its age. Heck, even I didn't want to see it for that reason. I never would have thought that old 1930's humour could actually be funny! Thankfully in classic Marx Brothers style, the laughs begin soon into the movie and never cease.

Groucho, as usual, carries the film. He is the central protagonist and easily gets laughs from his impeccable line deliveries. This is a very focused actor. Chico is another stand-out in the film. He plays a mute thief who aims to steal the oil painting. Because of a certain hearing problem there are several scenes that are downright hilarious with this joke that always resurfaces. The scene in the dark while looking for the flash light always makes me laugh no matter how many times I've viewed it.

Animal Crackers is devilishly clever but unfortunately it has its flaws. For starters, it's painfully obvious that the whole thing was filmed on a low-quality set. It does the job; however I thought the atmosphere wasn't as genuine as it could have been. And of course the lack of anything really meaty in the plot is another downfall. This is always going to be expected when you consider the talent involved.

So what is the real appeal of Animal Crackers? Well, it may be several decades old but its humour is fresh and original. The brothers are a talented bunch of people whose work would be hard to replicate even with the aid of contemporary film technology. We have a determined cast, a solid script and a cluster of stellar laughs.

"I beat you to the buyers, and now I've beat you to the mark. I'm sorry, but I think I picked the wrong guy to be my hero."

Richard Donner delivers the goods as usual with Assassins; an entertaining, well-crafted action thriller that cannot be missed by fans of the genre. Naturally Sylvester Stallone is pretty close to his tough guy action hero. He can use a gun stylishly and he can kill in cold blood; however the body count is surprisingly low considering Sly's modest reputation for over-the-top action movies.

Stallone plays professional hitman Robert Rath who is considered the best at his profession. Over many years he has made a big name for himself for his stylish ways of fulfilling contracts assigned to him via electronic communication. Robert is now old and visibly past his prime; he wants out of the business no questions asked. After accepting a final job from his long-time employer, what follows is a manhunt as young hitman Miguel Bain (Banderas) starts hunting Robert with the intent of becoming the number 1 hitman in the world.

I won't spoil anymore for you, because then it just wouldn't be as fun with all the interesting (and surprisingly unpredictable) plot twists that lead to a very intense climax.

Stallone is at his usual standard here; sometimes the subtitles function looks very attractive during some of his dialogue scenes, and sometimes you just can't keep your eyes off the screen while he's carrying a firearm. Truth be told his dialogue isn't as unbearable as it usually is. Contrary to popular belief he puts determination and commitment into one of his roles. He may be type-cast as a typical single-note action hero and it's understandable. Stallone is quite underrated and has produced a bunch of action films that are decent slices of entertainment. One would never expect someone like Antonio Banderas to show up in a film like this. He plays his psychotic hitman role extremely well. Banderas is certainly much better than one would have initially expected. He's very dark, cool and well conceived. Julianne Moore is another surprising addition to the cast. Starring as a hacker, a very game Moore does what she can with a fairly mediocre screenplay.

The directing by Richard Donner is first-rate and high class: especially during the action scenes. This stellar directing is to be expected when one examines other films on Richard Donner's résumé. The man who gave the world the Lethal Weapon series uses his traditional Hollywood style: lots of blood, lots of action, lots of things blowing up.

The film was written in the days preceding The Matrix and hence The Wachowski Brothers hadn't yet made a name for themselves. The two brothers can write a good screenplay. It's filled with intriguing plot twists and exciting concepts for different action scenes. Of course these creative action scenes are given the visual royal treatment.

Overall, I found Assassins to be highly enjoyable and underrated. The film suffered lots of criticism and it still does. I, however, thought that it was a good mix of action and thrills. Granted this action film is long and tedious with a running time of over 2 hours, but the intense climax is worth every minute of the build up. Certainly worth seeing.

"Houston, you have a problem. You see, I promised my little girl that I'd be comin' home. Now I don't know what you people are doing down there, but we've got a hole to dig up here!"

Armageddon is the second of 1998's "end of the world" films - after Deep Impact - that comes from notorious hack director Michael Bay. I remember being mildly entertained when I saw this movie several years ago. I guess with age and maturity we can finally see the flaws and pointlessness of mindless Hollywood rubbish like this film. Now I like action films because for the most part they are entertaining guilty pleasures. I expected to at least be entertained by this film...but I was bored stiff due to all the clichés, cheesy dialogue and predictable moments.

NASA scientists discover that a large meteorite the size of Texas is heading towards Earth. If the meteorite hits Earth, it will wipe out all life including bacteria. Okay, I will admit that the premise isn't too bad. The disaster genre is renowned for some entertainment despite some average plotting. But I digress...

After much negotiation, it is concluded that a team of experts must plant a nuclear warhead in the core of the meteorite to destroy it and save the world. NASA recruits the best deep core driller in the world - Harry Stamper (Willis) - and his crew to fly into space, drill a hole in the meteorite and plant the warhead.

The script is corny and predictable beyond all comprehension! Not to mention the atrocious dialogue! Come on, the dialogue is just characters yelling "It's gonna blow", "The clock is ticking" and other such things every few minutes.

The film is loaded with stupendous events. Every scene is guaranteed to make you embarrassed because of how conventional everything is. I mean of course, there just has to be a love affair between two characters with a father not approving. This is set up within the first few minutes. Who would've thought?! And it's impossible to forget the traditional series of events that unfold when the team land on the meteorite! Nothing goes to plan and this ends in a suspenseful countdown. Then when you think things can't get any worse the screenwriter inserts the obligatory manufactured tear-jerker. Not only is it predictable but it's also highly clichéd. And come on - an American colonel not knowing how to defuse one of his own bombs? That's just plain illogical!

I've never exactly been a fan or a hater of infamous hack director Michael Bay, and it's only recently after a plethora of mediocre and appalling films that I've realised where all the hatred lies. The man cannot direct his way from the kitchen to the lounge room! He only made his actors make the script sound even worse.

Kudos to Bruce Willis and some of his co-stars who make some of the one-liners sound half-decent. I did have a bit of a giggle thanks to a few clever lines. This is the only saving grace (I say this very loosely). And as for Affleck, he can't act.

The cinematography was the last nail in the coffin of this uneven disaster epic. Jerky camera shots, ultra fast cutting - it's impossible to keep up with what is going on, and why! The film is also a breeding ground for clichés. And here's more - it's 150 minutes long! Just by choosing Affleck to fill one of the starring roles was a recipe for disaster.

But wait - there's more! Gravity on a meteorite? Able to use a firearm in space? Nuff said! Armageddon is loud, ugly and unbelievably cheesy - it's about as disastrous as the meteorite promised to be.

"I can fix that." (It would have been nice if Ice Cube was referring to the screenplay...unfortunately he's not)

Unfortunately, as long as Hollywood sees a profit in them they will continue to roll out these types of appalling, strictly by-the-numbers children's flicks. When it comes to this genre quality is never the concern. It's the money. They hire the cheapest cast and crew they can and supply a reasonably small budget. Filtering little money into the film means that they'll easily return a large profit at the box office, even more easily returning its original budget.

This inevitable sequel to the inexcusably dismal 2005 film Are We There Yet? is just as bad as its predecessor, if not even worse. Ice Cube continues to dig a bigger hole for the corpse of his career by starring in films like these.

After the events of the first film we once again follow Nick Persons (Cube) who is now married to Suzanne (Long) and is now the stepfather of Suzanne's kids. The four of them are living in Nick's small condo that can barely accommodate them all. After Suzanne falls pregnant they soon decide that a bigger house is necessary to support the growing family. While looking for a house they meet wacky realtor/contractor/building inspector/policeman Chuck (McGinley) who convinces Nick to buy a big luxurious house that he can barely afford. Predictably, trouble strikes in the form of termites, dry rot, loss of electricity, falling through floors, and so on.

This then begins the film's journey down into the world of conventional storytelling that we've seen before as things go from bad to worse. It's a bunch of unfunny slapstick gags strung together as a sequel to an already appalling movie.

All the gags and pratfalls are easily predictable several minutes before they occur. I mean who would have predicted that Ice Cube would begin falling through collapsing walls and floors...? Aside from that it's also predictable that he will get struck by lightning, fall from ladders and get attacked by a cavalcade of different animals. And then of course the trademark cherry on top: Suzanne begins to go into labour at an awkward and inconvenient moment.

What's more - it's a credited remake of the 1948 movie Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House (complete with an RKO logo at the beginning). But Ice Cube is no Cary Grant. The film is even more tragic by its references to several other (better quality) movies like Jaws and The Birds.

Just like its predecessor, Ice Cube's performance is somewhat questionable. The kids have further lost their appeal because now they're not young. Now they are older annoying snots who are even more irritating. I couldn't believe someone like John C. McGinley agreed to appear in this film. The man can be funny when given good material. Unfortunately there are no clever lines of dialogue for him to work with.

Are We Done Yet? is almost a rehash of the original with a house being wrecked as opposed to an expensive car. The film is phenomenally bad, notoriously unfunny, and pitches a more valuable question to the viewing audience: are we done with this series yet? One of the poorest films of 2007!

"Yeah, I know I drink a lot, I know I do because I'm a writer and that's what I do, I drink. I'm not like those people out there, I can control myself!"

Normally I tend to avoid these kinds of chick flicks. Over the years I haven't viewed many girly films that have ended up being anything more than fluffy clichéd entertainment. I approached 28 Days because of the outstanding cast that this film had to boast. I am pleased and happy to report that this film isn't as bad as I was originally anticipating.

A free-spirited big-city journalist named Gwen Cummings (Bullock) is a raging alcoholic who spends most of her time getting drunk with her equally boozy boyfriend Jasper (West). Frequently the two endlessly party all night; binge drinking into the early hours of the morning. Gwen turns up to her sister's wedding not only late, but also hopelessly inebriated. During the wedding she makes a complete fool of herself by falling onto the wedding cake while dancing uncontrollably. She then aims to replace the cake on short notice and ends up crashing a limousine into a house. Charged with a drink driving offence she is given the choice of jail time or a 28-day rehab program. Not surprisingly, Gwen chooses rehab. At first she is hesitant to get involved in any of the treatment programs; instead denying that she has an addiction to both cigarettes and alcohol. The whole thing seems like a bad joke to her. However after getting to know some of the fellow patients she re-examines her life and slowly conforms to the activities that the other patients are involved in.

28 Days is not so much a comedy but a poignant look at the troubled people of contemporary society. The audience can easily relate to all the characters because we see them commonly on the streets around us. The story is more concerned with Gwen finding a way to deal with life. I thought that this was a refreshing film because I've seen far too many comedies that fail when trying to be something more meaningful than it actually is.

Even after saying that, 28 Days is a film that also contains a bunch of fantastic gags. I adored the clever parody of the typical daytime soap opera. Because of how convoluted and hilariously over-the-top soapies actually are, it's great to see a soapie that is actually meant to be funny.

Many of the laughs can also be attributed to the sensational cast. Sandra Bullock has never played anyone quite like this character. This has even been called her best performance to date. Bullock suits her role perfectly. She's entirely believable and perfectly cast. However, the major stand-out for me was the gay German dancer played by Alan Tudyk. Now this is a focused performer! Throughout the film he never breaks his complete concentration. Every line is delivered in an amusing German accent. His testimony about forks was entirely improvised by Alan on the spot! All his mannerisms are very funny at times.

28 Days, of course, is a great comedy with a few good messages about life. On the contrary there's also a selection of flaws. There are some laughs, but I felt a distinct lack of quality laugh-out-loud moments of which the film has precious little. Naturally, this is a matter of taste. I also thought that the film was heavily clichéd at times as well as being highly predictable during its middle section. Even with those clichés being present, I must also say that the film manages to avoid many of the typical conventions of the genre. This is always a good sign.

Overall, I found 28 Days to be great viewing if you're bored on a rainy afternoon or if you want a night of good laughs and drama. Don't raise your expectations too high and you won't be disappointed. Certainly worth a screening or two.

"He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy!"

After the Monty Python troupe bathed in the massive success of their hilarious low-budget picture Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the team soon regrouped to produce another silly, incredibly hilarious comedy. Life of Brian is a brilliant sacrilegious production that combines irreverent humour as well as political and religious satire. The results are as outstanding and hilarious as they were when first released about 30 years ago.

Logically enough, Life of Brian is a film about a boy named Brian Cohen (Chapman). Brian is born in a stable on the original Christmas right next to the stable where Jesus is born. As a result the three wise men mistake Brian for the Son of God and present his bewildered mother with gifts...soon rectifying their mistake. We then jump forward a number of decades to "Judea, AD 33, Saturday afternoon...about tea time" when Brian is a fully grown man. Brian's mother had raised him to believe that his father was a certain Mr. Cohen, but one day Brian discovers that his father was a Roman centurion named Naughtius Maximus (joke name, of course). Brian, fuelled by his hatred for the Romans and refusing to believe he is one, is horrified and decides to join a rebel group called the People's Front of Judea (not to be mistaken for the Judean People's Front). After joining this rebel group a very amusing string of events begin to unfold. This includes being captured by the Romans, being mistaken for the Messiah and even being assigned for crucifixion.

Life of Brian is a film I truly adore! Being a big fan of Monty Python for numerous years I always find their style of humour to my liking. This film suffered criticism for its sometimes offensive views on religion. If you are one of those people and take the Python's views on religion seriously then I think you have a problem. Maybe you should go watch some religious propaganda and feel a lot better about the content in that. The film was even banned in certain parts of the world. Can't priests and heavily religious people just accept a good laugh?!?

I loved the performances from everyone in the cast. Even though the six members of the Python team play several roles, they are determined and give it 100%. They all have their moments of utter hilarity...even if it means a bunch of nudity. (Yes, Graham Chapman, I am looking at you. R.I.P.) The filmmakers cover all the basics...from Caesar with a speech impediment to Jesus delivering a sermon atop a mountain to a crowd who seem to be more concerned with insults concerning noses.

The six Monty Python members can certainly write a good script while in each other's company. In this film there's creativity and original humour all over the place. The film was shot in the beautiful location of Tunisia. The production values are quite good for a low-budget comedy (we can excuse a few minor technical faults for the sake of entertainment).

Life of Brian could be the best Monty Python movie in existence. This and Holy Grail are both downright hilarious and entertaining. Highly recommended! Interesting trivia fact: the film was financed by George Harrison of The Beatles.

"I love a happy ending! Hahaha!" (An actual quote from the film. Although in this case I wouldn't mind any ending...as long as it's over!)

Pointless family movies are another disease in Hollywood. Every year without failure the studios continue to roll out standard by-the-numbers family movies that are clichéd beyond all belief. Why do the studios do this? Simple - because they don't cost much to make and they are capable of pulling in stacks of money from the younger audience.

Are We There Yet? is yet another indescribably appalling mess of a family movie in the vein of those aforementioned clichéd family flicks. The only difference is that this film is one of the worst I have experienced in a long time, and it's a film that I wish had never come to fruition.

Nick Persons (Cube) is a swinging bachelor who meets divorced attractive single mother Suzanne (Long). As Suzanne leaves on a business trip, her ex-husband cancels his plans to take care of the kids...and Nick volunteers to take them. From there the film sinks into the world of clichés, predictability and just plain unoriginality as Nick takes the kids in his new car to Vancouver to meet with Suzanne. The two kids have never liked any of the men her mum has dated in the past...and of course try everything they're capable of to make the trip a nightmare for Nick.

It's typical black comedy we've seen millions of times before as things get destroyed and begin going from bad to worse (not to mention the complete implausibility of a deer turning into Mohammad Ali and beating the crap out of Ice Cube).

Are We There Yet? is the typical American family film strictly for the kids - i.e. corny lines, cheesy, happy ending, predictable, impossible events just for the sake of getting a giggle out of a child...gee, I could go on all day. I think it goes without saying that the acting, directing, screenwriting - basically the all round filmmaking is typical for the genre.

Ice Cube has done some good work in the past. I haven't seen any excellent work from him and I don't expect him to. But hell, he has got to make some good career moves. Anaconda, xXx: The Next Level and now this pile of manure. The two young performers playing the kids are both annoying little snots. We're not supposed to like them and hence have motivation to empathise with Ice Cube's situation. However it's a little hard to do this when it's really clear that the only reason Ice Cube's character is doing this is to get into the good books of a pretty woman. And this is supposed to be a film for the kids?

The ending was the final insult, and the last nail in the coffin. It's the same movie we've seen billions of times before with a different title slapped on it. Ice Cube...your career is over and all previous respect I had for you is gone.

"Frank Lucas is the most dangerous man walking the streets of our city."

American Gangster is another film of 2007 that separates the audiences who seek rubbish blockbusters (like Transformers, Spider-Man 3, etc) and those who seek fine filmmaking no matter how slowly the film is paced. To like this film, you must be part of the latter.

Ridley Scott's latest directorial outing is nothing short of a masterpiece; an expertly crafted intense American crime drama led by talented stars and a director in top form.

Before getting on with this review I must be perfectly frank: the trailer for American Gangster was the worst way to advertise the film and does no justice to the final product. I wasn't at all interested in the film after watching the trailer; however I was pulled along after winning tickets. I entered the cinema with little expectations...but after exiting that cinema I realised that I had just witnessed one of the best films of 2007 and possibly Ridley Scott's finest hour. American Gangster is very powerful and heavy at times; showcasing strong violence, drug use, nudity and lots of profanity...the rating reflects the maturity and age one must reach in order to view the material. While I was in the cinema watching the film I was shocked to see youngsters as young as five or six being allowed by their parents to exhibit this heavily mature production.

American Gangster is based on the true story about drug kingpin Frank Lucas (Washington) who became the first black man to successfully smuggle drugs into the United States. He begins his smuggling career by using coffins containing dead soldiers (and high class drugs) shipped back from Vietnam. Frank's product is the purest on the market and is in massive demand amongst the consumers. We follow Frank as he grows his drug industry, while at the other end of the law he is being shadowed by a cop named Richie Roberts (Crowe). Richie's objective is to finally bring the drug kingpin to justice and prevent any further damage to the American population.

Ridley Scott's directing absolutely blew me away. Every scene is meticulously crafted and adds new meaning to the plot with not a wasted second: this film is one of the finest of its genre. With his skilled direction and authoritative images, the audience will feel compelled to shut up and watch for the film's duration of almost 3 hours. Scott is always a perfectionist when he is behind the camera. His determination shines.

I must also mention the performances from everyone in the cast...they were all incredibly amazing. Denzel Washington is flawless in the title role. We have never seen Denzel portray a character like this one. This alone shows his versatility as a performer. Russell Crowe's portrayal is stellar and concentrated. While watching the movie I was especially engaged in every line that Crowe delivered. He is also realistic and believable. Credit must go to each and every cast member for their stellar efforts.

Throughout the film's running time there is little action and hence will be found boring by those who crave Michael Bay rubbish. However the action that unfolds on screen during those rare occasions is both heavy and difficult to watch. I sat in awe; hypnotised by the film's power and brilliance. After the screening of the film concluded I left the cinema in silence. I was stunned at the brilliance of this masterpiece.

Many people overlooked this movie because of its long running time and automatically classified this as "boring" due to little action. It's a shame that modern movie audiences only look for blockbusters that are created far too frequently these days. Masterpieces of this stature are rarities in Hollywood during this day and age. I wish that filmmakers would focus on masterpieces in lieu of blockbusters.

I'm going to make this very clear: if you're expecting non-stop action and 2D characters, stay very clear. But if you're looking for an expertly crafted modern masterpiece, watch this movie without hesitation. Plain and simply, American Gangster is one of the best films of 2007.

"You have the heart of a king."

After the atrocious watered-down Disney version of The Three Musketeers I felt that Hollywood had made one too many films concerning Alexander Dumas' classic story. However, The Man in the Iron Mask is writer/director Randall Wallace's take on the source material. And at least this wasn't a dilute PG-rated Disney film aimed at the children. While watching this film my fears were soon alleviated.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays the dual roles of heartless King Louis, and his brother Philippe. Louis is the king of France who ascended to the throne after the death of his father. Louis' brother Philippe could not also take the throne of France and was instead thrown into prison with his face hidden behind an iron mask (therein lies the title). The city of Paris is starving; its king is spending more time debauching young women and filtering money into unnecessary wars. King Louis is a heartless ruler who cares for no-one but himself. His arrogance causes a stir amongst his royal guard. Determined to save the country from starvation, the film then follows the now aging illustrious musketeers; Aramis (Irons), Athos (Malkovich), Porthos (Depardieu) and D'Artagnan (Byrne). Due to his loyalties towards the king, D'Artagnan abandons the three other musketeers as they conceive a clever plan to replace King Louis. To do this they must break Louis' brother Philippe out of prison, remove Philippe's iron mask and train him to take the place of his heartless sibling.

The plot of The Man in the Iron Mask isn't as conventional or as clichéd as it could have been. It is a refreshing story that was relieving to see after the horribly childish Disney film (both were based on different stories, but Disney's film was just far too by-the-numbers and thin). Instead of Disney, 20th Century Fox stepped in to release this one. Although the film isn't as violent as it could have been, the themes are a lot heavier and the triumphant moments aren't as cheesy.

I found it interesting that the musketeers have now aged quite severely and have passed their prime. This just shows their versatility as soldiers after many years of fighting.

Unlike many adaptations of Dumas' story, this film is concerned with the larger-than-life sword fights the four men undertook and their swashbuckling exploits instead of tracing their roots. Several films have looked at how the men came to be, thus it would have been far too tedious to show the back-story of the foursome yet again. In a sense it's a great companion piece for Disney's The Three Musketeers. That film is cheesy beyond belief but it at least tells the story behind the forming of the musketeers reasonably skilfully. The Disney film also shows how to make a mediocre film out of a great story. The Man in the Iron Mask shows how to make a remarkable movie out of terrific source material.

Leonardo DiCaprio hadn't made a big name for himself yet. Some of his only credits included What's Eating Gilbert Grape, The Basketball Diaries and Romeo + Juliet among several others. For the most part he was the romantic pretty boy lacking any emotional depth. DiCaprio's acting is acceptable but not great. He was the pretty boy a lot of the time; however I occasionally really liked his style of acting. At least his romantic lines aren't cringe-worthy. Although nothing groundbreaking, credit must go to DiCaprio for a solid effort in playing dual roles. I have no complaints about the four that play the renowned musketeers. These men are certainly a smart choice to play such characters. They have the dry wit and chemistry: something that cannot be said for Disney's production.

The Man in the Iron Mask boasts some elegant production (and costume) design as well as lavish sets and dazzling locations. Every shot looks like a genuine photograph from the film's historic period. My only complaint: gross over-length and a few too many clichés. Aside from that, I enjoyed this exceptional movie that is unforgettable and extravagant.

"There's a tiny person on that speck that needs my help!"

It's delightful to believe that one of Dr. Seuss' novels has finally been successfully made into a movie. After the atrocious Cat in the Hat I was unenthusiastic to approach another movie adaptation of a Seuss novel. I am happy to report that Horton Hears a Who! is a fantastic, entertaining movie that is guaranteed to provide entertainment for the whole family.

Horton (voiced by Jim Carrey) is an elephant enjoying life in the Jungle of Nool. One morning while Horton is having his bath, he becomes convinced that he is hearing tiny voices coming from a microscopic speck of dust. Horton is confident that there is an infinitesimal world living inside that speck of dust and vows to protect the small community from the harsh jungle that surrounds them. The animals around him believe that Horton is going insane as they can't hear these supposed voices. But of course Horton is in fact right: in that speck of dust lies the town of Whoville. But it becomes apparent that the entire population is vulnerable to destruction with Horton being their only hope. As the disaster is about to strike, Horton sets off on a journey to find a safe place for the town of Whoville.

Horton Hears a Who! is animation at its best. Like all films from companies like Pixar and Dreamworks we have come to expect nothing but computer generated animation of the highest order. Here we have superb looking animals, realistic terrains and inventive cinematography. All the images are bright and colourful. It's all extremely eye-catching and fun to watch.

This sublime animation is accompanied by the accomplished voice cast. Jim Carrey isn't as overzealous as he usually is. Being an animation film his over-the-top antics wouldn't be as powerful. He still puts on a number of peculiar, wacky voices throughout the film. I thought that Carrey did as exceptional job. Steve Carell is another actor famous for overacting and being silly. Here, he is restricted to more childish humour but he is still given quality lines of dialogue to work with.

Horton Hears a Who! also contains a fairly decent screenplay. Throughout the movie there are a number of great laughs, funny lines and amusing situations. I will admit that the laughs weren't always first-rate. There is no abundance of great laughs unfortunately. Even after saying that, I will also admit that I found some of the gags quite hilarious. The kids will definitely appreciate the over-the-top mannerisms of some of the animals. For their age range they just need pretty pictures to look at to ensure they don't get bored. I can assure you that the kids won't get bored.

I liked the whole style of the film. The Dr. Seuss nature of the film is retained; there's rhyming narration, enlightening characters and a kid-friendly atmosphere. I cannot judge how faithful the film is to its source material because I haven't read the book for several years. From what I remember the filmmakers made a harmonious transition from book to film.

Horton Hears a Who! is simple family entertainment. It's corny, predictable and clichéd; however at least it's a fun film that guarantees the interest of a young child for its duration. It succeeds in getting its target audience interested while also inserting laughs that ensure an adult (or teen) will have a suitably fun time as well.