Reviews by PvtCaboose91

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.

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.

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.

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.

I still remember when I was a tender age of 3 and first saw The Lion King on the big screen. When it was released on VHS it became a film I watched almost everyday. I would not be alone in saying that this film was an essential part of my early childhood. Because I had watched this film so much I have basically committed every scene to memory.

It had been about 5-10 years since I last watched this brilliant Disney movie. Needless to say, a re-screening was highly necessary because of how powerful this film was on my childhood years. The Lion King was first released in 1994. Now the film is regarded as a classic. Currently as a teenager I can say that this film still has the same impact and power despite what age range you have reached. As a child you appreciate the slapstick humour on screen. When characters do amusing antics the kids will have a good laugh. Of course they don't know what is going on most of the time. In later years the magic is still present. You can devour the film for its plot and clever script. You can analyse how innovative the animation is. And yet, you can still laugh at the mannerisms of the animals.

The Lion King is the story of a young lion cub named Simba (voiced by both Thomas and Broderick) who is heir to the throne of Pride Rock now run by his father Mufasa (Jones). But Simba is forced into exile when he is at the receiving end of a treacherous, deceptive plot courtesy of his jealous uncle Scar (Irons). After the death of Mufasa the kingdom is now ruled by Scar who will essentially spell doom for Pride Rock. While Simba lives another life he becomes the unlikely friends of a meerkat named Timon (Lane) and a warthog named Pumbaa (Sabella). But as Simba's rightful kingdom is crumbling due to its poor leadership, his past returns and leads him to his rightful destiny of becoming king.

The Lion King has a fairly straight-forward plot that will work on the surface for the kids. As you grow older you look past its pretty pictures and see something a lot deeper than you would have originally remembered. In a nutshell, the film is loosely a Shakespearean drama rich in themes of jealousy, deception, betrayal, murder and redemption. In essence this formula we have seen countless times before. It's just not as noticeable because of its pretty new packaging for the clichés to breed inside. Of course this is a children's film so these clichés and formulaic plot points can be excused.

The Lion King is one of the cleverest Disney films in existence. Its appeal stretches to each and every age range. The film has its adorable moments, hilarious moments and of course the intense or tragic moments. This is not your average Disney movie at all!

The most memorable image for me was the introduction of the renowned Timon and Pumbaa. These two were a particular favourite of mine when I was a youngster. Nathan Lane is a piece of perfect casting. His excellent lines of dialogue had me in stitches. The rest of the voice cast are outstanding. Jeremy Irons is another stand-out as the sadistic, evil Scar. Many of his lines are memorable because of how brilliantly he delivers them.

The animation is indeed incredible even after all these years. The film is breathtaking in its amazing images shown using simple animation techniques. Naturally, the cherry on top is the music. Elton John contributed to the music here. In addition to Elton we also have Tim Rice and Hans Zimmer collaborating to produce the music, songs and score. Do you expect this to go wrong?

The Lion King is a treasure chest rich in nostalgic memories from my childhood. It has been so many years but this film is still one of my favourites. The Lion King is the fundamental embodiment of a children's animation film. Laughs, clever characters, witty dialogue and great animation. If you haven't seen this for several years I suggest another screening is required. You will become addicted once again.

John Ford was one of the many luminaries of the western genre. With one of his final western films, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is truly one of the most elegant westerns in cinematic history. The two principal actors featured here are enough to guarantee unfathomable success.

Set in the Wild West, James Stewart plays a United States senator named Ransom Stoddard who travels to the town of Shinbone to pay respects to one of his old friends. Newspaper reporters begin speculating about the senator's business in such an insignificant western town. Ransom concedes to the press and decides to share his story. Subsequently the film is a series of extravagant flashbacks that shed light on Ransom's close friendship with a cowboy named Tom Doniphon (Wayne). His friendship begins after Ransom is beaten badly and robbed by a group of outlaws lead by the renowned Liberty Valance (Marvin). Vowing revenge, Ransom utilises his skills as a lawyer in an attempt to clean up the west without using violence. He teaches those in need how to read and write. His use of literature and words makes him a respected member of the community. However he realises that the west is not controlled by law and order but by murder and violence. Cowboys and gunslingers take the law into their own hands as they decide who lives and who dies. Ransom's story then uncovers how his political career became so successful after he became known as "the man who shot Liberty Valance".

A quality western is only guaranteed if there is a stellar plot. In this case, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance has what could be the best plot for a western I have ever seen. The 50s and 60s were certainly the decades dominated by loads of successful westerns. It's impossible to forget westerns helmed by Sergio Leone, or westerns that starred such stars as Clint Eastwood, Gary Cooper or John Wayne. These three men were the essential embodiment of a western protagonist.

With this film, John Wayne plays a fairly original role. Wayne still has the baggy trousers, the trademark walk, the recognisable facial expressions and the fast gun-touting skills. Despite this pile of conventions his character is explored to be a man of more moral depth. His portrayal is engaging and engrossing. I found it easy to get into the movie due to his dynamic performance. Because John Wayne was so famous during the period of the film's release this is an offer too tempting to resist. On top of this we have a straight-forward, intriguing plot and one of the world's all-time greatest actors: James Stewart. When this film was made it was clear that Stewart was aging. This doesn't stop him from delivering one of his most memorable roles to date. He still has his charm and charisma now mixed with bravery and honour. It's very easy to empathise with his character.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance of course has the usual conventional bad guys: they are dirty, have bad teeth and look very unsavoury. Although a contemporary audience would usually find this far too stereotypical you must remember that this was made during the period of the westerns. It was tradition to have these characters included.

The film is topped off admirably with smart direction and an exciting score. John Ford will always deliver when it comes to the western genre. Each director made their own mark on the genre. Each director has a different way of staging the action, placing the camera and building up intensity. Ford is a natural when it comes to this style of movie.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance was pasted and criticised upon original release. Decades later and the film is now considered as a classic and one of cinema's greatest westerns. It depends on your taste in film whether you will enjoy this one or not. Especially if you like westerns, this is a film you cannot afford to miss.

Lions for Lambs marks the first feature from the now Tom Cruise owned company of United Artists. Despite its poor box office profit and heavy pasting, I found the movie to actually be quite decent.

The film is three different stories told in parts throughout the movie. The main story is concerned with action in Afghanistan by U.S. soldiers. Two soldiers end up wounded and vulnerable on the top of a snowy mountain. Low on ammo and low on energy, their superiors back at base do what they can to launch a rescue mission. The next story is about a journalist (Streep) who visits a congressman (Cruise) to interview him for a story. The final tale is about a young student (Garfield) who arrives one morning in the office of a university professor (Redford) to discuss his future among other things.

The film is straight-up dialogue, talking and exposition. Those expecting anything action-orientated will be disappointed. The lack of action was the biggest problem. I know it was meant to make a political statement and not be an entertainment piece, but it's rather impossible to do so towards the audience by just using scenes of dialogue. The performances were good and the script was intelligent, but the whole thing feels so boring. Black Hawk Down, for example, made an exceptional statement with scene of action and dialogue.

The lack of an actual meaty story is another problem. There are 3 stories to tell, but without an actual solid plot to drive these tales it feels very hollow and empty. Instead it relies on the audience's knowledge of the war on terror as a basis for the plot. So what will happen in 20 years when it's revisited long after the war on terror is over? Some who approach it may think of it as an entertainment piece, but they will be clueless about which war it is meant to be symbolising. Such other political war films like Black Hawk Down give the viewer insight into what has happened and what is planned, rather than diving straight into the action. Still, I liked the performance and the precious little action was kind of satisfying (although the special effects looked a bit dodgy).

Tom Cruise's performance wasn't too bad. As a congressman, he does okay. But he just appears to be Ethan Hunt behind a desk discussing political issues. Meryl Streep was one of the stronger actresses in the film. She makes a very stern journalist. As for Robert Redford (who also directed), well I think he did a pretty good job.

It's a shame that Lions for Lambs didn't turn out as good as some other dialogue driven war films like Ed Zwick's Courage Under Fire. Instead we're fed a bunch of biased American propaganda that attempts to be more than it actually is.

It's not powerful enough to make a worthwhile political statement, and it's not enjoyable enough to be considered an entertainment piece. I don't really know how to describe it, really. Worth seeing, but one of 2007's biggest disappointments.

Most people were very sceptical about Scorsese approaching a remake of a highly successful original Asian movie. Personally I really liked the original Asian film Infernal Affairs and was hoping Scorsese could once again pull off his magic.

The Departed is an infinitely better movie than its Asian counter-part in my opinion. I found myself completely engaged in this movie from start to finish. The Departed has all the same key plot points as the Hong Kong picture that spawned it.

For this film Scorsese is not focusing on the usual Italian American gangsters; instead the film is set in Boston where the Irish gangsters dominate the mob and the police. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Billy Costigan; a man on the wrong side of the tracks who has mobster blood in him. Billy graduates from the Massachusetts State Police Academy with plans to bury his mob heritage. But those higher up in the police force have other plans. Because of Billy's background he's the perfect man to infiltrate the Irish mob. Billy is assigned to work undercover (extremely confidentially) and penetrate a group of Irish gangsters lead by infamous Irish mobster Frank Costello (Nicholson). Billy's mission: to acquire enough evidence to have Frank Costello arrested.

Unbeknownst to the police, Frank Costello's protégée Colin Sullivan (Damon) is another young cadet who graduates from the police academy with excellent results. Because Colin reaches a position of such power and importance he is the perfect man to be Frank's mole inside the police. New clues lead to some unfortunate discoveries and both sides soon realise that they're being scrutinised by the enemy. Of course both sides do not desire this close scrutiny; each respective side assigning their mole to discover the identity of the other mole.

One of the main elements of The Departed that made it far superior to Infernal Affairs is that Scorsese takes his time to develop the characters. Infernal Affairs moved so fast and contained cryptic dialogue, hence I had no idea what was actually going on. The characters in that film were also poorly distinguished. With this film, we take a deeply penetrating look at the life of each character. Scorsese is never in a rush to get anywhere. If anything this slow pace made the film a lot more fascinating.

The Departed is an incredible crime thriller that also contains some truly breathtaking performances. Leonardo DiCaprio was an actor I had little respect for. Prior to 2006 he was too much of a pretty boy who gets the girl. With this film and Blood Diamond in the same year, DiCaprio produces his best two performances to date. At the Golden Globes he was nominated twice for Best Actor; one for each respective film. What makes DiCaprio so excellent is his deep and confronting portrayal. Billy Costigan is a profoundly insightful, multi-faceted character. At first he displays professionalism. But when he is put undercover he has become the bad boy. I never expect him to pull off such a stunning portrayal after all his 'pretty boy' roles. Matt Damon is every bit as brilliant as DiCaprio. He shows a wide range of emotions and he never strikes a false note. Jack Nicholson is truly electrifying! He plays Costello with an intimidating screen presence. Like each amazing performance, there is believability and vulnerability expressed throughout the film.

The film's screenplay is fantastic. Heavy drama is balanced out with a high level of violence and bloodshed. When Scorsese wants a character's death to be violent he doesn't hesitate to add endless amounts of blood into a shot. After decades of moviemaking and decades of making the best quality crime films around, Martin Scorsese finally scored an Oscar at the Academy Awards for his extraordinary directing. The film clocks at approximately 140 minutes; however director Scorsese maintains focus and concentration for every frame that appears in the film. It's impossible to fault the filmmaking in any way.

I particularly liked how classy its style is. There's catchy music played frequently, compelling drama and violent action. You know this is definitely a film by Martin Scorsese.

The Departed could be Scorsese's best film. Personally I loved his movies like Taxi Driver, GoodFellas and Casino. Like the films he made beforehand, Scorsese does not disappoint. He continues to remind us why he is the guru of the crime thriller genre. The only drawback on The Departed would be its shocking and depressing conclusion. Although because of the film's nature and style it was almost to be expected.

Overall, this is a thriller you simply cannot afford to miss. Winner of several Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Director.

The sci-fi genre has resulted in the release of several absurd space films. You can forget about Hollywood blockbusters like Armageddon, Pitch Black, Deep Impact, Lost in Space, Mission to Mars and several others. Not since Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey has there been a real space movie that captures the wonder of space; that captures how mesmerising and stimulating the experience would be. My prayers were finally answered when Ron Howard was given the green light to make this phenomenal film.

In a nutshell: Ron Howard's Apollo 13 is utterly exceptional. Director Howard has been able to meticulously recreate such an extraordinary scientific occurrence in stunning detail that firmly places the viewer inside the spaceship with the men who are in mortal peril.

Apollo 13 is a film that tells a dramatic account of the true danger that three frail humans faced while in outer space when an explosion on board their vessel cast doubt on them ever reaching it back to Earth. When the explosion occurs and the danger becomes real, the scientists back at NASA would not rest until the crew were brought back home safely.

We follow the three protagonists up in space whose lives are challenged, we follow the NASA scientists back on Earth working to bring the crew home, and we follow those on the home front who are worried sick about their loved ones: three different perspectives of the one heart-stopping event.

Ron Howard's direction is just exceptional; because of the skilful directing I actually forgot it was a movie due to its realism and flawless special effects. It's very hard to believe that this film was made when CGI was still in its youth. Of course Howard's direction was also accompanied by a spectacular cast.

The one thing that struck me about Apollo 13 was its striking realism and believability despite an abundance of well-known actors. Tom Hanks emerged as the principal character here. Hanks is one of the world's greatest actors and he is capable of convincingly pulling off any role that falls into his lap. I couldn't think of anyone better suited to this job. His portrayal is both powerful and moving. Needless to say, each and every other cast member did their job to a high standard. Gary Sinise was a particular surprise as one of those present at NASA during the crisis.

I will admit that the film's opening is fairly slow-paced. It demands patience from its audience. Because when the action moves into space it's extremely hard to drag your eyes away from the screen. In space the film is brimming with realism and an engrossing sequence of events.

I thought one of the most significant things that made this movie so brilliant was its spectacular special effects. I have not seen special effects of this high standard since Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Everything was scrupulously detailed: the space ship (both interior and exterior), as well as the interior of the NASA building. The exterior of the Apollo 13 is particularly well executed and almost impossible to fault. For a film of the 90's this high level of quality is extremely rare.

Apollo 13 scores higher than any space-oriented Hollywood blockbuster fluff, and firmly positions itself amongst the best movies ever made. This filmmaking is tremendously close to perfection. Just think that it was only about 40 years ago when the world held their breath while watching footage of Apollo 13's perilous situation in space. If this film was not a true story, I couldn't have believed it was possible.

The Monty Python troupe scored much success with their long-running TV series Monty Python's Flying Circus. This introduced the world to a very unique style of British humour, and also gave the Monty Python troupe a big name. This was a positive when it came time to release the first film outing of the Monty Python gang.

And Now For Something Completely Different is essentially a very amusing anthology of famous, memorable (very silly) skits from their former TV show that are given an elaborate reworking. The production values are a whole lot better and the scripts have also been altered. During some of their memorable skits the higher production values equalled improvement over the original TV show version. However some of the more classic Monty Python moments were of higher standard when first broadcast in Flying Circus.

And Now For Something Completely Different has got all the basics...Dead Parrot, Lumberjack Song, Upper Class Twit of the Year, Self Defence Against Fresh Fruit, Marriage Guidance and several others, so you know you're all set. Much of the dynamic skits are of the usual outrageously hilarious Monty Python standard we've come to appreciate over the years; random humour, cerebral humour and slapstick humour. If you like the comedy style utilised by the Pythons you will without doubt have a tremendously fun time. If you're not a fan of the Pythons this is probably one to avoid.

Unless you count the numerous sub-plots that vary between skits, there is absolutely no discernable plot or storyline to speak of. The whole film is an extended episode of the former TV show; funny skits that are stitched together with a few transitional shots that take the random humour even further (for the most part these transitional shots are just random images of people saying "And now for something completely different"). I think it's pretty much impossible to get sick of such great Monty Python skits, and in my opinion it's impossible not to find the Python troupe's amusing antics anything short of hilarious.

I have been a fan of Monty Python for years and I am never disappointed in their unique humour. And Now For Something Completely Different is a fantastic film that supplies a number of great laughs and can make a rainy afternoon go by in no time. This is a reminder of the outstanding work the team were capable of producing when they were in their prime. The first Monty Python film is a top-notch effort on everyone's part. For the Python fans, this is absolutely unmissable. After the success of this film the Pythons were then given the green light to make Monty Python and the Holy Grail.