The Last Seven

London. The not so distant future. Population - 7 million... until today. 7 people find themselves in an empty London with no recollection of what's happened to them or the city. What's happened to them? Why have these 7 people been drawn together, why are they the only survivors? And what's that mysterious threat that lurks around every corner?

The Last Seven was premiered earlier this year and released straight to DVD in August of this year, which would normally exclude films from being reviewed here on the Gyre, being an up to the minute, cinema release only review blog. However, the good people of Portsmouth were treated to a very special 'south coast premiere' as part of the Portsmouth Film Festival at the excellent No.6 cinema. I just so happened to be a part of that crowd, and thus watched said film and I have to say... I was pleasantly surprised. For an hour and a half film, Danny Dyer didn't open his mouth once.

Other than that small delight, there really are no redeeming features in this film. The plot is a cross between 28 Days Later and The Da Vinci Code. They even replicated the famous Cillian Murphy deserted bridge shot, but they've made it so much cheaper and worse. The plot was very loosely tied together but some quasi-religious doctrine and flashbacks of what happened before they found themselves alone in deserted London, but it all just seems so forced and lucky. The dialogue was absolutely dreadful and wooden, this just really was an extremely poorly written film with recycled plot elements and ideas, and lines we all heard in bog standard horror thrillers 30 years ago.

Tamer Hassan plays the big, cockney Army guy with a gun. Not exactly a wide stretch of the imagination, but he still manages to mess it up. On this evidence, he's clearly not cut out for acting, but he could easily stand outside pubs, turning away 16 year olds. Highlights of his 'performance' included announcing he was going for a piss, shooting a decanter of Cognac out of an old man's hand, and falling to his knees and really trying to cry in front of a bloody schoolgirl. Then there's the lead (?) protagonist who seems to been chopping up too many onions as his eyes are constantly swelled up, red and on the verge of crying, which he does. A lot. He also shouts things about staying together as a team. Then, our young female teenager who, as the rebel she is, has to slip the word 'fuck' into every sentence whether it needs it or not. This seems to provoke Hassan into saying 'fuck' an awful lot, leading to them having am unspoken contest as to who can say it more, or to put it another way, a 'fuck off'. Then there's the Portugese woman who can speak English when she wants to, an old drunkard, a supposed Army captain and the mysterious middle aged man who constantly recites scripture who hides the darkest secret of them all. The message here is religion is bad, kids.

I won't spoil the twist ending or the explanation of the entire plot, but needless to say, by the time it gets to the reveal, you don't really care. Any explanation they could have possibly offered would not explain why you've just sat through a terrible film. I was mildly impressed they managed to film in an empty London in the middle of the day, not early morning like 28 Days Later, and was also mildly impressed Danny Dyer was in a film and didn't ruin it. Throughout the film, Dyer's role involves him wearing a blindfold and a hood and being covered in blood as he plays... the Angel of Death. Yep. He doesn't say a word, just snatches people and digs out their eyes with his thumbs. It sounds ridiculous but honestly, it really fits in with the sheer stupidity and ridiculousness that is The Last Seven.

Overall, this film is just simply bad. It's not even a good kind of bad, that kind of bad where you want to watch it to laugh at how bad it is. It's just plain bad. There are absolutely no redeeming features for this film, it's acted poorly, it's written poorly and it's been shot poorly. Psst, the shaky first person stalker camera from around a corner has been done a gazillion times. Stop it. I can't even bring myself to give this film a symbolic half a star, it honestly deserves a big fat zero. In a brief Q&A session after the film, producer Toby Meredith (who seems to be a lovely man, if a little misguided in his support for the script) informed us this film was shot on a budget of £150,000. I, for one, am glad that no more money than that was wasted on this atrocity of moving pictures.

Rating: 0

Dinner for Schmucks

Tim Conrad is looking to get ahead at his financial company, and so strikes up a potential deal with a wealthy Swiss businessman. As a result of his ingenuity, Tim's boss invites him to a special "dinner for winners" where he must bring a 'special' guest. However, Tim soon learns it is more of a "dinner for idiots" where the special guests will be mocked relentlessly. As he wonders who he could possibly bring, he literally runs into Barry Speck, an IRS employee and part-time mouse taxidermist. Chaos soon ensues as Tim tries to balance his relationship with a curator and the eccentric artist lusting after her, his stalker, his work colleagues and the special guest who's quickly entered his life...

Dinner for Schmucks. Certainly a less offensive title than the translation of the original French title, Le Dîner de cons (literally 'The Dinner of C***s' or 'The Dinner of Idiots') but definitely more marketable and poster friendly. I will not come here and say I've seen Le Dîner de cons and found it be a highly amusing charade. I will say that after seeing this, I'm more open to finding and watching the original French version because I can only hope that it contains more laughs than this version. There must have been a reason why they chose to remake this film, there must have been, because why on Earth would you choose to put millions of dollars into remaking a comedy with little to no laughs in it? I was, to say the least, disappointed. There may have been more laughs in this, but the extensive trailers and TV spots gave away some of the film's biggest laughs so there were only a handful of original laughs to be had.

In all honestly, I can only remember laughing twice. Admittedly, those two laughs were pretty hearty laughs, but in a film that's nearly two hours, that's wholly unacceptable. I didn't even laugh once for the first hour. When you spend 60 minutes not laughing at a supposed comedy film, you know you're in trouble. It's not physical enough to be a slapstick comedy. It's not stupid enough to be a screwball comedy. It's barely anything really, an hour and a half of relationship building and character intros to lead up to the aforementioned "dinner for winners". It's one of the best parts of the film, it's somewhat entertaining with a few laughs. I credit the dinner being funny due to the cameos: Jeff Dunham (Seen Achmed the Dead Terrorist? Him, the puppet guy!) appears as a man married to the ventriloquist's dummy attached to his arm and Chris O'Dowd (Seen The IT Crowd? Him, the Irish guy!) appears as a blind fencer. Dunham's good at what he does, as displayed in numerous YouTube videos, and O'Dowd plays a somewhat stupidly-premised role straight as an arrow.

Paul Rudd is in autopilot here, playing pretty much the same guy he played in I Love You, Man and Role Models. Steve Carell plays an alternative version of Brick Tamland, less 'retarded' and more 'idiotic'. Likeable but not a classic character. Jemaine Clement (from Flight of the Conchords) plays an eccentric artist who is every pretentious artist stereotype from every comedy film from the last 30 years, though that's not to say he doesn't play it well, we've just seen it before. David Walliams makes a, frankly, baffling appearance as a wealthy Swiss businessman with an accent as dodgy as the tan he sports. Ron Livingstone is horribly misplaced as Tim's competitor to win the dinner. Zach Galifianakis plays the Zach Galifianakis role only stupider. Above it all though, I was impressed by one person. Lucy Punch. Name means nothing? She was Eve Draper in Hot Fuzz, Holly Ellenbogen from The Class and, most recently, Kate Bishop in BBC Two's comedy-drama Vexed. This is a bright young actress who's getting attention on both sides of the Atlantic and can certainly make it, she can turn from extremely British in Vexed to convincingly American in Dinner for Schmucks, and she turns in probably the most memorable performance of the film as Tim's stalker Darla. Yeah, it's the same stalker cliche we've seen films for years and years (a testament to the film's adamant unoriginality) but she still carries it off damn well.

To be honest, I don't really want to dwell on this film more than I already have, so here it is. Overall, it's just not funny. It has all the right people in it, but a dire script and lack of jokes severely lets it down. This'll be in the bargain bin before too long, it certainly won't live long in the memory, or at least I hope not on behalf of all the people who have and will see it. The only laugh you'll get from this is how laughably unfunny it is for a supposed comedy. I can only guess that the laughs were lost in translation.

Rating: *

The Expendables

A team of elite muscle-for-hire mercenaries are tasked with going to a remote island in the Gulf of Mexico to overthrow its Latin American dictator, General Garza. But, once there, they find he is being funded by an ex-CIA agent and, so, must overcome the force of Garza's army of loyal soldiers and the might of the American money backing them in order to free the country. But, more importantly, can they also rescue the general's daughter before it's too late?

Be under no illusions, this is not some clever parody of all the action films you've ever seen. This is just another action movie, but this time, all those people who you grew up watching, shooting bad guys and saving the day, are all together shooting bad guys and saving the day. Although, there are a few new additions thrown in, but I'll get to that. With this, there's no messing around. You get exactly what you pay for. A host of famous and familiar faces, everything gets shot and blown up, everyone leaves the cinema happy. Sort of. You do get all that, but it still feels a bit underwhelming. You see, the problem is, they tried to put a story on top of everything to thread it all together. It's pretty basic really: Evil dictator takes over foreign place backed by the good old American dollar, good Americans go in and kill evil dictator and evil Americans, righting the image of the American hero once again. This, however, just doesn't seem to fit. It seems like an unnecessary way to link all the car chases, explosions and people dying everywhere.

This film is smug. It knows it has a cornucopia of action heroes on display, even if some are mere snide cameos, and my God does it overplay it. What's Arnold Schwarzenegger's problem? "He wants to be President". Ha ha ha, it's funny because they're talking about Arnold and not his character. We get it. It's desperately tried to be self-deprecating and all-knowing but it's really turned out looking quite proud of itself when, frankly, it has no reason to be. At the end of the day, it really is JUST another action movie with the same people we've been watching do this stuff over the last 25 years.

Let's break down The Expendables here: Sylvester Stallone. This guy wrote and starred in Rocky, winner of Best Picture at the Academy Awards in 1976. Here, he's now 64 and wrote, starred in AND directed the so-called 'ultimate action movie'. The man can't let things go! He brought back Rocky, he brought back Rambo and now he's here, still determined he can be an action hero. Please stop. The dialogue's wooden and the directing is nothing special. Jason Statham. The current all-action hero from The Transporter, Crank and various others. This was about standard for him, I suppose. Jet Li. Martial arts legend. He's Asian, therefore he is small. Thanks for telling us, Sly. Randy Couture. UFC Hall of Famer, included just in case the kids watching don't know the others. Terry Crews. The token black guy, filling the role previous given to Wesley Snipes, Forest Whitaker and 50 Cent. The inbetweener, Dolph Lundgren. Nice to see him in a secondary role as a goodie/baddie junkie. Very interesting to see him as something other than 'the Russian guy'. Then, our bad guys. Eric Roberts. When Hollywood needs a man to play an evil businessman, Hollywood now turns to Eric Roberts. A surprisingly good turn in The Dark Knight led to this, where he's come crashing back to Earth. His lead henchman, 'Stone Cold' Steve Austin. Question: Why is he the bad guy? Millions of kids AND adults spent nearly ten years cheering the hell out of the guy while he was a wrestler?! Still, at least this was something different, and cements his place as one of Hollywood's emerging tough guys.

Let's not forget our cameos, of course. Mickey Rourke as tattoo artist Tool, who acts as the go-between for The Expendables and the people who wish to hire them. That's about it really, other than the fact he can throw a knife with accuracy and 'is human'. Bruce Willis as Mr Church, assumed to be with the CIA and hires The Expendables in the first place. Lots of swearing, certainly, but he's definitely not John McClane anymore. And, of course, big Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California with dreams as high as The White House. He can barely act, how is he supposed to run a country?

Overall, it's only an hour and a half, and you get exactly what you pay admission for. Everyone gets shot, everything blows up, our heroes save the day. It's not big, and it's certainly not clever, but hey, who said it was? More than anything, I see this as a passing of the torch from the likes of Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Willis to Statham, Austin and Couture to take over where they left off. If this film has any message in it at all, it's something like this: If something is bad, shoot it until it dies or blows up. Oh, and goatees are back in fashion.

Rating: **

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Scott Pilgrim is a 22 year old slacker living with a gay friend, trying to make a living with his average band Sex Bob-Omb and dating a 17 year old high schooler. But when he meets the girl of his dreams (literally), Ramona Flowers, he sets out to win her over and begin dating her instead. However, before he can do that, he must defeat Ramona's Seven Evil Exes, who have banded together to control Ramona's love life and are determined to stop Scott from living out his fantasies at any cost...

Earlier this year, I watched and reviewed Kick-Ass and found that to be a really refreshing take on the comic book superhero genre. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World may not be a superhero film of sorts, but it is most certainly a comic book film and upon finally seeing it after eagerly anticipating it for so long, I can only describe it thus: Mindblowing. This film is phenomenal in carrying out its adaptation of the graphic novel. I feel confident to honestly say that this is as close to a true comic book film, in its most basic definition, you are ever likely to see. The film is a comic book. The comic book was a manga. The manga was a computer game. The film is the resultant hybrid comic book/manga/computer game. It's confusing, but my god it works.

Right from the very beginning, you know it's going to be something different when you're given the Universal ident 8-bit style. From there it just goes on, staying as close to its source material as possible, creating a world that feels like a true-to-live video game. From Scott and his friends being introduced by name tags which appear in screen, to Scott's enemies exploding into a shower of coins and points once defeated, even down to Scott's band's name. The graphic novels took their cues from the world of Nintendos and Manga, and writer/director Edgar Wright has done his best to keep it true to that, and has succeeded at every turn. From the OTT fighting, to the 1960's Batman style fight words complimenting, it is a comic book film in every sense of the term. Every shot looks like a frame from a comic book, meaning the fight scenes become a cross between The Matrix and Mortal Kombat and let's face it, who HASN'T been waiting for that combination?

Michael Cera has come of age in 2010, carrying Youth in Revolt through a somewhat dodgy script and has come into this and delivered his strongest performance yet, which was vital as he absolutely carries the film through. It's hard to think that only 7 years ago, he was George Michael Bluth in Arrested Development, one of the best TV shows of the last decade.This, of course, meant I personally rejoiced when Scott battled Evil Ex Number 4 aka Roxy Richter aka Mae Whitman aka Ann from Arrested Development aka George Michael's girlfriend. Follow that? No? Well, it was a good moment seeing those two together again and makes the prospect of an Arrested Development movie all the more mouthwatering. But I digress... Mary Elizabeth Winstead is only OK, but then Ramona Flowers is a tricky character to play as she rarely expresses any real emotion. The Evil Exes are proper comic book villains with powers and dress senses to match. Scott's bandmates provide some laughs as well. But it's Scott's most recent ex, high schooler Knives Chau, and Scott's gay roommate, Wallace Wells, played by Ellen Wong and Kieran Culkin respectively, who are the strongest supports in the film and are gifted with some of the film's best/funniest lines. Oh, and as lovely as it was to see Anna Kendrick, she shouldn't have been cast as an 18 year old, or even just someone supposedly younger than Michael Cera. No.

I simply think this is just the ultimate geek film, truly. The number of computer game references is astronomical, from the blatant to the subtle. The use of Scott Pilgrim artwork as a flashback device was clever in a self-knowing way but it still fit into the film's aesthetic. Sex Bob-Omb's music was written by Beck. I mean, come on, that's just cool. It's truly entertaining and laugh out loud funny. It's also a touching romance story. It's also a great action thriller. It's also a phenomenal comic book adaptation. It's also the perfect video game movie. Ironically, after all the Resident Evils and Silent Hills we've been given, the best video game movie we now have in the world isn't even a video game.

Overall, there just aren't words to describe how good and entertaining I found it to be. Earlier in the year, I did say that I hold Watchmen to be my most perfect comic book adaptation so far. Scrap that, this is. Earlier in the year, I said Kick-Ass was the best film of the year. Scrap that, this is. Yes, even after Inception. I honestly cannot recommend this film more highly enough. Truth is, I completely and utterly lesbians this film.

Rating: *****

Toy Story 3

Andy's all grown up and about to go to college; his loyal toys are long forgotten and neglected. But a mix-up results in them almost being thrown out and destroyed before they save themselves by ending up a donation box for Sunnyside Nursery, where they'll be played with forever. Woody, though, is adamant on returning to Andy and leaves Buzz and the crew at the nursery. However, they soon realise Sunnyside is less of a paradise and more of a prison and resolve to escape. Can they make it past the evil toys at Sunnyside? Will Woody return to save the day? And can they save themselves from being destroyed forever?

As you may have realised from my review of Shrek Forever After, I'm not a big fan of the animation genre. The last Pixar film I'd seen before this was, in fact, Toy Story 2, which was an almighty 11 years ago. I'm aware I've missed some 'classic' Pixar films but I'd chosen not to see those, they never appealed to me. However, Toy Story 3 is the exception that proves the rule. I've grown up with Toy Story and Toy Story 2, they were a part of my childhood and so, before the child inside me dies once and for all, I felt I had to see Toy Story 3. After all, it would be wrong not to after the happy memories I had of it. Coming out of it, I was justified in my decision, and after the Shrek debacle, this may have saved animation as a genre in my life and may even have reignited my dormant relationship with Pixar.

Toy Story 3 is a perfect ending to a perfect 3 films, it's the only franchise I can think of which hasn't had a low point from start to finish: The Godfather films fell down at The Godfather 3, The Saw franchise only really had Saw 1, Star Wars got ruined with the prequels. Perhaps only the current Batman franchise can match Toy Story's victory in consistency, but that's to be judged when that third film is finally released. Indeed, this is a series of films which was consistently strong throughout, though, that was no sure thing. In an alternate universe, we would have seen a version of Toy Story 3 two years ago where Buzz began malfunctioning and was shipped off to Taiwan. This version of Toy Story fits the continuity of the franchise and provides a fitting conclusion to the stories of Woody, Buzz and the rest of the toys we've all come to know and love.

Firstly, the graphics are impeccable. This is the most picture perfect animation I can remember seeing; I know I said the graphics in Shrek were good and were the only commendable thing in the film, but this just wipes the floor with Shrek. It's proven Pixar have been and currently are the real kings of animation, and probably will be for some time yet. It almost makes me wonder what I've been missing in Wall-E and and Monsters, Inc. The 3D was good throughout, but to be honest, it was about standard to what we can now expect. It was merely just 'there', nothing truly stood out as impressive. Secondly, the story was well thought out. It was, actually, a really rather serious affair, with the toys in peril almost throughout. The new characters were well designed, appropriate and integrated well to the story. Thirdly, this is a film that will appeal to everyone. The toys and the overall story will entertain the kids, but the darkness of the story will grab the adult audience; the underlying themes of growing old and becoming obsolete. It's almost have grown old along with Andy and are ready to retire, having become smarter yet weary. Their first day at daycare prompts them to have an "I'm getting too old for this shit" moment and the acceptance of their fate at one point near the end is so touching and delicately done, it will move any man close to tears, it's just so adult.

Overall, I firmly believe this is the second Pixar film in a row aimed squarely at adults. The kids who grew up with Toy Story and Toy Story 2, myself included, have waited 11 years for an ending and, thus, have grown up. What Pixar delivers in Toy Story 3 is a thoroughly pleasing conclusion to all those adult fans, as well as a charming and funny film for the youngsters, staying true to their majority audience. Toy Story 3 is best summed up as being something like Schindler's Toybox. It's THAT moving and THAT serious and THAT engaging. It's funny and charming and smart to boot. To put it simply, it's the perfect final chapter for the almighty Toy Story.

Rating: ****

Inception

Dom Cobb is a master of 'Extraction', the illegal art of stealing ideas from people's dreams via shared dreaming but he finds himself on the run from the law for a crime he didn't commit. However, he is given the opportunity to be pardoned of his crime and the chance to see his children again if he can perform 'Inception', the planting of an idea in someone else's head. So, he, along with his team of an 'architect', a point man, a 'forger', a chemist and a 'tourist', enters the dreams of a young businessman to try and plant in his head an idea which could change him forever. But can they pull it off, with the businessman's subconscious acting against them, as well as something deeply manifested in Cobb's subconscious acting independently...

It takes a hell of an imagination to ever conceive a film like this, let alone actually create it. Therefore, this success of this film rests squarely on the shoulders of two people. One of those people is Christopher Nolan, but this time it's not Nolan the director, it's Nolan the writer. True, Nolan directs the piece well and keeps everything together, but it's the intricacy of the plot and the various elements which keep everything so closely bound together which shine through here. The film is so well written, and to be completely honest it had to be, or else the whole thing would have fallen apart. The second person is Wally Pfister, Director of Photography. The visuals in this film are nothing short of stunning and, although it's true CGI comes into play an awful lot in this film, the film is still visually engaging and beautifully shot throughout.

Leonardo DiCaprio. There's not a lot to say about him anymore, he finally came of age in The Departed and excelled himself in Shutter Island earlier this year and yet in this, he's delivered his most competent and certainly his most consistent performance to date. He carries the film from start to finish, along with a good Juno-esque performance from Ellen Page. Marion Cotillard almost steals the show as Cobb's deceased wife Mal as she manifests herself in Cobb's dreams without his control. When Mal is evil and takes over Cobb's dreams, Cotillard carries it off brilliantly. When Mal is fondly remembered and embraced in Cobb's dreams, Cotillard barely pulls through. A good ensemble throughout the rest of the film, with Tom Hardy adding the comic relief in places and Cillian Murphy the victim of the 'Inception'; here's two young actors who are rapidly building on two already impressive acting resumes.

The two and a half hours the film takes is absolutely justified when, in all honestly, this film could have taken at least another two and a half. It's one of the few times I can remember in a film when the exposition was both carefully selective and necessary. It doesn't fully explain everything, but just enough for you to understand the concept of shared dreaming and 'Inception'/'Extraction'. It certainly makes the most of the two and a half hours it has though, as there is something happening all the time. There's most definitely no fat to be trimmed from that lengthy amount of time; miss a single moment, you'll lose something vital in plot or character. It keeps you gripped though, no worries there. Whether it's plot, character, dialogue or visual, there's always something on screen which will justify its inclusion in that two and a half hours and will keep you entertained. It certainly doesn't feel like two and a half hours, and by the end, wherein you're given an apt ending which you can see coming half way through the film, you'll wonder where the time went.

Overall, this film is a masterpiece, and I'm not afraid to use that word. It's visually stunning, complex yet simple, self explanatory, engaging and thrilling. It's a thriller, mystery, action, comedy, sci-fi and romance flick all rolled into one. Honestly, we should have known something like this was coming years ago when Nolan made Memento nearly 10 years ago. Nolan is continuously toying with the concept of time and reality through his films, and here he does it with great aplomb. When a film has so much going on, you could so easily get lost at any point. You never do. And if by chance you do get lost, then that only serves to give you an excuse to watch this excellent film again and again and again. Believe me, you'll want to.

Rating: *****

This review was included as part of UU Blog's Film Club, go check it out!

Shrek Forever After

Shrek (Mike Myers) and Fiona (Cameron Diaz) are living an idyllic family life with their three children, but Shrek misses the days he was feared and soon goes weary of the repetitive days of looking after the children and not having any time for himself. So when Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohrn) offers him a chance to be his old self for a day, Shrek jumps at the chance, but things are never that easy, and soon Shrek finds he's changed history; Far Far Away lies in different hands and his friends, and more importantly Fiona, have no idea who he is. Can he save the day, the kingdom, and himself?

I'll start this review off with a small preface: I have never before seen a Shrek film, nor have I watched an animated film since Toy Story 2 way back in 1999. It's a genre that's never really grabbed me as 'must-see' and on this evidence, I was not wrong in thinking this.

From what I understand, Shrek and Shrek 2 were supposedly fantastic, offering something for both children and adults and delivering an engaging story which was entertaining and enthralling. This was far from that. There were very few laughs in this one, and even as someone who isn't a Shrek fan, I could see that this was no more than a nostalgia trip in order to finally wrap up the franchise. There was the occasional pun which adults will find a laugh at, and a couple of visual jokes which the adults will get, but other than that, it's a rather large let-down. The only good thing about this film? The 3D. The graphics were fantastic, and the use of 3D was somewhat gratuitous but it worked, more so than in Alice in Wonderland or, dare I say, Avatar.

Even for children, I can't see how they're going to like this. Throughout, there was a very serious tone with the threat of Shrek disappearing forever and him placing the kingdom into the hands of Rumpelstiltskin (who was probably the best 'character' in the film) so that the ogres have to rise up and take back the kingdom, all whilst Shrek has to get his friends to rediscover who he is, Fiona to realise he is her true love in order to have 'True Love's Kiss' again and break her curse again and to break his contract with Rumpelstiltskin. Saying it all back, it's actually quite complicated, how is a child supposed to follow all these different plot elements?! Shrek 4 is nowhere near a simple film, and although there were a few laughs for them, even the children surrounding me in the cinema didn't seem too entertained by the film in general.

Overall, I came in being promised a magic fantasy film that wasn't just for kids and that I was a fool for not having seen the previous 3 films. I came out feeling I was absolutely justified in my 9 year embargo of the Shrek franchise, very bored and very disappointed, even by the low standards I'd set for the films beforehand. Even if the first two films really ARE as good as everyone says they are, I'm not going to watch them now. This film gets 1 star for the 3D and the graphics, and another half a star for being the last Shrek film ever. No longer must we suffer through this horrific ogre of a franchise.

Rating: *1/2