Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Puss in Boots.
Directed by Chris Miller.
Written by David H. Steinberg, Tom Wheeler & Jon Zack.
Screen Story by Will Davies & Brian Lynch.
Based on Characters created by Charles Perrault
Review #147
MPAA Rating: PG for some adventure action and mild rude humor.
Runtime: 90 min
Cast
Antonio Banderas ...Puss in Boots
Salma Hayek ...Kitty Softpaws
Zach Galifianakis ...Humpty Dumpty
Billy Bob Thornton ...Jack
Amy Sedaris ...Jill
Constance Marie ...Imelda
Guillermo del Toro ...Moustache Man / Comandate
The Shrek franchise gave all of us a unique and entertaining spin on children's fairytales. After 2 very well done films the following 2 sequels were flat and frankly not up to par with their predecessor's. Instead of continuing to bleed a dry series the creators decided to go the always popular and dangerous spin off route. The focus was the loveable and very funny Puss in Boots from Shrek 2-4. The character despite his small stature has the size to carry his own film. The problem was that the people behind the last 2 Shrek films didn't learn their lesson when making this one.
Plot
A story about the events leading up to the sword fighting cat's meeting with Shrek and his friends.
The plot description is surprisingly vague so I will elaborate a bit.
Basically this is meant to be an origin story/solo Puss in Boots adventure. Puss is portrayed exactly like you remember him from the Shrek films. A swashbuckling Zorro type with a seductive Spanish lover's touch. He develops a friendship with Humpty Dumpty and through some unfortunate events Puss is forced to flee his home in shame. The film tells the story from the point of his exploits after his banishment until he reunites with Humpty with a plan to rebuild both their friendship and Puss' reputation.
I didn't get into any specifics so the synopsis should be pretty clean for all of you.
OK. Now on to what works with Puss in Boots. To start it's Puss himself. The character is so fun and engaging. Antonio Banderas applies his rugged yet soothing accent to Puss which gives him a power that is felt all the way through. He definitely displays the lover before fighter persona expertly. That;s pretty much it character wise.
The rest of the ensemble just didn't do it for me.
That's a real shame too because the story doesn't come to the characters rescue. It's too jumbled with several plot lines and twists that continuity gets lost pretty quickly. From Puss' back story to the friendship between him and Humpty to the introduction of Kitty Soft Paws. There was way too much here to keep together. And I didn't even mention Jack and Jill. The one thing that made the first 2 Shrek films so memorable was the balance between all of the fairytales and the characters. Puss in Boots plays more like dare I say Spiderman 3. Too many villains so to speak and not enough story. The animation was as always top notch but it wasn't enough to save this one from falling into mediocrity.
On the 5 star scale. Puss in Boots gets 2.5 stars with a "Netflix It" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is J. Edgar.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Immortals
Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is Immortals.
Directed by Tarsem Singh.
Written by Charley Parlapanides & Vlas Parlapanides
Review #146
MPAA Rating: R for sequences of strong bloody violence, and a scene of sexuality.
Runtime: 110 min
Cast
Henry Cavill ... Theseus
Mickey Rourke ... King Hyperion
Stephen Dorff ... Stavros
Freida Pinto ... Phaedra
Luke Evans ... Zeus
John Hurt ... Old Man
Joseph Morgan ... Lysander
Anne Day-Jones ... Aethra
Alan Van Sprang ... Dareios
Corey Sevier ... Apollo
Peter Stebbings ... Helios
Daniel Sharman ... Aries
Isabel Lucas ... Athena
Kellan Lutz ... Poseidon
Steve Byers ... Heracles
Stephen McHattie ... Cassander
Matthew G. Taylor ... Mondragon
Romano Orzari ... Icarus
Being a professional geek isn't easy. You have to find time to dedicate to many different pleasures. Comic Books, Videogames, Cartoons, (Yes I still watch them. The new Thundercats RULE!) T.V. Shows and of course Movies. Sticking to just movies. There are so many geek genres to choose from but one that holds a VERY special place in my heart is Greek Mythology. I can't get enough of it. The stories of the Gods of Olympus and the countless journeys of it's mortal warriors fascinate me to no end.
Two of my ALL TIME favorite movies are Clash of The Titans (1981) not that putrid ADHD fueled remake and Troy.
Those 2 films couldn't be more opposite in style and story but dealt with the greek mythology and history. And were entertaining as hell. Tell me you didn't smile when Achilles stood in front of the entire Thessaly army and challenged them after he defeated Boagrius. That was pure badass. Clash of the Titans was a special effects marvel led by stop motion wizard Ray Harryhausen. He found a way to bring all of mythologies greatest creatures to life.
Both films captured the imagination of a time filled with fantasy and reality, and did so masterfully. Then a few years ago we were treated to a pretty good blending of Greek history and comic books with the presentation of 300. Another captivating tale that tickles your imagination while educating you on the fight and ingenuity of a once proud and exceptional race of warriors.
With the lackluster response to the new Titans film we have now been treated to a different Greek mythology legend. The story of Theseus and King Hyperion presented in the visual style of both Singh and 300.
Does it work?
Plot
Theseus is a mortal man chosen by Zeus to lead the fight against the ruthless King Hyperion, who is on a rampage across Greece to obtain a weapon that can destroy humanity.
This film falls into the always dreaded S.O.S category. But then something happened. It was actually pretty good. Visually, Immortals is STUNNING! This was never going to be a problem for Singh whose directorial efforts include The Cell. The horrible J Lo film. It wasn't a good movie but was very stylish which pulls you away from the absurdity of the film as a whole. Singh excelled presenting a "new" Greece. There was an asian/indian touch and flare to the architecture and costume design that was both captivating and pleasing to the eyes.
Now most of you who see this film will think that most of this film was made just like 300. Behind a green screen with the environment digitally inserted in post. You would be right in that line of thinking with 1 major exception. Singh doesn't make it look obvious. The set pieces are majestic and contain many actual structures that carry a unique component to the overall look of the area. It was in short a beautiful film to watch.
This helped Immortals negotiate through a thinning story as the film progressed. Somewhere in the middle the film loses it's mojo due to a lack of character development. Particularly Theseus. He's the hero but Cavill plays him as a yelling, brooding muscleman hell bent on retribution. That all worked later on but in the beginning he had some heart that was stripped away and replaced by an overdeveloped sense of vengeance.
Cavill's performance was not as strong as it could have and should have been. He did however quell any fears of playing Superman in the upcoming Man of Steel. Another issue with his character was the high interest Zeus had with him. It was vaguely explained. He watched over him like Zeus did in Clash of The Titans but here never indicated a real reason why. The Gods don't look over someone without a purpose. It was lack of depth here that weakens an otherwise very well told tale.
Of course this is a re-imagination of the Theseus legend. Many of the events in Immortals are greatly exaggerated or fabricated altogether. Then again when dealing with Greek Mythology it's impossible to believe otherwise. What made this re-telling so cool was the subtle touches. For example and this is not a spoiler. When Theseus fights the minotaur, the beast is shown in a way that I promise you have never seen.
It was brilliant and very original.
This goes back to Singh's incredible imagination and visual sense. He found a way to somehow ground mythological creatures and deities into reality. Even the titans were scary despite being the same size as the gods and mortals. Singh's mastery of style finally shines when the film turns up the action. The fights are very well choreographed and shot. Singh uses high speed cameras to their absolute limit creating a power amongst the warriors paralleled by no none. Especially the gods. When they fight it's brutal, unforgiving and graceful at the same time. The action is blocked and edited well. You get the full experience.
Blood included.
This was another hallmark for a Greek Mythology film. The new Clash of the Titans film chickened out and went the PG-13 route. Immortals said to hell with that and made a balls out R rated film. A film of this genre can't be made any other way and the difference is staggering. Keep the kids away from this one. The blood count here is high and hyper.
It wasn't however gratuitous. Was it over the top? Yes. Stylized? Yes.
I only have 2 gripes with this film. The first being Mickey Rourke's performance. He did a decent job and his character was meant to have an emotionless quality and demeanor. It unfortunately gave off the impression that he was just running through his lines. His lack of an accent hurt too. The 2nd gripe was the 3D. This film was converted to 3D in post and that NEVER translates well on screen. Stepping aside the fact that my disdain for 3D knows no bounds. Showing Immortals in 3D robs the audience from the richness that the film offers through it's visual presentation.
Can we stop with the bloody 3D please? It doesn't make movies any better and more importantly IT JUST SUCKS! Damn you James Cameron!
Overall, Immortals was a very good entry into the Greek Mythology universe that Hollywood has now made popular once again. The problem is that I don't think his visual style can be equaled. Which means the stock for the sequel to Clash of The Titans, Wrath of the Titans has already dropped. And they're still filming it now.
On the 5 star scale. Immortals gets 4 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Puss in Boots.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
Today's review is Immortals.
Directed by Tarsem Singh.
Written by Charley Parlapanides & Vlas Parlapanides
MPAA Rating: R for sequences of strong bloody violence, and a scene of sexuality.
Runtime: 110 min
Cast
Henry Cavill ... Theseus
Mickey Rourke ... King Hyperion
Stephen Dorff ... Stavros
Freida Pinto ... Phaedra
Luke Evans ... Zeus
John Hurt ... Old Man
Joseph Morgan ... Lysander
Anne Day-Jones ... Aethra
Alan Van Sprang ... Dareios
Corey Sevier ... Apollo
Peter Stebbings ... Helios
Daniel Sharman ... Aries
Isabel Lucas ... Athena
Kellan Lutz ... Poseidon
Steve Byers ... Heracles
Stephen McHattie ... Cassander
Matthew G. Taylor ... Mondragon
Romano Orzari ... Icarus
Being a professional geek isn't easy. You have to find time to dedicate to many different pleasures. Comic Books, Videogames, Cartoons, (Yes I still watch them. The new Thundercats RULE!) T.V. Shows and of course Movies. Sticking to just movies. There are so many geek genres to choose from but one that holds a VERY special place in my heart is Greek Mythology. I can't get enough of it. The stories of the Gods of Olympus and the countless journeys of it's mortal warriors fascinate me to no end.
Two of my ALL TIME favorite movies are Clash of The Titans (1981) not that putrid ADHD fueled remake and Troy.
Those 2 films couldn't be more opposite in style and story but dealt with the greek mythology and history. And were entertaining as hell. Tell me you didn't smile when Achilles stood in front of the entire Thessaly army and challenged them after he defeated Boagrius. That was pure badass. Clash of the Titans was a special effects marvel led by stop motion wizard Ray Harryhausen. He found a way to bring all of mythologies greatest creatures to life.
Both films captured the imagination of a time filled with fantasy and reality, and did so masterfully. Then a few years ago we were treated to a pretty good blending of Greek history and comic books with the presentation of 300. Another captivating tale that tickles your imagination while educating you on the fight and ingenuity of a once proud and exceptional race of warriors.
With the lackluster response to the new Titans film we have now been treated to a different Greek mythology legend. The story of Theseus and King Hyperion presented in the visual style of both Singh and 300.
Does it work?
Plot
Theseus is a mortal man chosen by Zeus to lead the fight against the ruthless King Hyperion, who is on a rampage across Greece to obtain a weapon that can destroy humanity.
This film falls into the always dreaded S.O.S category. But then something happened. It was actually pretty good. Visually, Immortals is STUNNING! This was never going to be a problem for Singh whose directorial efforts include The Cell. The horrible J Lo film. It wasn't a good movie but was very stylish which pulls you away from the absurdity of the film as a whole. Singh excelled presenting a "new" Greece. There was an asian/indian touch and flare to the architecture and costume design that was both captivating and pleasing to the eyes.
Now most of you who see this film will think that most of this film was made just like 300. Behind a green screen with the environment digitally inserted in post. You would be right in that line of thinking with 1 major exception. Singh doesn't make it look obvious. The set pieces are majestic and contain many actual structures that carry a unique component to the overall look of the area. It was in short a beautiful film to watch.
This helped Immortals negotiate through a thinning story as the film progressed. Somewhere in the middle the film loses it's mojo due to a lack of character development. Particularly Theseus. He's the hero but Cavill plays him as a yelling, brooding muscleman hell bent on retribution. That all worked later on but in the beginning he had some heart that was stripped away and replaced by an overdeveloped sense of vengeance.
Cavill's performance was not as strong as it could have and should have been. He did however quell any fears of playing Superman in the upcoming Man of Steel. Another issue with his character was the high interest Zeus had with him. It was vaguely explained. He watched over him like Zeus did in Clash of The Titans but here never indicated a real reason why. The Gods don't look over someone without a purpose. It was lack of depth here that weakens an otherwise very well told tale.
Of course this is a re-imagination of the Theseus legend. Many of the events in Immortals are greatly exaggerated or fabricated altogether. Then again when dealing with Greek Mythology it's impossible to believe otherwise. What made this re-telling so cool was the subtle touches. For example and this is not a spoiler. When Theseus fights the minotaur, the beast is shown in a way that I promise you have never seen.
It was brilliant and very original.
This goes back to Singh's incredible imagination and visual sense. He found a way to somehow ground mythological creatures and deities into reality. Even the titans were scary despite being the same size as the gods and mortals. Singh's mastery of style finally shines when the film turns up the action. The fights are very well choreographed and shot. Singh uses high speed cameras to their absolute limit creating a power amongst the warriors paralleled by no none. Especially the gods. When they fight it's brutal, unforgiving and graceful at the same time. The action is blocked and edited well. You get the full experience.
Blood included.
This was another hallmark for a Greek Mythology film. The new Clash of the Titans film chickened out and went the PG-13 route. Immortals said to hell with that and made a balls out R rated film. A film of this genre can't be made any other way and the difference is staggering. Keep the kids away from this one. The blood count here is high and hyper.
It wasn't however gratuitous. Was it over the top? Yes. Stylized? Yes.
I only have 2 gripes with this film. The first being Mickey Rourke's performance. He did a decent job and his character was meant to have an emotionless quality and demeanor. It unfortunately gave off the impression that he was just running through his lines. His lack of an accent hurt too. The 2nd gripe was the 3D. This film was converted to 3D in post and that NEVER translates well on screen. Stepping aside the fact that my disdain for 3D knows no bounds. Showing Immortals in 3D robs the audience from the richness that the film offers through it's visual presentation.
Can we stop with the bloody 3D please? It doesn't make movies any better and more importantly IT JUST SUCKS! Damn you James Cameron!
Overall, Immortals was a very good entry into the Greek Mythology universe that Hollywood has now made popular once again. The problem is that I don't think his visual style can be equaled. Which means the stock for the sequel to Clash of The Titans, Wrath of the Titans has already dropped. And they're still filming it now.
On the 5 star scale. Immortals gets 4 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Puss in Boots.
Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"
"D"
In Time
Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!
Today's review is In Time.
Written and Directed by Andrew Niccol.
Review #145
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for violence, some sexualty and partial nudity, and strong language.
Runtime: 109 min
Cast
Cillian Murphy ...Raymond Leon
Justin Timberlake ...Will Salas
Amanda Seyfried ...Sylvia Weis
Vincent Kartheiser ... Philippe Weis
Johnny Galecki ...Borel
Olivia Wilde ...Rachel Salas
Matt Bomer ... Henry Hamilton
Alex Pettyfer ... Fortis
If only had a year to live. A month. A week. A day. An hour. How would you spend it?
We've all dealt with that hypothetical before. And we all answered the same non committal way. But what if you actually did have just a year, month, week, day or hour to live. How would you spend it Could you give an answer?
In Time does it for you in a very clever and original way.
That however doesn't make it a good movie.
Plot
In the not-too-distant future the aging gene has been switched off. To avoid overpopulation, time has become the currency and the way people pay for luxuries and necessities. The rich can live forever, while the rest try to negotiate for their immortality. A poor young man who comes into a fortune of time, though too late to help his mother from dying. He ends up on the run from a police force known as time keepers.
This was a mixed bag film for me. On one hand the concept was aforementioned very clever and original. Replacing money with time is a brilliant way to put a spin on the world and the perception of what true living actually means to us. The biggest problem with In Time is that is becomes 2 different movies between acts 2 and 3. Early on In Time plays like a very sharp sci fi thriller. Filled with intrigue and originality. Then it switches gears to a balls out chase film.
That's where In Time loses me.
For some reason Niccol decided to turn his movie into an action adventure midway through and it fails to deliver on the premise it set at the beginning. Another no no Niccol committed was the action scenes were in a word....BLAH. I've seen better chases in the Geico commercial where the dog is chasing the cat in the cars. They're also mind numbingly repetitive. For a film containing a very original idea, the action was severely lacking in that department.
What truly pains me about In Time was that I honestly felt that the abundance of action wasn't necessary. It was clear as day that this movie was a statement about our current financial crisis. How the rich get richer and how the poor scratch and claw for every last dollar to survive day to day. That is an impression worth expanding on through traditional thriller storytelling arcs. The call for guns and screeching tires didn't seem to fit here. A much more psychological approach would have been so much more satisfying.
The emphasis on action towards the latter half of the movie also kills the chemistry between the 2 main characters Will and Sylvia. Their connection is established and to the point when they first meet and just like he movie their relationship goes a complete and inexplicable 180. It's too bad because the change in their feelings for each other would have made more sense if more attention was paid to it. Instead they develop their newly found partnership as their dodging bullets.
I realize I've spent the better part of this review killing this movie. Don't get me wrong, it deserves the spanking I'm giving it but there was some good here too.
Leading off was the performance of Justin Timberlake. It's time to put away the Mickey Mouse Club and N'Sync jokes when it comes to this cat. He has paid his dues and put forth a pretty solid performance. As the leading man he carries the film very well. There was a believability in his emotions and actions. He showed the aptitude to handle action which creates a wider range for his career. He's not just the dopey comedic actor anymore. He's got some chops and it was on display here with his brooding, soft and very dark Will Salas.
It's because of Timberlake's performance the action wasn't a complete snooze fest. There was a pretty cool scene between him and Alex Pettyfer's character when they "fight" for Will's time. It was formulaic and predictable but well performed. It's time to take him seriously as an actor. Someone I hope gets a real look is the guy who took on Will in the fight. Alex Pettyfer. He's a big time unknown but I know him from his Wu Shu background. He's a very accomplished martial artist who has worked with one of Hong Kong's greatest directors/fight choreographers. Donnie Yen Ji Dan. There's something to be said about that because Yen is a bit of a snob when it comes to working with "gweilo" (white) fighters. Unfortunately his Wu Shu skill was not on display here but he showed some pretty decent acting here as the leader of the minute men.
Sadly, that's all about In Time I take seriously. The rest of the cast just robots their way through this one. I was especially disappointed in Cillian Murphy's performance as the Time Keeper. There was a whiff of apathy after every line he uttered. Shame. I really like Murphy a lot. Even the great ones succumb to the almighty paycheck. Everyone else seemed to follow in line with Murphy.
On the 5 star scale. In Time gets 1.5"Netflix It" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Immortals.
Until Next Episode....I'll Save You A Seat!
"D"
Today's review is In Time.
Written and Directed by Andrew Niccol.
Review #145
MPAA Rating: PG-13 for violence, some sexualty and partial nudity, and strong language.
Runtime: 109 min
Cast
Cillian Murphy ...Raymond Leon
Justin Timberlake ...Will Salas
Amanda Seyfried ...Sylvia Weis
Vincent Kartheiser ... Philippe Weis
Johnny Galecki ...Borel
Olivia Wilde ...Rachel Salas
Matt Bomer ... Henry Hamilton
Alex Pettyfer ... Fortis
If only had a year to live. A month. A week. A day. An hour. How would you spend it?
We've all dealt with that hypothetical before. And we all answered the same non committal way. But what if you actually did have just a year, month, week, day or hour to live. How would you spend it Could you give an answer?
In Time does it for you in a very clever and original way.
That however doesn't make it a good movie.
Plot
In the not-too-distant future the aging gene has been switched off. To avoid overpopulation, time has become the currency and the way people pay for luxuries and necessities. The rich can live forever, while the rest try to negotiate for their immortality. A poor young man who comes into a fortune of time, though too late to help his mother from dying. He ends up on the run from a police force known as time keepers.
This was a mixed bag film for me. On one hand the concept was aforementioned very clever and original. Replacing money with time is a brilliant way to put a spin on the world and the perception of what true living actually means to us. The biggest problem with In Time is that is becomes 2 different movies between acts 2 and 3. Early on In Time plays like a very sharp sci fi thriller. Filled with intrigue and originality. Then it switches gears to a balls out chase film.
That's where In Time loses me.
For some reason Niccol decided to turn his movie into an action adventure midway through and it fails to deliver on the premise it set at the beginning. Another no no Niccol committed was the action scenes were in a word....BLAH. I've seen better chases in the Geico commercial where the dog is chasing the cat in the cars. They're also mind numbingly repetitive. For a film containing a very original idea, the action was severely lacking in that department.
What truly pains me about In Time was that I honestly felt that the abundance of action wasn't necessary. It was clear as day that this movie was a statement about our current financial crisis. How the rich get richer and how the poor scratch and claw for every last dollar to survive day to day. That is an impression worth expanding on through traditional thriller storytelling arcs. The call for guns and screeching tires didn't seem to fit here. A much more psychological approach would have been so much more satisfying.
The emphasis on action towards the latter half of the movie also kills the chemistry between the 2 main characters Will and Sylvia. Their connection is established and to the point when they first meet and just like he movie their relationship goes a complete and inexplicable 180. It's too bad because the change in their feelings for each other would have made more sense if more attention was paid to it. Instead they develop their newly found partnership as their dodging bullets.
I realize I've spent the better part of this review killing this movie. Don't get me wrong, it deserves the spanking I'm giving it but there was some good here too.
Leading off was the performance of Justin Timberlake. It's time to put away the Mickey Mouse Club and N'Sync jokes when it comes to this cat. He has paid his dues and put forth a pretty solid performance. As the leading man he carries the film very well. There was a believability in his emotions and actions. He showed the aptitude to handle action which creates a wider range for his career. He's not just the dopey comedic actor anymore. He's got some chops and it was on display here with his brooding, soft and very dark Will Salas.
It's because of Timberlake's performance the action wasn't a complete snooze fest. There was a pretty cool scene between him and Alex Pettyfer's character when they "fight" for Will's time. It was formulaic and predictable but well performed. It's time to take him seriously as an actor. Someone I hope gets a real look is the guy who took on Will in the fight. Alex Pettyfer. He's a big time unknown but I know him from his Wu Shu background. He's a very accomplished martial artist who has worked with one of Hong Kong's greatest directors/fight choreographers. Donnie Yen Ji Dan. There's something to be said about that because Yen is a bit of a snob when it comes to working with "gweilo" (white) fighters. Unfortunately his Wu Shu skill was not on display here but he showed some pretty decent acting here as the leader of the minute men.
Sadly, that's all about In Time I take seriously. The rest of the cast just robots their way through this one. I was especially disappointed in Cillian Murphy's performance as the Time Keeper. There was a whiff of apathy after every line he uttered. Shame. I really like Murphy a lot. Even the great ones succumb to the almighty paycheck. Everyone else seemed to follow in line with Murphy.
On the 5 star scale. In Time gets 1.5"Netflix It" recommendation.
That's a wrap for today. Up next is Immortals.
Until Next Episode....I'll Save You A Seat!
"D"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)