D

Tower Heist is a very timely plot.  The relevancy of a rich Bernie Madoff type stealing pensions and life savings from the people who work in his luxury Manhattan condo building he lives in is exactly the revenge story this country needs right now.  It’s fun to watch Alda get his vintage, Steve McQueen Ferari smashed by Still with a golf club.  It’s as if each strike is a victory for the Occupy Wall St. protestors.  In that respect, the film is a true success, but might have been better if it was handled as a thriller instead of a comedy.

Spicing up the comedic premises are some very talented actors.  Leading the charge is Murphy, who hasn’t actually appeared in a good movie since he was nominated for an Oscar in 2006’s Dreamgirls.  Him making bank off of the Shrek franchise, allowing him to go away for a while, is a very good thing.  He’s made a lot of very poor movie decisions and he saturated the market with Murphy.  Seeing him in Tower Heist though reminds us all of why he was one of the brightest shining stars in Hollywood once.  He crackles on the screen like Robin Williams did in his prime.  He pumps life into lines that otherwise would go insignificant, simply by being Eddie Murphy.  Of course he’s not breaking new ground or jockeying for accolades, but damnit, he’s really good.

Same can be said for the rest of the cast that do a fine job of supporting Murphy and allowing him to be the star.  Especially Stiller who has proven he can be the funny man but takes a backseat as the straight guy to Murphy’s wild card.  The only actor that gives Murphy a run for his money is Pena, who banks yet another winning comedic performance in his resume.  It’s almost getting to the point where I forget that he started and excelled at drama first.

I appreciate this film for what it is and what it attempted to do.  But sadly it falls short in quite a few ways.  The comedy stops around the beginning of the third act and the rest is allowed to be suspenseful action, albeit still fun.  The climax of the film though ventures into absurd when the entire success of their heist is dependent upon an absolutely impossible and stupid stunt.  I’m not sure if that was Ratner’s idea to show off how well he can use special FX or not, but it’s ineffective except in that it makes me laugh unintentionally.

Tower Heist is a fun movie that does no wrong.  Some of that is because heist films are always fun by default.  But allow Oceans 11 be an example of how it can be fun, funny and downright awesome by stylizing the look and tone and keeping us grounded in the plausible.  Go for the fun of it, stay for the Murphy but expect to get a little robbed of your expectations.
Tower Heist  (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B-

T

Yes, it’s true that Antonio Banderas is back voicing the titular character, but aside from that, there is nothing that links this film to the Shrek movies.  That might be a good thing.  It was almost as if the makers of Puss in Boots know full-well that the Shrek movies have run their course and making those characters show up again would be a mistake.  So what we’re left with is a totally separate movie about the origin of Puss in Boots.

Joining him in this new adventure is a fellow feline named Kitty Soft Paws and Humpty Dumpty; voiced by Selma Hayek (Dogma, From Dusk Till Dawn) and Zach Galifianakis (The Hangover films).  The three of them are on a mission to redeem their reputations among the citizens of their hometown by stealing the Golden Goose from the Giant at the top of the beanstalk.  We have all the makings of a fun (albeit familiar) adventure story though storybook land, but the action is quite lopsided with very few and disappointing sequences rounding out the ending.

Luckily, the film is funny enough to have that error keep you from being bored.  The same writing team are back with the same style of adult innuendo that made the first two Shrek films so enjoyable.  Unfortunately, there aren’t any characters that are as likable as Donkey and Shrek, but the cuteness of Puss and Kitty are adorable enough to offer a pass.

The animation in the film is also well done enough to keep you from glancing down at your watch.  It might be some of the best animation that Dreamworks has put out since How To Train Your Dragon.  The colors are vibrant and human characters look more realistic than ever.  (I can’t comment on the 3D aspect of it since it wasn’t offered when I saw it.)

There were some pleasant surprises in Puss in Boots that I didn’t expect.  First was that it was produced by director/writer Guellermo Del Toro (Pan’s Labyrinth, The Devil’s Backbone) and he voiced one of the minor characters too.  It seems as if Del Toro is getting involved in more and more family animation entertainment, which is quite a departure from his fantastical horror that he does so well.  Another hidden enjoyment was the soundtrack.  The Shrek films also feature great songs by talented artists that you’d normally not pick for a children’s movie and Puss in Boots is no exception.  The end credits feature a great song by Lady Gaga and the movie features several selections by the very talented Rodrigo y Gabriella.

Director Chris Miller should be pleased with himself for what he created in Puss in Boots.  Sure he may be the guy that directed the Shrek films into the ground and over the shark, and Puss in Boots isn’t good enough to forgive him for that; but it’s enjoyable enough that I would consider it a good start…as long as I don’t see a Puss in Boots 2 coming soon.
Puss in Boots  (Rated PG )
Gavin Grade: B

T

I’m not sure who this movie is made for.  You would probably be interested in seeing this if you really loved Shakespeare’s work and/or British Royal history; but if you do, then you’ll not enjoy all the blatant inaccuracies in order to establish its point.  But if you don’t really enjoy Shakespeare and/or know very little about British Royal history, you’ll probably really enjoy it; but let’s be honest, you’re not interested in seeing this in the first place.

Everything about the movie is top quality though.  This is by far director Roland Emmerich’s best film.  He’s the guy that is the Hollywood go-to for blowing up the world.  His legacy until now has been films like Independence Day, 2012 and The Day After Tomorrow.  Prior to this, his crowning achievement was The Patriot with Mel Gibson but the look and scope of Anonymous dethrones that in the attention to costumes, prop details and using Emmerich’s experience with CGI to recreate the landscapes of 16th Century England.

The acting is tops as well.  Usual goofball Rhys Ifans (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt. 1, Notting Hill) is shockingly great in this darkly dramatic role as The Early of Oxford aka the true “William Shakespeare.”  But he’s joined by A-quality performances from Vanessa Redgrave (Cars 2, Mission: Impossible), David Thewlis (the Harry Potter series, The Big Lebowski) and Rafe Spall (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) who steals every scene he’s in as William Shakespeare, who they portray as a showboating, blackmailing, drunken moron.  He’s very funny to watch but this portrayal is one of vast inaccuracy, even within the context of the conspiracy.  And there is an example of the downfall of this film.

Any true fan of Shakespeare can sniff out the rewriting of historical events to make a puzzle piece fit where it doesn’t and that sticks in your craw too much to fully enjoy the film.  The order of when plays were released is mixed up, Shakespeare’s contemporaries are amazed at hearing things for the first time that they actually all did before he did, deaths of famous figures are jumbled about to make the story stick better, etc.  Not to mention the fact that the story itself is so hard to follow and keep all the characters straight that motives for massive plot points get lost at the fast pace of this 130 minute film.

In the end though the film stands as a wonderful send-up to Shakespeare’s words…whoever wrote them.  Anonymous is beautifully framed in modern times by explaining to the audience that no matter  who actually wrote them (historians are 95% sure it actually was Shakespeare, by the way) that the words were so perfect and beautiful that they define what it means to be human.  And for that, I respect and liked this film.  The rest is history.
Anonymous  (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: B

G

In the third (and hopefully final) installment, we find ourselves in 1988 at the beginning of the story to find out what happened to our lovely ladies from the first two films when they were younger.  Yes!  This is EXACTLY what I was hoping for in a trilogy, but sadly Paranormal Activity 3 made the fatal mistakes that any prequel runs the risk of doing.  If you’re gonna be the ballsy bastard that wants to take on a popular franchise and show us how it all began, those puzzle pieces need to line up perfectly for us.  I don’t want any air bubbles trapped in between since in the end that will make me ask more questions than feel the satisfaction of knowing the answers.  That’s a killer for a prequel.

Paranormal Activity 3 attempted to answer all the questions, and they did answer some, but its execution is confusing and doesn’t gel with the legacy we’ve come to know.  There are HUGE holes in the plot of this film and it makes me wonder how such glaring problems could have passed through the hands of so many people who made it.  I can’t tell you what they are without giving away some spoilers.  I also won’t because if you don’t remember the story up to this point, it won’t ruin the movie for you at all…in fact it might make it better.  Also, if you never saw the first two films, you’ll probably enjoy this more than if you were a massive fan of the first two.

The “found footage” approach to this one feels more forced than before, however directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman did incorporate one of the most suspenseful film techniques ever in a modified oscillating desk fan that might be the scariest character in the film.  I don’t blame Joost and Schulman for the movie’s shortcomings at all.  These were the two guys that brought us an equally scary but totally different movie called Catfish.  This was a documentary about predatory online delusions (listen to my interview with both of them at the bottom of this review) and being documentarians brought a fresh aspect to this mockumentary franchise.

Although I liked this one the least in the series, it’s far from disappointing in the scare-the-s**t-out-of-you trademark.  There are few horror movies that can build such palpable tension that it makes me shield my eyes from the screen like a kid, but these consistently do just that.  I just wish it kept me up at night by making me remember all the terrifying moments rather than keeping me up trying to figure out how the stories come together.

Paranormal Activity  (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: B+

Click here to listen to the interview with directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman.

W

Depp met Thompson when he played him in another film based on one of his books called Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. This is still one of my favorite comedies of all time and it was shot with pure venom by director Terry Gilliam (12 Monkeys, Time Bandits).  The script and scope of the film captured the pure Gonzo craziness that Thompson wrote in as best as a movie could.  I’ve read The Rum Diary and I’m fully aware that the tone of the that and the tone of Fear and Loathing are polar twins, however it still didn’t duplicate the attachment that Fear and Loathing had to its source.

One area of shortfall was in not allowing Gilliam to return as a director.  Instead Depp turned to Bruce Robinson, who hasn’t made a film in 20 years and even the ones he has directed aren’t very good.  The look of the movie is crisp and authentic to 1960, when it takes place, but it moves at an almost agonizing pace.  Some of that might be intentional, since this is about Thompson when he was a young man and first getting into journalism.  This is pre-drugs, pre-psychotic, pre-mania…you know the good ol’ days when he was just a raging alcoholic.

The writing style of the book is vastly different than anything else he wrote, so it makes sense that the movie would be too.  But parts of the book are introspective and pitch dark.  One key scene involves a gang rape of a gorgeous and drunk female character played in the movie by the stunning Amber Heard (Zombieland, Drive Angry).  The brutality is described in the book because of how it makes the characters react and it’s hard to get through but crucial.  This scene is watered over so gently in the film that it confuses anyone who hasn’t read the book as to what is actually going on or why reactions are so strong afterward.  Mistakes like this abound in The Rum Diary.  It takes the potential of a deeply emotional and funny story and makes it stilted and disjointed.

That’s not to say the film is a total wash.  It showcases a very impressive cast that features Aaron Eckhart (The Dark Knight, Battle: LA), Richard Jenkins (Let Me In, Hall Pass), Giovanni Ribisi (Cold Mountain, Avatar) and the best of the film, Michael Rispoli (Kick-Ass, Taking of the Pelham 123).  It also has one of the best production designer, costume designer and prop masters in a while.  Since it takes place in 1960 Puerto Rico, the attention to flawless time capsulated detail is of the same quality of AMC’s Mad Men.

I still enjoyed this film because I will always love Thompson and the words he left behind.  He was an inspiration for me and it’s nice to see his legacy kicked off and given respect in The Rum Diary.  But my same adoration is also the undoing for this film.  I’m sure even Johnny Depp shares my disappointment a little since I felt like I knew Thompson, where he really did.

The Rum Diary  (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: C

H

In Time is an ambitious sci-fi film from Andrew Niccol, who’s written some very impressive movies like The Terminal, The Truman Show and Gattaca.  However, he’s a far better writer than he is a director since attempts like Lord of War and S1mone fell quite flat.

But In Time has a ridiculous premise where, in the future, time is our currency and we all stop aging at 23.  I give Niccol credit in that he tried to make more than another mindless sci-fi action flick.  It’s really a statement about class warfare and socioeconomic policies.  Pretty timely considering the current political climate in this country.  But as current as it seems, it comes across as a script that was written years ago and was never updated.  For instance, it’s not clear why we would ever go back to using pay phones and old muscle cars in the future.  But all the cleverness in the script gets lost in the stilted dialogue and piss-poor acting from Timberlake.

Even gifted actors as Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins, 28 Days Later) and Amanda Seyfried (HBO’s Big Love, Mama Mia!) couldn’t make this middle school dialogue seem like entertainment, so I guess it’s not all Timberlake’s fault but boy is he not ready for primetime.

Aside from a bad script and a poor choice in a leading man, the movie isn’t very exciting.  It’s a great concept to make a futuristic Robin Hood, but it gets so lost when a bigger problem is presented as a by-product of stealing time from one of the wealthiest men in the country.  Not to mention that it would bog the movie down if they stopped to explain why that bigger problem would exist without going into an economics lesson on a scale that would make us all doze off.

So it’s needlessly complicated, then confusing with its plot and to top it all off, the action isn’t nearly plentiful enough to make us entertained by any of it.  By the time the movie has reached its exhaustingly excessive 109 minutes, you’re just wishing it would end.  Ironic since the whole movie is about time and always trying to get more because I wish I could buy my time back from the creators of In Time since I feel a bit robbed of it.
In Time  (Rated PG-13)
Gavin Grade: D+

H

I love prequels.  I think it’s really fun to watch what happened before the movie you already love.  In the original they talk about the camp that discovers the alien that can shape-shift into any other living thing but you never see it.  That camp is what this film is all about but it’s the exact same story.  There is almost no difference between the two, even in the choice of casting Joel Edgerton (Warrior, Animal Kingdom) as the hero because when dude sports a beard he looks EXACTLY like Kurt Russell, who was the hero in the original.  I did like that the true star of the film was a woman, who was played by the gorgeous Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Death Proof).  It makes me think of Ripley in the Alien franchise although she’s far from the tough-as-nails that Sigourney Weaver trademarked! 

I love the aspect of how isolating this film is.  It takes place in Antarctica which is so cold and lonely that it might as well be space.  Not only that, but I love the spookiness of untrust, where the killer could be lurking inside the skin of any one of the main characters.  It makes it a very unique horror film that also comes with the joy of seeing great monster makeup and FX.  Sadly, I saw ALL of that in the original and this one doesn’t break any new ground. 

It’s almost like new director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. (no, my cat didn’t walk across my keyboard…that’s his name) assumed that no one saw the first one and could get away with just remaking it.  I’m not against remakes either.  If they’re done well, I think they can potentially be better than the original.  But I think prequels are way better and I especially don’t appreciate it when prequels don’t want to call themselves remakes, which is exactly what The Thing did. 

Is it scary?  Not really.  Is it cool?  At times.  They disapointed me at times by using CGI to create some of the monster FX the original accomplished with old school make-up AND still looked faker than it did in 1982, but I give the studio credit in simply trying to make a monster movie again; something that sadly seems to have vanished from the lanscape.  But in a movie about a killer alien that can carbon copy itself into anything, I wish The Thing didn’t carbon copy itself into the 1982 original.
The Thing  (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: C+

I

The Big Year has a great premise: it’s a pseudo true story about a real event called The Big Year which is competitive bird watching.  Yeah.  Competitive.  Besides Martin, it also stars Owen Wilson and Jack Black…two actors that were also really funny once upon a time and have perhaps run their course. 

A film in the vein of Christopher Guest’s classic Best in Show would have been amazing!  A comedy lampooning the existence and the people that participate in a bird watching competition sounds awesome!  Quickly it becomes apparent that that is not the direction they took.  I probably should have seen that coming since it was directed by David Frankel, who did Marley & Me and The Devil Wears Prada.  He’s very good at giving us comedies  that teeter back and forth between very funny and emotionally appealing.  The Big Year tries as hard as it can to be more like those films but sadly never does. 

See, when you enter into a Big Year, you are away from your family, your job, your life for a whole year.  You miss out on an awful lot and the movie partially focuses on that.  It also focuses on the beauty of nature and the birds themselves.  If you’re saying so far all that doesn’t sound very funny…you’re right.  The movie isn’t very funny; but that doesn’t mean it’s not good.  But it doesn’t do a quality job at pulling you in any particular direction or making you feel a certain way.  It just kind of exists.  The characters don’t make you feel for them completely or even pick a favorite in the contest.  There are moments of great filmmaking but not enough to love the movie.

The good news is that none of these usually annoying comedic actors are annoying in the film.  They don’t branch out into new territory or take any risks with character choices but you get what you’d expect minus some fark and dick jokes from Jack Black.  In fact, he gives one of the better performances in the movie since the relationship with his dad, played by Brian Dennehy (Romeo + Juliet) is some of the near tear-jerking you expierence in the film.  But overall to use the word “big” in the title of this film is false advertising.
The Big Year  (Rated PG)
Gavin Grade: C

T

Despite the fact that The Ides of March has one of the most impressive casts this year and it does nothing for the film.  It not only has Clooney but Ryan Gosling, Phillip Seymore Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood (The Wrestler).  With that kind of pedigree, you’d think there’d be thespiatic explosions all over the screen.  There isn’t.

That’s not to say that the acting isn’t well done though.  Everyone is natural and subtle but the script prevents them from displaying too much more than the cold Washington Insiders they are…that is except for Gosling.  Once again, Ryan Gosling does a great job at showing us a very layered character.  He’s the cool and collected head of the political campaign that’s put in two situations that lend itself to his undoing.  One involves a tug-of-war between Hoffman and Giamatti and the other is cleaning up after Clooney.  It’s fun and unfortunate to watch Reynold’s character become undone, but it’s not enough to really get full entertainment out of it.

The film moves at a deliberatly slow pace.  It’s not heart-pounding or edge-of-your-seat.  It plays out more realistic than most political thrillers do.  I appreciate that.  But when it comes to how I want my movies, realism is appreciated but not throughly loved.  I would have enjoyed a few more twists and turns and a little more passion from the players would have pumped more life into the film.  But it’s still very dark, sinister and paints an ugly portrait of American politics…and that I like.
The Ides of March  (Rated R)
Gavin Grade: B-