Arthur Christmas

By my understanding, any Christmas movie that people enjoy seems to become “a classic.” Maybe we’re a bit lax with this designation. But if this holds true, Arthur Christmas is now a “Christmas classic.” In this tale, Santa Claus (Jim Broadbent) is essentially a military leader who runs the operation of delivering presents each year. Arthur (James Mcavoy) is Santa’s youngest son, who is a bit dim while also being very caring and enthusiastic. When it is learned that one child has been missed on Christmas, Arthur goes on a mission with his grandfather, known as Grandsanta (Bill Nighy) to get that final child her gift.

This isn’t the first time the North Pole has been presented as a military base, but I’ve never seen it on quite this scale. The animated format allows for the script to run wild with many aspects including a massive spaceship type sleigh. While it may not be terribly difficult to follow in concept, the film contains a number of details that would likely be lost on children. The concept is so well done and thorough that it is often easy to forget that this is originally intended for kids.

Arthur Christmas is heavy on the kind-hearted ideals that are associated with the holiday. It’s not surprising though that the event is viewed as religiously ambiguous and heavy on the importance of gifts. The story means well. The Arthur character is likeable, even though he isn’t very deep. If some of the focus used on creating a military of elves went into the handful of main characters, the movie would be that much more meaningful. I’m no Christmas expert, but playing Santa Claus as an uninvolved boob, whose power hungry son (Hugh Laurie) runs the show seems a bit risqué. Luckily Arthur is nice enough to cancel out the tyrannical themes. (7.8 out of 10)

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part I

In addition to the records it is breaking at the box office, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part I also brings about the first time I’ve reviewed three movies in a franchise. What an honor. This fourth film in the vampire/werewolf series brings about some answers that have been asked over the sequence. Bella (Kristen Stewart) marries Edward (Robert Pattinson), while Jacob (Taylor Lautner) broods alone in the woods, shirtless. Then when a complication arises after the honeymoon, the vampires and werewolves must decide where they stand and the validity of their long-standing treaty.

At risk of repeating myself, the main problem with the Twilight films is the actors. Stewart continues her run of approaching every scene with the disinterested air of a slug. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure lots of men would swoon over someone without a unique thought in their head, and a whine that is never too far away. This personality is partly written in the script and partly in Stewart’s dismal method. Pattinson is better, but when real people speak, they don’t sound like they’re reading off cue cards. Then there’s Lautner, who can stare at the camera like the best of them, but just don’t make him say anything.

It’s a shame the fanatics took such a liking to that trio because re-casting could make the series very good. So, after the bad acting is on display for most of the movie, there is a tension filled battle. It’s well done, though quick editing prevents the audience from following what exactly is happening. It just seems to be vampires pushing werewolves and werewolves standing on top of vampires. That’s not very good choreography if you ask me. I am not opposed to the idea of Twilight. In theory the themes and concepts are interesting. In execution they’re tedious and unexciting. (7.0 out of 10)

Tower Heist

Tower Heist may boast a famous cast, but it is one that would have had more pull in the late 90’s than it does in 2011. Ben Stiller stars as a hotel manager who falls victim to a Ponzi scheme, losing the pension money for his entire staff. In a desperate move to regain the money, he assembles a team of everyday guys to steal the money back from his mogul boss, who perpetrated the crime. Stiller’s team consists of a convicted criminal (Eddie Murphy), an evicted resident (Matthew Broderick), a concierge (Casey Affleck) and a bellhop (Michael Pena). The best way I can describe the group dynamic is Oceans 11 with idiots, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing for audiences.

For the most part, the comedy never goes too far beyond the family-friendly category. These are rarer now with the success of The Hangover and Judd Apatow comedies, but they are still relevant. Murphy does well as the comedic lead giving an edge to his performance while still being likeable. Stiller, who plays the lead character is more of a straight man on the comedy radar, but he still has his moments. Of the supporting actors, Pena is the most successful at bringing about laughs. His clueless character starts off on the annoying side, but quickly becomes the focus during some of the funniest moments.

After running smoothly for most of the film, the script slows a bit during the final act. Tower Heist never tries to reinvent comedy or push the boundaries, but it keeps in mind that it is possible to be funny without causing others to be grossed out. The comedy pairing of Stiller and Murphy keeps the film on track. So even when the audience isn’t laughing, they tend to be smiling. If the budget was smaller the film could have been a home run for the studio. (7.5 out of 10)

Puss In Boots

Dreamworks animation is a pretty strong representation of how I like my animation, funny, with no agenda and some adult innuendo thrown in there. Puss in Boots has some Shrek-sized shoes to fill being a spin-off of the ogre’s franchise. Antonio Bandares voices the lead, in this origin story of Puss, who grew up in an orphanage with his pal Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifanakis). He is then forced to live as an fugitive after a run in with law. Selma Hayek also stars as the new character, Kitty Soft Paws.

Although there is Humpty Dumpty and a strong use of the “Jack and the Bean Stalk” story, the film doesn’t have the fairy-tale immersion the Shrek series does. The first half plays quite slowly with the story hardly progressing. Banderas knows this character well after playing him so many times, but the usual wit isn’t as strong when the focus is entirely on him. With that being said, there are a number of funny moments, but they aren’t as common as they should be. The script seems to be more focused on making an epic cartoon than a family comedy. It doesn’t reach either goal.

Another issue is how unpleasant the characters are. Even the villains in Shrek are likeable. That’s not the case here. Besides Puss, every other personality is untrustworthy and wishy-washy. It may be unfair to compare Puss in Boots to Shrek, but spin-offs draw that association. The reality of it is that this had the opportunity to draw on the popularity of another franchise for less money. While I list the many flaws, I still find this brand of family film more beneficial to the target audience than Disney’s depression first, happiness later approach. If I had never seen Shrek this score would probably be higher. (7.0 out of 10)

Immortals

I find it interesting that there is now a whole sub-genre of special effects filled realistic fiction based in Ancient Greece. And because of the success of 300 and Clash of the Titans, there will likely be more of this very specific category. Immortals fits that bill as essentially a combination of those two films listed above. Henry Cavill plays Theseus, a peasant who becomes involved in a fight against a tyrant (Mickey Rourke) after his village is slaughtered. But don’t worry; the gods help him on this journey. They have a special interest since Rourke’s character plans to release the mortal enemy of the gods, the titans.

There has been much hype regarding the violence and gore in Immortals. Yeah, it’s there, but I’ve personally become desensitized to the stylized war aspects of films like this. There is a moment including a giant hammer that had the men in the theater cringing though. That is the one really awful bit of violence. This is a strong introduction for Cavill to blockbuster movies. He is, of course, the new Superman. In Immortals he finds a balance between old Greek mannerisms and a more modern approach. The script also does this throughout the entire film. We’ve learned that if you force actors to use phony accents at all times you could end up with something like Nicholas Cage in Season of the Witch.

The effects driven camera work and unconventional transitions add an interesting aspect to the film. But at times these effects outweigh the story, which can’t happen. The supporting cast is written to be a horror movie like massacre. Each big scene is complemented by a character getting killed, and it’s predictable every time. I understand it would be unrealistic if all the characters survived this huge war, but they likely wouldn’t be killed to accompany a convenient timeline. Though the awesomeness of the scenes featuring the gods makes the viewer forget the predictability. (7.7 out of 10)

J. Edgar

In J. Edgar, the story of former FBI director J. Edgar hoover is told starring Leonardo DiCaprio as the controversial figure. Using prosthetics and makeup, the film is able to use the same actors to play the characters over a large period of history. I wouldn’t say that the technique necessarily looks realistic, but it’s pretty close. The film chooses a number of intriguing points in Hoover’s life to focus on. From his battle with communism to his relationship with his mother (Judi Dench) and his long time number two, Clyde Tolson, (Armie Hammer) there is no shortage of material for the film to use.

A major disappointment with J. Edgar lies in the fact that there is a great deal of speculation. No one knows the truth about the events depicted except for the eye-witnesses. Because of this, the drama needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Plus, (spoiler alert) the most interesting mystery of all, Hoover’s secret files, go unrevealed. From the bits that are public knowledge, they consist mostly of tabloid facts of who slept with who in Washington DC. But it would of course be interesting to know what is in them.

The film moves right along filled with powerful scenes and interesting moments. Hoover was such an interesting man that the character’s highs and lows are both deserving of sympathy from the audience. DiCaprio stretches well to fit the part and Hammer continues his run of strong support to potentially Oscar worthy films. He played two parts in the 2010 film, The Social Network. The transformation for the title character is so drastic between his younger and older years that it would make sense to question his personality traits. Though since the real story of Hoover is such a mystery, the film contains holes, and not all the answers are revealed as to why he ended up the way he did. (8.5 out of 10)

Jack and Jill

I like many others, have doubts regarding Adam Sandler movies. Often they end up being pretty funny regardless of how stupid they seem. Then there’s Jack and Jill. In most critics’ minds this spectacle already failed once the premise had been explained. But I will do my best to be objective. The film’s titular characters are both played by Adam Sandler. Jack is a successful businessman, who lives the life in California, with his wife and children. Jill however lives alone in the Bronx with no family after the passing of her mother and seemingly has no friends. But when Jill comes to visit, the two get in many fights because of how annoying Jill is. Though every time she’s about to leave, Jack feels bad and invites her to stay longer. It really is quite the premise.

One of the first things I notice about Sandler’s Jill voice is that it’s quite similar to the one he uses for the monkey in Zookeeper. After that it becomes quite apparent that an actual actress would never have played the Jill character. It would be too rude to subject someone to that kind of torment. So it makes sense Sandler does it himself.

An aspect overlooked when judging the stupidity of Sandler films is their potential appeal to younger audiences. Jack and Jill has many moments intended for kids (fart jokes.) Then for adults, there are a number of celebrity cameos that bring about some chuckles. Johnny Depp has a funny scene with Al Pacino, who is actually a main character in the film. Then everyone from Regis Philbin to former football player Michael Irving is given a line or two. Don’t ask me how they do it, but the audience actually feels sympathetic toward Jill in the film. Yes, that is the character played by Adam Sandler in drag. The movie is by no means good, but I dare say there’s been worse. (5.0 out of 10)

Anonymous

Shakespeare a fraud? After the years I endured in high school and college trying to decipher his texts, that’s a concept I can readily support. Anonymous tells of a theory that Shakespeare was actually just an in between for Edward de Vere, 17^th Earl of Oxford, played by Rhys Ifans. The purpose was to get de Vere’s plays seen and subtle propaganda to the masses without revealing his personal feelings. Since the film never claims to be complete historical truth, there is a significant amount of dramatization and inference involved. That surely peeves scholars, but for movie fans it adds extra excitement.

For those who lack knowledge on this time period, everything seems realistic enough to buy it. In addition, those who are fans of the texts commonly attributed to Shakespeare should be intrigued by the context that makes it into the plays. It’s like looking for the hints of unrelated characters in Marvel movies, but on a way more academic level. The film’s sets are very well done and provide scale, which movies of this genre don’t usually have. With the king of disaster movies, Roland Emmerich directing, the film’s scope is hardly surprising. Though most wouldn’t be able to draw much connection between this and Emmerich’s other works. Most notably there is a lack of Godzilla and aliens blowing up the White House.

The cast, which includes three Harry Potter alumni, Ifans, Jamie Campbell-Bowyer and David Thewlis, give sincerity to the film that deals with such a controversial topic. The script may not be in Shakespearian verse, but it is spoken as if it were a possible counterpart to that age. Though it must be said, the many scenes portraying staged productions of famous moments in Shakespeare weigh down the story. As in any case, the language is dense, but when sandwiched between clearer dialogues it is too much. Plus they add many minutes to a film that could profit from being a bit shorter. (7.8 out of 10)

In Time

When a film consisting of a unique concept rolls along, I can’t help but get excited about it. In Time certainly fits that bill. Justin Timberlake stars as a lower class, everyday guy, who lives day to day not knowing where he’s going to get the funds to survive. The unique part is that the currency in this future is time. Each person has a built in clock on his or her arm that counts down. When your clock hits zero, you die. When Timberlake suddenly finds himself rolling in time, he decides to see what life is like on the other side. Enter the rich entitled love interest in the form of Amanda Seyfried. The idea is pretty intriguing. The final product is not as strong as one would hope.

The high concept story continues to impress with interesting thoughts like Alex Pettyfer’s gang, the Minutemen and Cillian Murphy’s cops, known as Timekeepers. Though the pun filled script wears on the audience after the first few minutes. Everyone understands the film is a metaphor; don’t waste the time you’ve been given. That’s all well and good, but the dialogue should actually further the story and not kill the pace.

Since people don’t age beyond 25 in the film, all the actors are young. Good, I’d hate to have ugly old people. I’m kidding, but apparently that would be an issue with audiences? So in the future old men look like Pettyfer and mothers with 28-year-old sons look like Olivia Wilde. That wouldn’t be an issue if the dialogue didn’t call for people to announce their ages left and right. But with that being said, the cast is quite strong and it’s fun to infer character ages from their differences in style. There was such promise that In Time could become a sci-fi classic, or timeless if you will. But puns have proven to be their downfall. (7.5 out of 10)

The Three Musketeers

Some actors seem to have a habit of winning roles in movie franchises that are unable to take off. Logan Lerman is one of them. As D’Artagnan in The Three Musketeers he could lead a number of films as the daring protégé to the swordsmen, but box office numbers so far put those sequels in doubt. It is disappointing since Musketeers is a fun family action film in the vein of other successful period flicks. The plot follows the four leads as they tread the line between two separate enemies, played by Christoph Waltz and Orlando Bloom, and try to keep France from an impending war with England.

The film was never going to be revolutionary or a trophy contender because of the grand scale. So that points the movie toward a family release. However, the violence is a bit too graphic to get parents on board. So ultimately the film is labeled a flop. It’s not that simple though. There are a number of ridiculous technology moments with blimps and wheels of automatic canons. These scenes are campy, but not unbearable as they lead to dramatic battles. The characters are fun with adequate actors and a few high quality performances. Matthew MacFayden, Luke Evans and Ray Stevenson, who are the musketeers, all do well even though their characters have little development.

So the common person seeing The Three Musketeers will likely find it fun, dramatic and exciting. Though digging in to it will reveal weaknesses in the script, overblown theatrics and one fight scene too many. Ending on a cliffhanger, a sequel would be welcomed to right the ship a bit and develop the characters. Though I know I’m a little more lenient with the studio’s money than they are. And I must not be the only one who found it odd had having Christoph Waltz play a Frenchman. (7.4 out of 10)

The Rum Diary

In between his duties as Jack Sparrow and the lead in every Tim Burton movie, Johnny Depp has picked up this habit of making fringe sort-of comedies that are a bit strange. The Tourist was last year’s entry on the list and this year, The Rum Diary. Based on the novel by Hunter S. Thompson, who Depp was famously friends with, the movie follows a journalist (Depp) and his move to Puerto Rico and a struggling newspaper. He subsequently becomes involved in a real estate scandal, fumbling through while drinking heavily. The most important part of the story is the last one, alcohol.

The story weaves in and out, leaving the audience anticipating a climactic end, which never comes. Facts are spewed about through heavy dialogue that proves inconsequential as time passes. While there is something to be said about the realism associated with not having a final showdown or reveal, it brings about a number of unnecessary scenes that could have helped pick up the pacing. The handful of full-fledged jokes prove to be successful, and even some of the dark humor gains some chuckles so The Rum Diary has that working for it.

Depp’s strange style makes him a likeable actor in most roles. Even though this character is highly flawed, he has a social conscious and comes across as fairly genuine. What isn’t believable is that people living in such squalor would choose to operate in a state of perpetually being hung-over. I can count the scenes where alcohol isn’t present and there aren’t that many. I guess the title makes sense then. The ultimate verdict on The Run Diary is that the film never stood a chance of being successful. Such an obscure storyline would have done just fine as an indie film in limited release. I know Depp was a fried of the late author, but there was certainly no need to bring in the other big names. (7. 0 out of 10)

Ides of March

Ides of March is a political drama about a candidate (George Clooney) seeking the Democratic nomination for President while his campaign managers (Phillip-Seymour Hoffman and Ryan Gosling) try to lock up an important state race and a key endorsement. At least that’s what happens in the first 45 minutes. After that drama ensues in the form of problems you would expect a political candidate to have (no spoilers). But even though the film is full of big actors like Clooney, Hoffman, Paul Giamatti and Evan Rachel Wood, the film focuses mostly on Gosling. Already having success with Crazy Stupid Love and Drive, Ides of March is a strong vehicle, which falls somewhere between the comedy and intense drama in the spectrum.

Since this is a movie and not the story of a real political candidate, there cannot be too much focus on the talking points the characters make. But come on, there is no way a candidate so close to the white house would speak in such extremes. Outlawing the internal combustion engine? He might as well outlaw cars and demand a horse-only transportation system. It just gets weird there for a while. The film would do better to leave real-life politics out because that’s not the point of the feature.

But that is the ultimate question: what is the point of the feature? There is an interesting glance into how political campaigns run, but the drama that ensues weakens any claim at authenticity. The development of Gosling’s character is far and beyond the best aspect of Ides of March. The character is well written, even though it deals with extremes in personality. He may not look like a real campaign manager, but his talent allows him to drop seamlessly into the role. Another important question: Is George Clooney more believable as a soon to be President or Batman? (7.9 out of 10)