PUSS IN BOOTS Review

It has been apparent since he made his first appearance in "Shrek 2" that Mr. Puss in Boots was a stand out character and it was almost inevitable he would not claim his own feature. Well, that time has come and Puss has arrived in fine feline form as his usual suave, adventure savvy-self. Antonio Banderas still infuses the role with his Zorro-like attitude and all-around characterization of a kitten too cute for its own good. The real triumph of "Puss in Boots" though is that this great, but small aspect of the larger "Shrek" films did not stretch itself thin or become a one note gag that fell short in carrying the weight of his own movie on his shoulders. That this isn't much like the aforementioned series doesn't hurt either. While the great animation looks the same, "Puss in Boots" has a completely different tone going for it. This isn't the satirical, pop-culture referencing adventure that the green ogre populates, no, this is in fact a more straightforward adventure film that often has us chuckling, but not laughing out loud. In short, Puss in Boots can still be called the cat's meow.

Puss (Antonio Banderas) meets Kitty Softpaws (Salma
Hayek) for the first time.

In telling this kind of action/adventure film the plot sticks to the standards of that genre pretty closely. Puss, a cat on the run from the law is trying to set right his name in his hometown after being set up and accused of robbing the local bank. We learn all of this through a deeply detailed reflection in which Puss tells of his younger years and how he was adopted and taken in by a lovely lady who also had taken in a lonesome egg named Humpty. Yes, that Humpty the Dumpty who here is voiced by the wonderfully charismatic Zach Galifianakis. Humpty and Puss used to be the best of friends, considering each other brothers even, until the day Puss became a hero and Humpty became jealous. This all results in some backstabbing where we learn Humpty is indeed the one who set Puss on the outlaw path (sorry if you consider that spoiler worthy). Since their early beginnings though, Humpty has masterminded ways of getting the magical beans and with Puss as his partner, they could scale the beanstalk and capture the goose who lays the golden eggs. These story lines, using that same incorporation of famous fairy tale characters for effect as the "Shrek" series works the same here as an older, scruffy looking Jack and Jill (Amy Sedaris and Billy Bob Thornton) are enlisted as our films back up baddies. It is the troubled friendship between Puss and Humpty though that is the real centerpiece of the film and provides the most complex story for it to explore.

"Pray for mercy from..."

The other main addition to Puss's origin tale is Kitty Softpaws, a female feline who will steal you clean before you even realize she is there. Salma Hayek, re-teaming with Banderas yet again, brings as much as she can to the most underdeveloped character on the screen as she and Puss begin the spark of a romance, but while we always question her allegiance we never feel as if we really know Kitty Softpaws as much as we do Puss. We like her okay, but we aren't sure if she's the one for Puss. At least, that's how I felt and it also kind of sums up my feelings about the entire film. Puss is a coveted character we all love and feel a certain kind of claim over. In a way we feel we know this character better than any of those on the screen do, that is what a good job the makers of the second "Shrek" did in developing this sidekick that could rival even Eddie Murphy's donkey. If Puss is going to get his own movie, it better be a dang good movie and if they are going to give him a gal to fall for, she better be just as impressive a character as he. She needs to leave as great an impression as he has. This just doesn't ring true as we watch Puss ride off into the sunset just before the credits roll. Instead, we feel content and satisfied, but not overjoyed with the results that ultimately didn't do more than pass the time.

Puss and childhood friend Humpty Dumpty (Zach
Galifianakis) search for the magic beans.

The flawed Humpty moves the story along while much of everything else that is going on feels unnecessary and underdeveloped. But the bond, the back story, and the genuine interaction between Puss and Humpty raises the quality level to that of what Dreamworks has been producing recently with "How to Train Your Dragon" and the "Kung fu Panda" series. As odd as it may sound, we as an audience become genuinely invested in a friendship between a cat and an egg and that is the films saving grace. It is not a film that justifies the greatness the character of Puss in Boots deserves but overall it is an enjoyable, family friendly film (still, the opening scene and not so subtle sex and drug jokes throughout had me rolling) that is more than worthy of your attention if you fell in love with Puss when he first flashed those cute green eyes at you years ago. The makers were smart enough not to take away from the character at the heart and title of this project, but next time let's keep Puss the star while providing him a worthy adventure we can really get excited about.

PUSS IN BOOTS Review

It has been apparent since he made his first appearance in "Shrek 2" that Mr. Puss in Boots was a stand out character and it was almost inevitable he would not claim his own feature. Well, that time has come and Puss has arrived in fine feline form as his usual suave, adventure savvy-self. Antonio Banderas still infuses the role with his Zorro-like attitude and all-around characterization of a kitten too cute for its own good. The real triumph of "Puss in Boots" though is that this great, but small aspect of the larger "Shrek" films did not stretch itself thin or become a one note gag that fell short in carrying the weight of his own movie on his shoulders. That this isn't much like the aforementioned series doesn't hurt either. While the great animation looks the same, "Puss in Boots" has a completely different tone going for it. This isn't the satirical, pop-culture referencing adventure that the green ogre populates, no, this is in fact a more straightforward adventure film that often has us chuckling, but not laughing out loud. In short, Puss in Boots can still be called the cat's meow.

IN TIME Review

I have been attracted to "In Time" since first hearing of its concept. It is not too often an intriguing and "cool" idea comes along in the sci-fi realm that hasn't been greatly explored before. Director Andrew Niccol hasn't had much experience with successful features in the past, in fact the only previous work of his I've seen was the somewhat intriguing Nicolas Cage film "The Lord of War" which like this one had a lot of good ideas going for it, but some things just get lost in aspiration. I assume when looking back at Niccol's filmography that "Gattaca" is the film that would have most helped him here, but with not having seen that movie I can only take away from "In Time" what he did right and where he missed great opportunities. What the film does get right is tone. Tone is always important when setting your film in a future world and I liked things weren't all silver and slick here, as well as with the concept of time as money the world has been divided into sections of those with no time to waste and others who have plenty to spare. The gritty, ghetto setting where we meet our protagonist Will Salas leaves the impression throughout that this may not be a standard sci fi film for the geeks. Too bad with all it has going for it, it ends up wasting much of the momentum.

A timekeeper (Cillian Murphy) is determined to catch
a wealthy runaway and her captor in "In Time".

As said in the beginning, "In Time" has a great concept going on here. It is set in a day in an unspecified year where the only currency is the time you have left that constantly counts down in bright lime green on your arm. In a section simply called the ghetto people live day to day, literally, hoping only that their next days wages allows them to sleep through the night and survive until they can receive more time the next day. How the sections came to be, how these people ended up so desperate for time and why there are different districts where the rich hoard centuries is never explained. Niccol doesn't waste time in giving an origin tale to how this all came to be either. He has his main character give a short briefing in the films opening moments but we are dropped immediately into the world in which Salas works and begs to keep himself and his mother alive for another day. In the movies universe people stop aging at 25, a facet that goes pretty much unexplained but seeing as if you have the right resources you could be immortal it is understandable a limit be placed on physicality. In an act of kindness Will is given almost a century by a man who has experienced the epiphany that living forever isn't all it's cracked up to be. This type of "financial" gain is obviously unheard of in the ghetto and immediately raises some flags to the police officers cleverly called "timekeepers" here. Will is smart and knows better and quickly changes districts so that his new found wealth is commonplace.

Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) and Sylvia Weis (Amanda
Seyfried) are short on time.

Early on "In Time" shows glimpses of delving into things much deeper than the action caper it eventually becomes. There are ideas of immortality, of living for an eternity and if it is really any kind of reward to have that type of opportunity. It could easily have taken on themes as universal as love and how dying for love is essentially truly living in the first place rather than to live forever in fear and seclusion. That in truth the way these wealthy beings get to be immortal is a lifestyle where you don't live at all. If only, that is all I could think as "In Time" continued on and only a hint of that kind of philosophical discussion was seen in Amanda Seyfried's character Sylvia Weis. After Will is tracked down by the timekeepers under suspicion of murdering the man who in fact gave him all of his time the movie turns into a man on the run tale that from there becomes what is essentially the robin Hood story. Stealing time from the rich to give to the poor. As Will, Justin Timberlake plays it cool and charismatic as Will though I still can't decide if i can take him seriously as an actor and if he did indeed actually take away some credibility from the project. Seyfried was passable, though in all honestly seemed to just be phoning in her performance. Either that or she was just mesmerized by Timberlake, the look in her eyes the entire movie makes this unclear. Highlights include Cillian Murphy as the leading timekeeper and most complex character as he wrestles with his duty, his sacrifices and the inescapable thought that what he is fighting for is wrong. As well as Alex Pettyfer who shows up in a few scenes as a tacked on gangster in the ghetto. Props to Olivia Wilde as well who lends a credible, touching and all too brief moment to the film early on.

I liked "In Time" more than it sounds like I did. It was an overall thrilling experience with fantastic cinematography and a gripping first half. It is the short handed second act and climax that are really the downer here as my aspirations were so much higher and much more original. This is such a great idea and in part is executed fairly well with all the rules and limitations that can be placed on a purely fictional society. That Niccol makes this whole concept work at all is worthy of some kind of praise and positive response. Ultimately, and with so many movies these days, I wanted it to strive to be more and to produce a more solid, intelligently executed drama that uses its action to re-enforce a point and in this case, a philosophy.

IN TIME Review

I have been attracted to "In Time" since first hearing of its concept. It is not too often an intriguing and "cool" idea comes along in the sci-fi realm that hasn't been greatly explored before. Director Andrew Niccol hasn't had much experience with successful features in the past, in fact the only previous work of his I've seen was the somewhat intriguing Nicolas Cage film "The Lord of War" which like this one had a lot of good ideas going for it, but some things just get lost in aspiration. I assume when looking back at Niccol's filmography that "Gattaca" is the film that would have most helped him here, but with not having seen that movie I can only take away from "In Time" what he did right and where he missed great opportunities. What the film does get right is tone. Tone is always important when setting your film in a future world and I liked things weren't all silver and slick here, as well as with the concept of time as money the world has been divided into sections of those with no time to waste and others who have plenty to spare. The gritty, ghetto setting where we meet our protagonist Will Salas leaves the impression throughout that this may not be a standard sci fi film for the geeks. Too bad with all it has going for it, it ends up wasting much of the momentum.

RUM DIARY Review

Let me be the first to say that I have never seen "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" in its entirety and so that first, early incarnation of Hunter S. Thompson that Johnny Depp took had no impact on me as I viewed "The Rum Diary". This film, unlike the previosuly mentioned one is actually based on one of Thompsons earliest novels that wasn't published until 1998. It feels more a small chapter out of an autobiography than a complete story though. It even says just before the end credits roll that this is indeed the end of one story and the beginning of another. It might have been better for the audience had this been combined with that story that follows. While I enjoyed aspects of this movie, and besides having Depp as the headliner there is a great supporting cast here as well. Still, this is unable to translate anything more than a handful of moments that periodically bring life to a rather standard story line. Depp gives it a good go, that is clear but the urgency with which the story is told, the originality, the poignancy, the wit and brains that seemed to exude in Thompsons writings doesn't seem to translate to the screen in a way that is as impressive as I'd hoped it to be.

Lotterman (Richard Jenkins) complains to new hire Paul Kemp
(Johnny Depp) about his drinking habits.

The story follows Depp's take on Thompson who is here called Paul Kemp as he arrives in Puerto Rico to take a writing position at a failing news publication. It is here we first meet Richard Jenkins (doing a great job with a small part as usual) as the editor, Lotterman. Depp's Kemp also encounters Sala as played by Michael Rispoli and as they hit it off pretty well they decide to room together after Kemp gets kicked out of his hotel for drinking one too many mini's on the newspapers tab. Rispoli has an inspired character here and for as many loose strings as this story leads us down the only real guidance seems to come from Sala as he keeps up with Kemp and in a way gives us a tour through Puerto Rico as he does with Kemp. The two share their dump of an apartment with another writer at the newspaper who only shows up once a month. As played by the somewhat over the top Giovanni Ribisi, Moburg is a man who's brain has been lost to the drink and to drugs. He offers up the more off the wall moments that you expect when seeing a film based on a Thompson work, but the problem is they almost feel out of place as the rest of the film is so by the book standard. Kemp stumbles into the company of Sanderson (Aaron Eckhart), an American entrepreneur looking to turn the beautiful parts of the island into a major cash flow and convienently needs Kemps help to run good advertising for him. The plot never gets as dirty as it should, and the underdeveloped love story between Kemp and Sanderson's gorgeous girlfriend Chenault (Amber Heard) feels way too tacked on to be neatly resolved by a line of text before the credits.

Kemp becomes acquainted with Sanderson (Aaron Eckhart)
and his girlfriend Chenault (Amber Heard).

It may sound like I am almost disgusted by the film, but that isn't entirely true. Depp and Rispoli have a few great moments, especially as they exit a local cafe that refuses to serve them food. The site of Depp breathing fire and riding atop Sala as they galavant down a Puerto Rican street in an old busted up car is priceless. They are bits of comedy that are well executed and though I have never seen any other of writer/director Bruce Robinson's films it is clear he is capable of capturing a tone and working with his actors to have them compliment that tone. Where the problem lies is in his standard storytelling style that does not in fact match the tone. The hot, sticky atmosphere of Puerto Rico is captured in every frame and that greasy greed exudes from Eckhart's Sanderson while the drunken haze, that gritty existence is given shots of life every time Depp and Rispoli get together. It is almost unnatural the way their actions don't match the reputation. Eckhart is an able actor, but his Sanderson should be much more menacing, a figure that epitomizes corrupted power and a real enemy that we want our protagonist to take down. Instead, he almost comes off as a harmless rich boy who is going to run to daddy if his plans don't go well and his peers don't do as he tells them. There is a sense of emptiness to the film as it slams on the breaks and concludes abruptly, leaving us not necessarily with a yearning for more, but with deflated dreams that the film as a whole was going to reflect the energy we were given in the trailer.

Kemp takes a ride with his new found friends Sala
(Michael Rispoli) and Moburg (Giovanni Ribisi).

The film, for me, almost is the pinnacle of something you expect too much of. That Thompsons reputation precedes him and gives you such high expectations of the zaniness that will surely ensue in a story that once you actually experience it and realize, "I guess they are only human and their adventures had to be some kind of relatable." you are, in more ways than one let down by the final product. But more than being let down, I was dissapointed. Dissapointed that this did not live up to not the standards, not even the expectations, but the whole level of who this guy was as a person. Depp is one of the most famous people on earth, and has become so making off the wall characters acceptable in mainstream society. With the reputation "Fear and Loathing" has I expected Depp's own reputation to prove true when he translated Thompson to the screen as well. And while I am still interested in some day viewing all of Depp's aforementioned venture into Thompson land, I have to say this didn't exactly up my excitement for what I will be seeing. Though Terry Gilliam was probably much more experimental than Robinson has treated "The Rum Diary" there is still an aspect of Thomspons writing that you can't take away from the material. That is what this film is missing, it just needs that extra bit of gonzo.