IMMORTALS Review

It is easy to dismiss "Immortals" as an excuse to cash in on the success of "300" and "Clash of the Titans" which it is, but it is an unfair stigma because it is clear that director Tarsem Singh tries to make his sword and sandals epic with a singular vision that sets it apart from the aforementioned entries in the genre. The film truly is a beautiful sight to behold with gorgeous landscapes and striking violence galore but the story is so predictable and bland it almost makes even the most glorious of visuals feel commonplace. Singh has directed visual enticing pieces in the past with "The Cell" and especially "The Fall" but this story of courage and valor which should be used to infuse the story with real themes instead feels dated and stiffly acted. We have seen this hundreds of times before and despite Singh's approach to the genre that attempts to bring to life the work of Caravaggio rather than Frank Miller there is something missing. It simply does not feel as if the script was fully realized (immediately what comes to mind is I wanted more of the Gods on Mt. Olympus) but was instead settled upon and produced with reassurance that the way the movie looked and the fight scenes would distract viewers from the direction the story was heading. Still, the real question is whether or not this actually is as strikingly bad ass as "300" was when you first saw it or as disappointingly horrible as "Clash of the Titans". The answer in truth is that it's somewhere in the middle. Its visual flare almost rivals that of producer Zack Snyder's breakout hit but its cheesy dialogue and been there, seen that story are reminiscent of "Titans". In the end it felt completely average, a word Greek Gods should never be associated with.

Athena (Isabel Lucas) and Aires (Daniel Sharmen) watch
from Mt. Olympus as Hyperion destroys the earth.

"Immortals" draws from its source material the same way George Lucas borrowed from Joesph Campbell and based his underdog story on the archetypes of old myth and legend essentially exposing that all stories are expressions of the same pattern, which Campbell called "The Hero's Journey". The difference here is that "Immortals" stuck with the time period and used the mythology to map out our protagonist's journey. Not a bad idea when you read it, but it was the original elements Lucas brought to his "Star Wars" series in the same way the Wachowski brothers' did with their "Matrix" films that made them milestones in the pop culture universe. Needless to say, "Immortals" will not be awarded that same label. If anything, that spot for this genre has already been taken by Snyder's "300" despite its own flaws in the story department, its impact will be remembered and is clearly still being felt as films such as "Immortals" are getting made and turning a profit. So, as you may have figured our story here focuses on a lowly Theseus who has been taught all his life the ways of the Gods and just didn't know it. Zeus in disguise has trained him to fight and preached the value of courage. It has turned Theseus into a hard bodied, loving, and determined young man so it is fitting that as the truly despicable King Hyperion invades his homeland killing everyone in his path in search of the "Epirus Bow" that will allow him to free the Titans and conquer the Gods, that Theseus will be there to stop him. The most effective aspect of the story seems to be the one the writers spent the least amount of time with. That being as the Gods watch from Mt. Olympus while Hyperion obliterates village after village they feel the need to intervene despite Zues restricting them to interfere in the affairs of men and having already dealt his hand in secretly building young Theseus for this moment all his life. The moral dilemma the Gods face is never explored and besides that it is hard to even take them seriously as their head gear is more ridiculous than guests at the royal wedding.

Phaedra (Frieda Pinto) tries to keep
Theseus (Henry Cavill) alive.

One of the things that intrigued me about "Immortals" as I really had no desire to see it initially was the fact it offers a glimpse at our new Superman. As Theseus, Henry Cavill proves brooding enough and if you've seen the previews you can tell he has made himself physically adept for Greek God status, but I was eager to see if his charisma would first be enough to lead an army we could root for and hoping that would translate into a caped hero who saves our world. There is no way to tell how a film over a year off will turn out as his performance in this one is more quiet. A shy, humble man who asks for no favors, but will take what he deserves if pushed to those limits. In that Cavill was convincing but he, along with most of his co-stars that include Mickey Rourke as Hyperion and Stephen Dorff as Theseus' new found friend Stavros (who both feel too modern of actors to play these roles) cannot make the wooden dialogue or the lack of substance in their words feel genuine or real. Instead it all comes off more than a little cheesy. The only character we ever really feel we can get on board with is Frieda Pinto's oracle named Phaedra who sees visions of Theseus and is convinced he is the one to stop Hyperion's destruction. She salvages Theseus who wants to give up and like all great oracles convinces our hero that he is destined for this journey, for this one moment of glory. I vouch that the Gods would have been just as interesting had they more screen time as Luke Evans makes an intimidating and powerful Zeus while his younger supporting cast including "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen's" Isabel Lucas as Athena and "Twilight's" Kellan Lutz as Poseidon never get the screen time to develop into more than pretty people in sparkly outfits. This again points back to the main flaw of the film in its story. The producer's, maybe even Singh's approach, that despite the lackluster quest, the films visuals would fill-in for any feeling of inadequacy is simply untrue. Instead, it becomes even more apparent in the gaps between fight scenes how thin the story actually feels and how much more we deserve from our big, bombastic films based upon figures that were larger than life.

King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) does some serious skull-
crushing in "Immortals".

"Immortals" does, despite my obvious issues with the plot, at least give us a few memorable moments whether we want them or not. In the midnight show I attended the crowd reacted favorably to the engaging fight scenes, especially when Aries goes crazy and smashes heads as if they were gushers candy as different shades of red come pulsing out of the screen (though not as much as you'd think in 3D) or when the Gods finally do arrive on earth and deal with the newly freed Titans in much the same way Aries dealt with the guards. The impact of the fight scenes is so engrossing it will literally leave your heart beating a little faster. It almost makes it worse these scenes are so good because when they end, despite the brutality, we want them to keep going because we no what no action means: boredom. The scene that probably gathered the most reaction was that of Hyperion straight up crushing a traitors balls. It is one thing to torture people by trapping them in a metal bull that resides just over a fire, but to have a man spread his legs just so you can swing a hammer at his funky bunch is wrong and all together worthy of being mentioned here. I don't know if it was because most of the audience seemed intoxicated or juvenile that they reacted so strongly to this moment early on but it might also be noted that by the end of the film, most were passed out or had calmed down. The excitement was gone, the story was standard and the hopes that "Immortals" would give a chance at experiencing something that was worth a midnight show were shattered. Like a bombshell with no brains-they are pretty to look at, but just not interesting enough to want to see again.

IMMORTALS Review

It is easy to dismiss "Immortals" as an excuse to cash in on the success of "300" and "Clash of the Titans" which it is, but it is an unfair stigma because it is clear that director Tarsem Singh tries to make his sword and sandals epic with a singular vision that sets it apart from the aforementioned entries in the genre. The film truly is a beautiful sight to behold with gorgeous landscapes and striking violence galore but the story is so predictable and bland it almost makes even the most glorious of visuals feel commonplace. Singh has directed visual enticing pieces in the past with "The Cell" and especially "The Fall" but this story of courage and valor which should be used to infuse the story with real themes instead feels dated and stiffly acted. We have seen this hundreds of times before and despite Singh's approach to the genre that attempts to bring to life the work of Caravaggio rather than Frank Miller there is something missing. It simply does not feel as if the script was fully realized (immediately what comes to mind is I wanted more of the Gods on Mt. Olympus) but was instead settled upon and produced with reassurance that the way the movie looked and the fight scenes would distract viewers from the direction the story was heading. Still, the real question is whether or not this actually is as strikingly bad ass as "300" was when you first saw it or as disappointingly horrible as "Clash of the Titans". The answer in truth is that it's somewhere in the middle. Its visual flare almost rivals that of producer Zack Snyder's breakout hit but its cheesy dialogue and been there, seen that story are reminiscent of "Titans". In the end it felt completely average, a word Greek Gods should never be associated with.

TOWER HEIST Review

There is nothing too exceptional about director Brett Ratner's "Tower Heist" other than it hopefully marks the return of "funny" Eddie Murphy. This is a slick, Hollywood comedy to a T but it works almost perfectly and serves every purpose it sets out to fulfill. I say almost because to be honest, I almost felt slightly shafted by the publicity for the film. Sure, I knew this was a Ben Stiller vehicle and I don't mind that, I enjoy Stiller's work (even more so when he is behind the camera as well) but this promised a double lead, a comic dream team of he and Murphy. Sadly, Murphy doesn't really show up until about half an hour in, but once he does hit the screen he is on fire and we are more than ready to welcome him back with open arms. I am not overly irritated by being somewhat misled though and I'm surely not going to let it ruin my overall experience, because for as standard as the movie feels, it is good, solid fun. Stiller does his usual self and with a great supporting cast including Mathew Broderick, Casey Affleck, a pair of scene stealer's in Michael Pena (again) and Gabourey Sidibe, and finally Alan Alda there is enough going on here to make us forgive its flaws and enjoy the quick, simple, entertaining ride it provides.

Josh (Ben Stiller) and Slide (Eddie Murphy) consider their
options in "Tower Hesit".

If you've seen the trailer, hell, if you've read the title you know what probably happens in the film but if not it basically boils down to this: Josh Kovac (Stiller) runs the Trump-esque tower in downtown New York and he runs a very tight shift. Stiller drops a heavy accent and does his best to make the character relatable. Kovac respects all of his much richer employers and meets all of their needs while holding all of his employees to that same expectation. This introduces us to Affleck's Charlie, the realist who doesn't take his job nearly as seriously as Josh would like him too but is married to his sister and they are expecting a child, so Josh cuts him slack. There is the newly hired elevator operator Enrique (Pena) who is just happy to not be working at the BK anymore and is seriously just along for the ride. Odessa the maid (Sidibe) happens to be good with safe-breaking and Mr. Fitzhugh (Broderick) has lost his high-paying job at Merill Lynch and is being evicted from the tower. These associations are little to nothing until Arthur Shaw (Alda), the penthouse billionaire at the tower, steals their retirement funds just like an ole' wall street swindler does. This leads to why these stand-up guys decide its time to break a few laws and get back what is rightfully theirs. The fact none of them has any idea where to begin when planning a robbery cues the entrance of Murphy's Slide. A fast-talking thief who uses his persona to take advantage of the white guys plan to grab $20 million.

Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda) is escorted out
of the tower by FBI Agents including
Claire (Tea Leoni).

Although the legacy of "Tower Heist" will likely not be the wildly funny farce that everyone loved, it is a solid piece of escapism that looks great. It offers little in terms of lessons or discoveries we might take away from it but does in fact actually serve as somewhat of a timely commentary that tries with all its might to relate to the little people in the audience while making the crime being committed on screen feel as ethically and morally upstanding as it possibly could. I get it, and it does try but it is just hard to see either Stiller or Murphy as "one of us". Murphy more so, but it is to him the movie owes its pulse. Thus, as I said earlier, the real problem I have with the overall film is not its light caper comedy premise that plays like a less credible "Oceans" film, but the fact that it doesn't push Murphy and his classic tangents to the forefront almost feels like a tease. The highlight of the film not even being watching he and Stiller go back and forth, but instead it is the hilarity that was glimpsed in the trailer between he and Sibide that lights up the screen the most. By the time the film reaches the point where it is actually ready to start the "tower heist" we couldn't feel more ready for it, excited to see our rag tag team of misguided crooks try their hand at it. The nice thing about the script is it never stops challenging our characters either. True, it might be a tad conventional and it will end on a nice note, but that doesn't mean the ride is any less predictable. Throwing Slide's selfish side in as well as the twist of where the money was really located made me smile, if not because it was trying but at least for the fact it didn't feel lazy.

The gang's all here...

Though director Ratner is criticized for making crap movies that are all style and no substance; one has to give it to the guy for making pure escapist cinema that fizzles with fun. Allowing Murphy to play like Chris Tucker in his "Rush Hour" films was the best thing he could have done and tapping Tea Leoni to play the take no crap FBI agent investigating Shaw and forming the obligatory love story with Kovac at least allows it to feel genuine and as care free as the movie actually is. Breaking it down to its basic elements though, "Tower Heist" is about the average joe's we are watching overcome the man and so it is the characterization that matters. And while Affleck and Stiller have a few funny exchanges, it is the small moments in which Murphy orchestrates the conversations and the situations that will stick with you after leaving this engaging but ultimately forgettable piece of fluff. I sincerely hope that this is Murphy's re-introduction to the edgier material that made him a household name in the first place. it is easily the funniest thing he has done in years and for that alone, you should go see this movie.

TOWER HEIST Review

There is nothing too exceptional about director Brett Ratner's "Tower Heist" other than it hopefully marks the return of "funny" Eddie Murphy. This is a slick, Hollywood comedy to a T but it works almost perfectly and serves every purpose it sets out to fulfill. I say almost because to be honest, I almost felt slightly shafted by the publicity for the film. Sure, I knew this was a Ben Stiller vehicle and I don't mind that, I enjoy Stiller's work (even more so when he is behind the camera as well) but this promised a double lead, a comic dream team of he and Murphy. Sadly, Murphy doesn't really show up until about half an hour in, but once he does hit the screen he is on fire and we are more than ready to welcome him back with open arms. I am not overly irritated by being somewhat misled though and I'm surely not going to let it ruin my overall experience, because for as standard as the movie feels, it is good, solid fun. Stiller does his usual self and with a great supporting cast including Mathew Broderick, Casey Affleck, a pair of scene stealer's in Michael Pena (again) and Gabourey Sidibe, and finally Alan Alda there is enough going on here to make us forgive its flaws and enjoy the quick, simple, entertaining ride it provides.

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.