Puss In Boots
By Scott Mendelson

Puss In Boots could have just been a 'one-off' picture from the prolific Dreamworks Animation department. As a spin-off for a popular supporting character from the Shrek series, it has arguably more built-in appeal than something along the lines of How to Train Your Dragon or Megamind. The film is already likely to be a big hit no matter how good or bad it is. But the gang at the current House of Katzenberg refuse to take such easy roads to profitability. What could have been a cheap and easy spin-off is instead a surprisingly engaging and richly constructed adventure film. It is yet another sign that Dreamworks is every bit the equal of the Mouse House and they plan on staying there not by 'having their finger on the pulse of popular culture', but by merely making really good cartoons that respect their audience. And that's what Puss In Boots is. It's not as breathlessly exciting as How to Train Your Dragon nor is it as epic and emotionally profound as Kung Fu Panda 2. With strong vocals, a simple-but-satisfying story, occasionally eye-popping visuals, and another master-class in 3D, Puss In Boots is simply a damn good cartoon.

A token amount of plot: Puss In Boots (Antonio Banderas, obviously having a blast being back in this sand... err... litter box) is an outlaw of sorts, a mercenary for-hire who attempts to maintain a token amount of morality as he goes about his business. But a chance run-in with fellow 'cat-burglar' Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek) leads to a reunion with Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis, in a surprisingly compelling emotional turn), his former best who betrayed him into a life of crime seven years ago. Mr. Dumpty offers a chance at a big score, with a chance for Puss to redeem himself by atoning for the original sin that turned him into an outlaw. But as the trio attempt to steal magic beans from the murderous outlaws Jack (Billy Bob Thornton) and Jill (Amy Sedaris), Mr. Boots finds that redemption is not as easy as he thought, and survival may be the biggest challenge of all.

While technically a prequel to Shrek 2, this picture stands completely alone from the world of Fiona and Donkey. It is merely a fantastical adventure that happens to star a charactor whom we've met before. The story is relatively simple, while the complexity lies in the character arcs. Despite ads that highlighted the comedic material (and there are several hearty laughs to be had), the film is a generally straight-ahead action picture, with the requisite fights, escapes, and standoffs

While the film doesn't approach the tragic pathos of Kung Fu Panda 2, the action sequences are shot and edited for maximum intensity even while the bloodshed and hard violence is kept to a minimum. There are a few frightening moments and scenes of apparent danger, but Chris Miller deftly creates vicious villains that are none-the-less amusing in nature, which should limit the amount of frightened youngsters (my four-year old hid her eyes a couple times, but there was no lasting trauma).

The film's morality is a little complex, as our titular hero is clearly doing bad things for clearly good reasons, which is nothing unusual in adult fiction but may need some explaining to the youngest of audiences. While the film is not a non-stop joke fest, nor (thankfully) is it riddled with pop-culture references, it does earn the laughs it goes for. The comedy is generally either characterbased or, um... 'cat-based'. Cat people will frankly adore this picture, as there are any number of clever visual jokes and off-hand bits of dialogue that pay ode to the superior domestic animal (all due respect to my readers, but suck it, dog people!). Kitty Softpaws's explanation for why she has no claws will resonate with cat owners, as will Puss's casual reaction.

After decades of cats being treated as one-dimensional villains (Cats and Dogs, Babe, etc) or being horribly murdered as a means of building suspense in horror films (let's just say there is no way that the makers of The Roommate would have thrown a dog into a dryer), it's a little refreshing to see a movie where the feline is both the star and the hero, and where the makers have a clear understanding of what it's like to be a cat and/or love a cat. Again, I say this with utmost respect for the feelings and intelligence of my readers, but go lick your own balls, ye dog lovers (yes, I'm trying to impress my wife)!

It has become a cliché over the last decade to talk about how visually impressive and/or well-animated the latest big-budget animated feature happens to be, but this film is a glorious visual delight. It is richly detailed (quite a bit of it is 'shot' in close-up for extra emphasis on facial features) and splendidly colorful. If I may pay notice to one specific moment; there is a scene about halfway through the picture where our trio end up climbing 'the beanstalk' up to the giant's tower. This moment is frankly aweinspiring and a wonder to behold. It is for this sequence alone that the film merits viewing in 3D and on an IMAX screen unless you have financial or health-related objections to 3D. Dreamworks has been playing around with 3D long-before Avatar.And nobody does it better when it comes to a genuinely immersive environment while providing eyepopping 3D moments that don't feel out of context. Point being, Puss In Boots is a technical marvel in every plausible way.

It is a testament to how committed Dreamworks is to delivering the goods each time out that this seemingly financially-mandated cash-in is as good as it is. While it may not be fair to compare Puss In Boots to Cars 2 (which was part merchandisebonanza, part Lasseter passion project), the truth is that Dreamworks created a solidly entertaining, visceral exciting, and visually dynamic adventure from their 'one for them' project, while Pixar's latest film, um...did not (it's no war crime, but Cars 2 is indeed pretty bad). As it stands, the artistic failure of Cars 2 and artistic triumph of Puss In Boots can only be a good thing for lovers of animation. The rare Pixar whiff, combined with Dreamworks being on a twoyear hot streak, will only motivate Pixar not to get complacent about their place at the top. And Dreamworks' continual desire for the respect and acclamation that Pixar receives, as well as the automatic cultural acceptance that comes with being a Walt Disney cartoon, will keep Dreamworks pushing ever harder. Puss In Boots is no great artistic achievement, but it's a pretty terrific animated film that shows how far the studio has come in regards to raising their own personal bar. They are a long way from A Shark Tale.

Grade: B+

PS - My four-year old also quite enjoyed herself (even if she didn't wear the 3D glasses for very long). She liked the main characters and asked relevant questions afterward about the story. For what it's worth, her favorite scene: 'where the two cats dance' is indeed one of the best moments in the film.

‘MARGIN CALL’
FIRE SALE ARTISTS
By Sean Chavel

An essential high finance drama and if this interests you, then don’t let it pass you by. Margin Call, told in a 36-hour timeframe, is an intelligent and exploration of unchecked white collar crime. It serves as an unofficial account of the 2008 economic meltdown as seen through the guise of a fictional Wall Street firm that resembles the Bear Stearns follies. The players here – enacted by Kevin Spacey, Simon Baker, Paul Bettany, Zachary Quinto, Demi Moore, Stanley Tucci and Jeremy Irons – are either fully aware or in denial that their money investment firm deals and trades paper with invisible value. Playing God seems to be an entitlement for most of them.

Risk management analyst Peter (Quinto) comes up with an equation that forecasts collapse of their company. Past dark, he summons up his disbelieving boss Will (Bettany) to the office. Then, others are called to verify the seriousness of the situation, and finally CEO John Tuld (Jeremy Irons) arrives at 4 o’clock in the morning, via helicopter onto the building helipad, with an imperative that will cheat millions out of unwitting investors. It’s what you call a fire sale, the selling of mortgage securities that are worth nothing. And it doesn’t matter to this CEO that the trickledown effect will hurt the global economy.

“It’s just business,” Tuld explains to his second in command Sam Rogers (Spacey). Sam ineffectually warns Tuld that he will never be trusted by high financiers ever again if he continues this route. Tuld muses that he became rich on more than just book smarts, but on the gift of killer instinct. He selects the unwilling Sam as the fall-guy in case the firm is put under likely investigation, and has sealed the fate for his other executives. The others await the promise to be handsomely paid to perform damage control roles in the projected future, and to sign affidavits to not talk or side with law investigators or journalistic press. Insinuations are made by Tuld that he will destroy anyone who does not cooperate. Many others will be fired from the boiler room, but he has devised promotions for a few. You look around for key individuals who possess a moral conscious to say something in protest. The sympathetic figures portrayed by Quinto and Tucci offer the most hope to raise voice against the unethical greed. Then you look at the sobering guilt but professional gusto of Sam Rogers.

Watching Kevin Spacey in this role as Sam Rogers is yet another revelation of his career. You look at him as a guy who is just ten years away from a heart attack (Or a suicide like Enron’s Kenneth Lay?). Spacey, a master at multi-meanings, delivers a compelling speech to his boiler room personnel that drives at motivating them and hinting to them, ever so discreetly and succinctly, that they are selling out their professional integrity at the same time. That’s some monster balls. The remarkable debut film by J.C. Chandor, “Margin Call” deserves Academy Award consideration for the screenplay and Spacey for Best Supporting Actor. I’d say it is just a little too stark and dour in its visual appearance. It invites your high-functioning brains but leaves the heart cold. For this story material, that’s OK, as long as you’re up for it.

Johnny English Reborn
By Scott Mendelson

It's obviously a bit of a lefthanded compliment to refer to a film as 'not torture' or 'relatively watchable', but sometimes there are no better adjectives. Johnny English Reborn is a slight film, a generally by-the-numbers spy spoof greenlit primarily because the first film grossed $160 million worldwide back in 2003 (most of that from overseas markets). The first Johnny English was notable mostly for John Malkovich hamming it up as the villain, in a performance that contained an atrociously funny French accent and a nugget of trivia for those who've seen Being John Malkovich (hint - his character steals the Crown Jewels). Revisiting it, it is remarkable how much its narrative (bumbling paper-pusher gets to be a real agent when the other secret operatives are massacred off-screen) was stolen for the Steve Carrell/Anne Hathaway Get Smart adaptation five years later. So, nine years later, we now have Johnny English Reborn.

While it is not what anyone would call 'a good movie', it has a humble charm and a light and unpretentious air about it. As spy spoofs go, it's not as ambitious but far less insufferable than either of the Austin Powers sequels, but lacks the cleverness of Undercover Brother. Rowan Atkinson is the whole show here, and while he is game and occasionally funny, the film desperately needs a couple more comedic players. Gillian Anderson is sadly given nothing to do as MI-7 leader Pegasus, while 31- year old Rosamund Pike (who was actually a Bond villain in Die Another Day back in 2002) is tasked with playing the love interest to 56-year old Atkinson. No one, not the two female leads nor Dominic West as the revered Ambrose nor even English's young sidekick played by Daniel Kaluuya gets any real comic opportunities. Even poor Richard Schiff makes a blink-and-you-miss it cameo in a role pretty identical to the one he played on Burn Notice a few years back. Pik Sen Lim scores a few chuckles purely by playing a ruthless assassin with expected aplomb. As noted, the first film has the hamming efforts of Mr. Malkovich, and this film desperately needs a villain of equal stature or presence.

Since it is purely a vehicle for Atkinson, it is somewhat revealing that he still knows how to deliver his shtick. The former Mr. Bean is now 56 years old, but rather than ignore this factoid (what is mandatory retirement age at the real MI-5 anyway?), the film openly acknowledges it in the film's one great sequence. The film's first major set piece is a gloriously clever foot chase involving Johnny English tracking down a murderous operative. Without going into details, the bad guy uses every action cliché in the book to evade capture while Johnny barely breaks a sweat. It's a genuinely inventive and witty scene, and it surely makes the film worth a sample when it arrives on DVD or Netflix Streaming. Still, aside from that great gag set and a handful of amusing bits (one of which involving a seemingly doomed cat), the film alternates between running on fumes and recycling jokes that the first film stole from The Naked Gun 2 1/2 in the first place.

As noted above, Johnny English Reborn is a not an ugly or evil film. It is rated PG and is perfectly appropriate for younger audiences while giving them enough danger and violence to create actual suspense. There are surely better films of this ilk (the Peter Sellers Pink Panther films for starters), but it's also rarely boring and just amusing enough to merit a viewing if one is so inclined. As it stands, it earns most of its points for its general inoffensiveness and its occasionally winning moments of physical comedy. But one can only imagine how much more this film (or this series really) could have been if Atkinson wasn't the only thing worth watching. Grade: C+

Paranormal Activity 3
By Scott Mendelson

For better or worse, the Paranormal Activity series is the Where's Waldo? of horror films. You know when the lights go down and a graphic pops up on the screen telling you what day it is that something SPOOKY is going to occur. But since you don't know what it is, you somewhat nervously scan the screen for any clue at where the creepy sight or randomly loud noise might come from. It's an effect that makes the film the closest thing to actually walking through a haunted house ("Hey that door's unlocked...look out!"), which explains much of the franchise's appeal. Half of the fun of this kind of movie is watching the crowded audience react like puppets at just the right moments. It's ironic that this series, which arguably looks and sounds no better on a big screen than it would as a bootleg viewed on a smart phone, is one of the few that absolutely demands to be seen in the biggest, most packed theater one can find.

As a party movie, a game of sorts among friends or fellow moviegoers, it has its value. But as a movie, this third installment is both a bit of a cop-out and, thanks to its status as a prequel, a bit of a narrative cheat. The plot - It's 1988 and young Katie Ray (Chloe Csengery) and Kristi Ray (Jessica Tyler Brown) are living with their parents when things indeed start to go bump in the night. Since their father (Christopher Nicholas Smith) is a videographer by trade, he soon decides to set up cameras around the house in hopes of figuring out why all the weird stuff keeps happening. And that's about it.

The fact that this is a prequel hampers the film in several potent ways. First of all, we know that the two young girls are in no mortal danger, since we see their eventual fates in the earlier pictures. Second of all, the fact that this film involves a family of four with two young girls puts a damper on the level of intensity for most of the film. Put simply, it takes a lot less for a family with kids in it to get scared into getting the hell out of the house than it would for a young childless couple.

So for 2/3 of the picture, there are next-to-no real scares, with two of the biggest 'jump' moments literally being fake outs. We play the usual waiting game, but it becomes quickly apparent that nothing scary is going to happen during the day (which was a problem in the earlier films as well), and very little pronounced imagery or noises are going to be seen or heard until pretty close to the end. There is an early tease that is surprisingly potent (it involves more special effects than this series is known for), but nothing particularly disturbing happens for nearly the entire film.

We wait for loud noises and/or startling sights but they rarely if ever come. Obviously the anticipation of fear is scarier than the shock itself, but after so many false beats or ineffective would-be jolts, the anticipation wears off and leaves only boredom. Equally as troubling is the absolute lack of tension in this household. The first Paranormal Activity at least worked as a compelling portrait of a young woman driven insane by a seemingly random haunting. When we weren't being scared, we were somewhat engaged in her personal drama. The second film also had a token amount of tension as the young couple struggled with the unexplained phenomena that threatened their newborn son. But this time around, the mood in inexplicably light. There is more humor this time around and, more importantly, an air of carefree lightness. Since there are few true shocks, there is little real trauma for our characters. Thus there is no drama to compensate for the lack of scares. For nearly the entire picture, we are simply watching a happy and uninteresting family go about their business while a light occasionally falls from the ceiling. And when the thirdact tension does finally come, the film shoots itself in the narrative foot by making the mother (Lauren Bittner) into a classic 'continuously wrongheaded authority figure'. She always says just the wrong thing and/or refuses to look at the video that would clearly prove that something is amiss, which turns much of the last hird of the film into a giant Idiot Plot.

Then there is the finale. I would not dream of revealing what occurs, but I will try to make some spoilerfree comments about it (if you want to skip this paragraph just to be safe, I won't be offended). This is of course a prequel and since the prior two films make next-to-no mention of the events of this picture, it would stand to reason that nothing all-that traumatic occurred back in 1988. But, without going into details, the finale of this picture certainly fits into the kind of climax that this series is known for. So, we are left wondering just why the grown-up sisters are seemingly unscathed by the major events that occur during this prequel. If the events of this picture happened to me when I was ten years old, I'd be pretty horribly scarred by them and I certainly wouldn't seemingly forget about the whole thing.

Anyway, Paranormal Activity 3 is hobbled both by its status as a prequel (which makes the last reel quite confusing) and by its strangely lighthearted tone. With a lack of any real dramatic tension, as well as a surprising lack of potent scares, the film exists only as a fun-house exercise, something to be enjoyed with friends. In that sense, it is somewhat effective (I did enjoy watching the other audience members watch the film with their hands over their eyes), but as a stand-alone horror film, it's pretty worthless. Grade: D+

The Three Musketeers
By Scott Mendelson

What is most unexpected about this umpteenth version of the Alexander Dumas novel is how generic it feels.

Despite the use of 3D (FYI - I watched this film in glorious 2D) and a few bits of Mila Jovovich choreography, this movie could very well have been made in 1993 or 2001, which is when of course the last two stabs at this story were released. It's the general same plot as always, with a few bits of the comparatively faithful Richard Lester versions from 1973 and 1974 thrown in (the last two didn't spent much time on stolen jewelry), and lacking any real visual reinvention that
would make it stand out. The lack of anything 'new' wouldn't be as much of a problem if the ingredients weren't so half-baked. But Paul W.S. Anderson's The Three Musketeers is pretty much just another mediocre adaptation. It's better than The Musketeer (IE - Three Musketeers with a bit of wire-kung fu), but that's not saying much. At best, it makes one realize good that oft-maligned Disney adaptation from 1993 really was. Stephen Herek's allstar version may have been overtly kid-friendly, but it got the basics right.

As always, if you don't like the actual Musketeers, you aren't going to get much out of their adventure. The plot.... well, it's the same as always. Young D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman) sets off to fulfill his childhood dream of becoming a Musketeer, only to find that the legendary group has been disbanded. Fortunately for him, there are treacherous plots afoot, as Milady de Winter (Mila Jovovich) schemes with Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz, seriously slumming) in a scheme to seriously mess with King Louis XIII and imperil all of France. So, as always, it's up to three disgraced former Musketeers - Athos (Matthew Macfadyen), Porthos (Ray Stevenson), and Amaris (Luke Evans) to bring the would-be young Musketeer up to speed and save all of France. But the pieces don't quite click this time around. Lerman again proves that he is ill-suited to be an action hero, as his D'Artangnan never quite makes the leap from annoyingly cocky to heroically cocky. The three title characters barely register, and it is here that the film most fails in comparison to its predecessors (come what may, the 1993 version introduced me to the wonderful Oliver Platt). This leaves the villains to provide most of the entertainment.

Jovovich delivers in her one major action sequence, but otherwise exists purely as eye candy. Waltz is occasionally amusing, but he frankly pales in comparison to Tim Curry's splendidly wicked turn eighteen years ago (in what was arguably one of Curry's last great theatrical roles). Mads Mikkelsen's Rochfort exists purely to have someone to duel for the action finale, but he lacks Michael Wincott's gravely menace or Tim Roth's haughty arrogance (Roth didn't play Rochfort, but his 'man in black' served the same purpose back in 2001). The only villainous turn that registers is Orlando Bloom's Duke of Buckingham. It's not a great performance, but it's obvious that Bloom is relishing his chance to overact for perhaps the first time in his career, and the fun is contagious.

The action scenes are surprisingly sparse and relatively bland. The one positive is that Anderson, perhaps 'hobbled' by 3D cameras, shoots the scenes in long, wide, and fluid takes, rendering the relatively unimpressive choreography at least comprehensible and watchable. If I say that I enjoyed the final sword fight, it is only because I am a sucker for duels to the death atop high structures. The film feels lifeless and bland, to the point where what should be a wondrous sight (two airships blowing each other to pieces high above the clouds with cannonballs, machine guns, and flamethrowers) is very nearly dull. It's a great visual idea, but Anderson never does anything remotely clever with it. In the end, Paul W.S. Anderson's The Three Musketeers isn't so much wretched so much as it is rendered unnecessary by its lack of imagination and rote casting decisions.

It's not very well acted, with a lack of clever writing and a shocking lack of major action sequences. Without the ability to get the basics right, and without any real invention brought to this old story, it lacks anything aside from 3D to make it remotely worth. This new Three Musketeers does little more than make you appreciate Richard Lester and/or Stephen Herek. In the end, it's all for one, but all for naught. Grade: C