I love logic. Critical thinking, problem solving, I can’t get enough of the stuff. I suppose if you go more fundamentally, I love plot. I love deep feeling in the characters. I love it when thought is put into the way a story is told beyond the most simple of explanations. This is why I didn’t like Cowboys &. Aliens, why I didn’t like Shrek Forever After. They lacked heart. They lacked thought. You walk in, ACTION, that’s it. Don’t get me wrong, I like action, but you can’t have a good story if you don’t have something to ponder beyond “Big explosion, gun shot, wait is he going to die? No wait, never mind, he’s the main character.”

So naturally, a couple of my favorite genres are Mystery and thought driven Thriller. Now you may say, “But Stewart! You just went through all this time discussing why action is bad!” No, I went through saying why action alone is bad. Looking back at my first statement, I like action if it walks hand in hand with plot. And in the thriller movies I like, usually both are retained nicely.

The classic Sherlock Holmes series of books by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is without a doubt the most well known set of detective novels ever composed. Written in the nineteenth century, the stories are told from the perspective of Watson, assistant to a man named Sherlock Holmes. A private crime fighter, Sherlock is known for his extraordinary abilities of deduction and observation. The perfect character for a logical thinker such as myself.

Now with the two recent Sherlock Holmes film adaptations by Warner Brothers, Sherlock Holmes and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, I get the best of both worlds! I have a character that can think logically and thoughtfully, and I get him punching people! How fun. But that’s a double edged sword, as this leaves me to obsess over the details of how it relates to the books.

And yet thankfully, that is patched up as well! Sherlock Holmes is a character who, like James Bond, can be put into a story out of context. So as long as the characters are preserved along with the basic setting, all can fit nicely in a sweet canon bundle. And the movie makers managed to do this, and in the end that helped them enormously. They had no book to stick to and no story to stretch and squeeze over a two hour period. It was all original, and thus could be adjusted more easily without causing fissures in the plot.

The action itself in these films was, for the most part, original. The fight scenes were played off first in slow motion as Sherlock thought about them and then were reenacted in real life with regular speed.  I myself absolutely adored that; detail stands out more when you can stop and calmly watch the ripples in a man’s injured cheek as his tooth flies into the air. It takes some getting used to, but in both films it was abandoned before long to preserve the essence of unpredictability. Which was a little disappointing, but it was good nonetheless as it preserved the unpredictability of Sherlock Holmes, who would, in the books, never reveal his plans and would always leave you guessing as to what he will do next.

I heard there was some controversy to how Robert Downey Jr. portrays Sherlock Holmes. Some people  think he is too young. I agree, as he takes some getting used to. As for Dr. Watson, played by Jude Law, I always envisioned him as short and chubby. Of course, this is probably because my first actual Sherlock Holmes-style experience was with Disney’s The Great Mouse Detective. Rachel McAdams starred as Irene Alder (Doyle’s A Scandal in Bohemia, anyone?), the female lead in the first film. She makes a dramatic (ahem) early exit in the second film, making way for Noomi Rapace (star of the original Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) as Madam Simza Heron. Other major appearances included Jared Harris as Professor Moriarty, Stephan Fry as Holmes’ Brother, and Kelly Reilly as Watson’s betrothed.

These movies, however, do have their downsides. I should have mentioned earlier that I also adore humor, but as a comedy, these were fairly weak. Well, I must be fair.  The first was quite witty, but the second lost most of that. In the end I found that I enjoyed them more when I pushed past the comedy stance and just saw each as a thriller/mystery.

Age Recommendation: As with most mysteries and thrillers, death is a common theme. Be sure that your child can take such blows before whisking them off to the theater and/or television set. My parents say that I am more sensitive to death than they ever were, however, so maybe that’s just my overreaction. Lots of children nowadays play violent games consistently anyway.

Final Verdict: An exceedingly well thought out series with plenty of action and yet story to go around. As a comedy, the second film failed miserably, but I don’t see it as fair to rate them as a pair (rhyme!), so I give the first movie 8.5/10 and the second 7/10.

How funny. A movie about Shakespeare that isn’t a reenactment of his plays or a documentary. No, director Roland Emmerich, known for blockbusters like Independence Day (1996), has taken a turn in theme with his new political/historical thriller Anonymous.  By historical, I don’t mean it relies on actual facts, as Anonymous is entirely built upon conspiracy theory.

In the movie Anonymous, the Earl of Oxford, Edward DaVere (Rhys Ivan), lives in the Elizabethan era (1558 – 1603), when writing plays is not considered par for someone of his status.  However, born with a unique talent for the written word, he longs to make his work public.  Therefore, he entrusts the release of his work to the renowned playwright Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto).

Queen Elizabeth, who allegedly has a love affair with DaVere, is portrayed at the different ages of her life by actresses Vanessa Redgrave and her real life daughter, Joely Richardson.

Where does Shakespeare fit into all of this? Well, that is where I get a little bit pissed off. Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) is portrayed as a drunken, lying scumbag who steps up to claim the plays as his.  He cheats, steals from, and blackmails both Jonson and DaVere, and that is no hyperbole. He even attacks someone in one part. What a mockery of common belief! Just think, the filmmakers may be wrong, and if they are, they just insulted an artist. And even if they are right, who cares? We have the wonderful stories, isn’t that enough?

The movie’s plot itself was confusing and tied up. It used the method of “time jumping” far too often with far too little warning. I don’t know if this is just me, but I needed to read a summary afterwards in order to actually understand it.

But if I must praise this film for some little thing, it’s that it was a visual feast. They took the unsolved mysteries of history and brought them into the story. In addition, they tried- and succeeded- at displaying how Shakespeare plays were performed in the sixteenth century. The scenery and costumes, from the streets of London and the Globe Theatre to the Court of Queen Elizabeth, appear extremely accurate and give a great feel of the time. You have to praise the amount of research that must have gone into this.

Age Recommendation: There is blood and violence, there are sex scandals, and all these are themes that the unaware child should not see. I know there were a few dramatic parts that made me flinch. But putting all that aside, the real problem is the historical interpretation and the difficulty in understanding it. However, if your child is old enough to really “get” the movie, then by all means, let them see it. But there’s no point taking a kid to a movie if they won’t get anything out of it.

Final Verdict: Attempted to make a little known conspiracy theory public, but did a poor job of conveying it. 4/10

Puss in Boots is the latest attempt from DreamWorks Animation to cash in on the Shrek franchise, but does it work? Let’s take a look back:

Shrek: An absolute classic example of a seemingly hopeless romance. Shrek can be compared to life in general, which is the number one thing any form of media should go for.

Shrek 2: Another great example of how couples deal with jealousy. Trying to become something you’re not, but then to realize that you were perfect all along. Another common theme in books and film. Okay, but not as good as Shrek.

Shrek the Third: This movie was… more disappointing. I think that it tried to add more action and power sequences in order to bring more eyes over. But in this it sacrificed its theme, its heart, its core.

Shrek Forever After: Credit where it’s due: here DreamWorks tried to get out of the pit that Shrek the Third got them in — by pretty much repeating the theme of Shrek 2. Person wants to live another way, person achieves this, person misses old way, person gets old way back. And yet, even if we can get past the fact that the producers are running out of ideas for the franchise, this movie still was mostly focused on its flawed action.

Now, they claimed that they were done, that they were wrapping up the Shrek story. Which is technically true, but they aren’t departing before saying goodbye with their newest film Puss in Boots.

Puss in Boots is a Mexican cat (voiced, once again, by Antonio Banderas) with a musketeer-esque personality. His main gimmick is his remarkable ability to use adorableness in order to manipulate those around him. Having been introduced in Shrek 2, the audience had no idea where he was in the original film, and so DreamWorks made this prequel.

While dealing with the same franchise, one has to ask him or herself: “Can this do as well as or better than my previous works?” If this fails then the series will end up in a rapidly accelerating downward slope much like the one expressed above.

You have to remember though: this isn’t the same franchise. The Shrek franchise had to focus in on the continuing story of the ogre family, and that wasn’t working out. But this film offers the opportunity to completely reinvent an underdeveloped character in a way that doesn’t require fitting in the same characters. In simpler terms, the only thing the writers had to do is make Puss in Boots the main character. Everything else was free game.

The plot was much better than the last Shrek film. Puss is an outlaw and a thief who sees his big chance at achieving his ultimate dream: Finding the magic beans needed to steal the golden eggs found at the castle in the sky. He attempts this with the help of Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek), a heroine cat with a knack for pickpocketing; and Humpty Alexander Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis), an intelligent childhood friend who is (you guessed it) an egg.

It tells of an outlaw on the run, sliding around the country, a tiny little thing that can slip his way through the town unnoticed. The casual image of a thief is unappealing; someone who sneaks into your house, steals things, and gets out. But a tiny thief? You can forgive him, and just laugh at his impressive skill.

Of course, as with almost all movies, there was a worm in the apple, and it was pretty big worm — Humpty Dumpty. He just didn’t work! He was too clichéd, too as-you-would-expect in a movie going for the opposite.

The plot was strong, the animation and 3D were flawless, but my God, that damn egg!

Age Recommendation: It’s a kid’s film, so I think that it is appropriate for kids. There is one death or injury (not gonna say which) which may trouble some kids, but I’d say that if your kid can watch the first chapter of Finding Nemo, they’ll be fine. If you are a big kid, i.e., an adult, then you should also enjoy Puss in Boots.

Final Verdict:  6.5/10. It was cute. Not as good as Shrek but way better than Shrek Forever After, that’s for sure.

Check out the pictures from the Hollywood premiere of Puss in Boots and from the photocall at the Cannes Film Festival.

Caesar:
Who is it in the press that calls on me?
I hear a tongue shriller than all the music
Cry “Caesar!” Speak, Caesar is turn’d to hear.
Soothsayer:
Beware the ides of March.
Caesar:
What man is that?
Brutus:
A soothsayer bids you beware the ides of March.

~ Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare

“The Ides of March” is the fifteenth of March, or approximately the middle of March. It is also famous because it is the day that Julius Caesar was assassinated. The scene above referred to a seer that warned Caesar of danger. So, a bit of a history lesson there behind the new political thriller The Ides of March — starring George Clooney, who also directed the movie and co-wrote the screenplay.

The Ides of March follows the theme of “the darker side of politics”, and tells the story of a young idealistic staffer Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) working for Governor and presidential candidate Mike Morris (George Clooney) on the primary campaign trail. All is going well until Meyers gets a call asking him to go work for the other side.

Soon enough, Meyers makes a mistake that provokes a chain reaction leaving him scrambling to keep his job, sending him kicking and screaming, down a spiral of self-destruction.

I think that the movie reflects the idea of political secrets that are being kept from us. It seems to be a popular theme nowadays. The assumption that those in the higher classes live richer, easier lives is one that has been followed for centuries. This movie throws us into a world of bribery and cheating and lies. I pray that politics isn’t really as described in this movie.

I really enjoyed this movie. It is a good political thriller full of twists and turns. There are about five plot twists, all of them sudden and shocking. It has an Inception-style ending which, although a little annoying, is good overall because it puts the story into the hands of the audience.

Age Recommendation: 13+   I think it’s up to parents to know their kids. There is some strong language, mild sex, a suicide and references to an abortion. Plus it’s kind of complex and can be hard for younger kids to understand.

Final Verdict: 8/10. I like the subtlety.

Spoiler alert: This review is for the new season of The Office. If you haven’t seen the last few episodes or the end of Season Seven, I do not recommend reading it.

Earlier this year, Steve Carrel, the star of NBC’s popular sitcom The Office, quit after closing his seven year contract. This sent many fans into shock. After all, The Office without Michael Scott? Who could imagine such a thing? But it did happen, and near the end of the last season Michael departed from Scranton, uttered his last line, and was gone for good.

Steve Carrel said, in an interview with E! News, “I just think it’s time. I want to fulfill my contract. When I first signed on I had a contract for seven seasons, and this coming year is my seventh. I just thought it was time for my character to go.” Fair enough, it’s his choice, but what would the show be like without him?

Well, it turns out that Michael’s replacement is none other than Andrew Bernard (Ed Helms). Andy was brought into the cast in the show’s third season, as a worker in Dunder Mifflin’s Stamford Branch. Andy, a Cornell graduate who never really grew into the real world. Andy is quirky, awkward, and generally unsure. In other words, very similar to Michael, but in a different way.

As manager, Ed seems to be off to a promising start. Although he’ll never replace Steve, you can see that he lacks personal confidence and yet seems so able to handle problems.

And Ed isn’t the only new face this Fall… Robert California (James Spader) from the “Search Committee” episode is also coming in. But not as manager; Spader is entering to replace Jo Bennett (Kathy Bates) as Dunder Mifflin CEO. A prominent and confident character, he seems to be the man to whip Andy into shape.

All in all, it seems like The Office is getting on just fine.

Age Recommendation: 11. Younger kids might be bored with it.

Final Verdict: 9/10. I love me some Office, but I sure miss Steve…

Check out the official website for The Office and catch up with recent episodes.

Learn the latest gossip on The Office’s Facebook page.