2017: The Year in Film: "War for the Planet of the Apes" Review

So honestly, kind of out of nowhere the modern Planet of the Apes prequel series has become one of my favorite movie series. Featuring strong characterization, an incredible CGI performance from Andy Serkis, great effects, and unexpectedly thoughtful plotting, War for the Planet of the Apes quietly became maybe my single most anticipated film of the year, even before the reviews started to come out and it wound up with the highest Rotten Tomatoes score of the series.

So if you're out there thinking that these movies look dumb, I encourage you to give them a chance. Rise of the Planet of the Apes follows an exceptional young chimp named Caesar who is raised in secret by a scientist following an incident at his lab. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes shows us a burgeoning ape society as it buts up against the remnants of humanity following the devastating plague set off by the events of Rise. Enter: War. After the events of Dawn, co-existence between human and ape became all but impossible, and the future fate of the planet hangs in the balance.

The Good: this film is the largest in scope of the series, and that's absolutely a good thing. The framing and themes of the entire series to now become crystal clear as Caesar's struggle and arc come to their fateful conclusion. I won't go into too many spoilers but the epic biblical elements of the series really frame the whole endeavor in a brighter light. It's incredibly bold to frame your ape protagonist in messianic/biblical imagery, but it works, and the end result is the single best example of Judeo-Christian allegory in modern film. This flick and this series feels more like the epic films of old than it does its modern sci-fi brethren. None of this would work without the remarkable performance of Andy Serkis (most famously known, of course, as Golem in the Lord of the Rings films). He imbues Caesar with a fundamental humanity and sadness that rises above your typical CGI characters and makes Caesar, for me, one of the most memorable movie characters in any film of the last decade. With a title like War for the Planet of the Apes you know this film will be going to some dark places but writer/director Matt Reeves (his next film is crossfit Batman you guys) really takes this one in some surprising and unexpected directions. I think this film would potentially have been boring if it were nothing but battles and action sequences but its surprisingly subdued and rests on its fundamental "humanity" (insofar as CGI apes have humanity), as all of the films thus far have. Maurice remains the best non-Caesar character going, and Woody Harrelson's villain brings a larger than life menace, an epic foil to the proceedings. Despite the long runtime, this film feels like a great ending to a great series, and a potential jumping-off point to the classic Planet of the Apes scenario of film fame.




The Bad: honestly, I don't have very much to complain about here as I honestly thought this film was front to back great and want Andy Serkis to be nominated for best actor, but the Steve Zahn comic relief character is just... too much. These are dark proceedings, to be sure, with the film not shying away from slavery, war, genocide, bondage, civil rights, and SOME comic relief was surely needed, but his character is preposterous. The long runtime (2 hrs 20 mins) drags in parts as well.

Ultimately, for fans of the series, this is surely the best one. Caesar is simply an incredibly memorable character done in a genre-defying way. The scope, ambition, and execution of this flick make it rise above your typical blockbuster fare in a way that will (hopefully) have you thinking about some big, epic questions. Personally, I loved the allusions, allegory and references to human history done in a clever, compelling way. I don't believe it's hyperbole to state that this modern Apes series takes its place among all-time great film trilogies.

9/10.

2017: The Year in Film: "Spider-Man: Homecoming" Review

So not only am I a Marvel nerd from way back, but Spider-Man has always been my dude. He was probably (like most kids) my entry point to superheroes, and he remains one of the most compelling characters in the comic canon, regardless of era, company, universe, etc. The strength and appeal of Spider-Man has always been that he's ultimately just a regular dude with regular problems and some pretty cool powers. In a superhero landscape filled with billionaires, gods and aliens, that makes Spider-Man stand out.

He's also had quite the journey on-screen thus far, with three Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire films hitting from 2002-2007, and two Marc Webb/Andrew Garfield films hitting in 2012 and 2014.  This probably puts me in the minority of superhero movie fans, but I never liked Raimi's vision of the character or how those movies played out. I thought his version of Peter Parker was a dopey putz, that the love interest had zero chemistry, and that the vision of a 1950's #MAGA-esque New York was hokey at best and offensive at worst. (Don't even get me started on the whole web shooters thing) I actually vastly prefer Andrew Garfield's version of Peter Parker and the Amazing Spider-Man films, even if #2 was a total mess which absolutely necessitated scrapping the whole thing.. not least of which because Andrew Garfield was a 28 year old dude pretending to be a high school kid. In the midst of Spidey's various travails over at Sony (for those of you that don't know, Marvel declared bankruptcy in the 90's and sold the film rights for its most powerful properties - Spider-Man went to Sony, while the Fantastic Four, X-Men, Daredevil, and Punisher all went to Fox) Marvel Studios built a juggernaut that has become the home of churning out quality superhero flick after quality superhero flick. Sony and Marvel/Disney (somehow) successfully negotiated a deal for Spider-Man to join the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe, with Spider-Man appearing in Marvel films and Marvel co-producing Spider-Man films for Sony. The newest version of Spider-Man, played by Tom Holland, made his triumphant debut in last year's Captain America: Civil War, and honestly stole the show. This flick has been high on my anticipated movies list ever since.

So Spider-Man: Homecoming marks the debut of Tom Holland's Peter Parker in his own flick, with his own Aunt May (played memorably by Marissa Tomei), within the wider Marvel Cinematic Universe populated by the likes of Iron Man and Captain America.

The Good: In my estimation, this is the definitive vision of Spider-Man that we've had in movie form. There are enough changes to keep things fresh while simultaneously perfectly capturing the feel of what makes Spider-Man such a continually appealing character. Unknown director Jon Watts really knocks this one out of the park, as his Spider-Man flick transcends your ordinary superhero flick to become a memorable coming of age tale inside of a Marvel movie. Peter Parker can barely keep his life together while struggling to juggle the demands of crimefighting, high school. academic decathlon, and keeping his identity a secret from his friends and family. This version of Peter is equal parts nerd, brilliant, determined, motor-mouthed, and an epic screw up. It feels right. Wisely, this flick skips over Spider-Man's origin, as no one needs to see another Uncle Ben (or Thomas and Martha Wayne for that matter) get shot. We're thrown into a world where Spider-Man already exists and has been operating for months. The film brilliantly positions itself within the wider MCU by slipping in between the margins of existing stories, establishing a memorable and believable villain in Michael Keaton's Vulture, and positioning Spider-Man within the wider world of the Avengers. The plot is equal parts John Hughes and Iron Man, in a brilliant blending of genres that further demonstrates the flexibility and worth of the superhero film. The cast is charming top to bottom, with Holland bringing charm, wit, likability, and a ton of humor to his version of Peter Parker, and supporting characters Ned (Jacob Batalon), Liz (Laura Harrier), Flash (Tony Revolori/Lobby Boy), and Michelle (Zendaya) all perfectly rounding out the high school ensemble. Hannibal Burris and Martin Starr have memorable supporting roles, Marisa Tomei's Aunt May is warm and funny, and Robert Downey Jr. basically IS Tony Stark at this point. The star of the show, for me, is Michael Keaton. In a universe that's been populated by "meh" villains, Keaton's Vulture is a rich and fearsome villain who's equal parts Walter White and Obediah Stane. This flick is, top to bottom, an absolute blast, and also asks questions that seem to be fundamental to the "haves" and "have nots" of the larger MCU.



The Bad: my main complaint is that, for as great as Keaton's villain is, his plot ultimately doesn't make sense. The film WANTS him to be a sympathetic figure, but at the end of the day, he broke too far bad for him to feel like a TRULY worthwhile foil. There are a lot of scenes with Jon Favreau's Happy Hogan that just feel like too much given that even I don't care about Happy THAT much, and I'm the biggest Marvel nerd I know. All in all, though, it's tough to complain too much about what is ultimately one of the best times I've had at the movies in years.

Ultimately, this film is an absolute blast. Full of laughs, full of charm, you'll be grinning from ear-to-ear while (hopefully) appreciating some great performances, excellent action sequences, and a plot that seems to move much, much faster than the 2 hr 15 min runtime. For my money, this is one of the best Marvel movies yet (top 5 for sure), which makes it more than worth your time if you're a fan of Spider-Man, Marvel, or superheroes even a little.

9/10

2017: The Year in Film: "Baby Driver" Review

Edgar Wright is, without a doubt, one of the most unique and stylish directors working today. His films from Shaun of the Dead, to Hot Fuzz, to Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, are genre bending, smart, and just different from pretty much everything else that's out there today. Due to the controversy surrounding his involvement and exit from Ant-Man a few years ago, he hasn't made a film since 2013's The World's End (which I'm pretty "meh" on), but once the promotional material for this one came out, I knew I was instantly on board.

In Baby Driver we're introduced to Baby, a... driver for a mysterious criminal organization headed by Doc (Kevin Spacey), a fast talking mastermind who runs various heists with various crews. Baby is the best driver in the business, and Doc considers him something of a good luck charm. Baby is an outsider in this criminal underworld, but he's a hell of a driver.

The Good: this flick is slick, stylish, smart, and a hell of a good time. The mix of action, heist, romcom and a killer soundtrack makes this movie something that only Edgar Wright could have made. It's almost if Edgar Wright made a Tarantino screenplay and I mean that in only the best way possible. The cast from top to bottom sizzles, with Spacey, Jon Hamm, and Jamie Foxx all turning in memorable performances. Young actor Angel Elgort is the right kind of charming and he has great chemistry with love interest Lily "cousin Rose from Downton Abbey" James. The main draw here is the chase/action sequences. From the jump, the driving action here is as good as anything in the Fast and Furious franchise or the Bourne films, which I'd consider the gold standard for modern chase scenes. The action sequences are smartly crafted and so damn slick. Like all of Wright's films, this one borrows copiously from archetypes and genres across the board so that everything here feels familiar without feeling derivative. There's certainly an art to that, and long story short: this one sizzles from front to back.



The Bad: there isn't a whole lot that's bad here... but if I have a critique, it's that some of the characterization is weak and/or nonexistent for some of the supporting characters. They feel more like stock types than actual people and while that's fine it's also a little disappointing in a flick that does everything else so damn well. The plot goes 100% over the top at a certain point, but it sticks the landing which makes up for some of the excesses. I also can't shake the feeling that this one is just Drive for mainstream audiences and with a slicker veneer.

Ultimately, from the opening scene this one will suck you in and keep you glued to the screen. Full of memorable dialogue, slick action, over the top characters and enough sweet moments to make it memorably Edgar Wright, Baby Driver does not disappoint. All of the leads are great, and there are extended, eye-popping action scenes that I have no idea how they were even shot.

9/10.

2017: The Year in Film: "Wonder Woman" Review

DC's extended movie universe has to this point been.... kind of a disaster. Man of Steel was a perfectly decent flick but Batman V Superman was an overstuffed and nearly unwatchable disaster and Suicide Squad was... dumb. Warner Brothers/DC needs a success in the worst way possible, and honestly, the world is better with Marvel having competition from someone, somewhere, so there's a lot of pressure on Wonder Woman to rescue DC from its own horrible decisions. Then you have the fact that superhero movies thus far have not been overly kind to women. There's a noticeable lack of diversity both in front of and behind the camera, so the world (and DC) needs a successful woman superhero to get behind. The good news is that Wonder Woman was the best part (by a mile) of BvS, that they seem to have nailed the casting (Israeli actress Gal Gadot was amazing in the Fast and Furious franchise), that they brought in director Patty Jenkins (an unconventional choice most famous for the film Monster), and that they seem to have been taking the responsibility of launching a huge franchise anchored by a woman seriously.

So, as an unapologetic Marvel fanboy, I've never in my life read a Wonder Woman comic. I don't know a whole lot about the character except that she has ties to Greek mythology and she's a straight-up badass. In Wonder Woman, the creative powers that be decided a straight-up origin story was in order,  so we're taken to the mythical island of Themyscira during WW1.

The Good: Gadot is great, simultaneously lending the flick a heart, humor and gravitas that's been missing from DC's films since Chris Nolan departed. The rest of the cast is also strong, with Chris Pine and Gadot's chemistry being the best part of the whole endeavor. I'm not a HUGE fan of the constant slow motion in DC's films, but the action sequences are generally good, with the film generally building to a solid emotional climax, even if the villain is a little silly. Connie Nielson and Robin Wright are strong as Amazonians, and the film in general has a good-natured humor that really offsets the darkness of the WW1 setting. I think the best decision the film could have made was setting the film in the past as a true origin story, allowing the flick to exist completely separately from the mess that's been DC's films up to now.



The Bad: I think the flick just barely missed, with ultimately the villain and plot being a little nonsensical. Like I mentioned above, the slow-mo makes the action sequences seem a little overwrought and ties back in not necessarily a good way to the other DC films. It's also a little weird that there were SO MANY similarities to the first Captain America film... I think a little similarity was inevitable, but there are some very conscious choices here that make it even more reminiscent that the flick had any business being.

Ultimately, the chemistry between Gadot and Pine alone is worth the price of admission, and Wonder Woman's origin story is well worth watching. The WW1 setting makes the film truly unique and its done smartly and with enough humor to make this one an absolute blast. If you're a fan of superhero flicks, or any of the actors involved, you could do much, much worse than Wonder Woman. 

8/10.

2017: The Year in Film: "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2" Review

2014's Guardians of the Galaxy was one of the most pleasant movie surprises in years. Readers of this blog will (or should) know that I'm something of an all-around Marvel enthusiast, and the original Guardians flick was one of the absolute best that Marvel has done. Equal parts fun, heartwarming, charming, and crazy, the 2014 original raised the bar for what a comic book movie could do, in that it was just so off the rails from your typical superhero fare. It had almost a sitcom feel while mixing sci fi with classic 70's pop songs, trippy visuals, and massive action sequences. So, expectations were high for the follow-up. Would it be more of the same or represent a regression for director James Gunn, Chris Pratt, and the rest of the cast?

Following the events of Guardians of the Galaxy, our titular heroes are out there taking jobs and basking in the glow of being renowned... galaxy guardians.  In between petty squabbles and rivalries between the crew, the larger mystery of Peter Quill's parentage is hanging out there as an unresolved mystery from the first installment.

The Good: the cast is incredibly likable and they all clearly have great chemistry. If anything, this flick is even funnier than the first installment and as the universe of the Guardians expands, familiar characters are brought into the fold in ways that make the whole film all the richer for it. It's irreverent, charming, funny, and occasionally touching, and ultimately the plot is a self-contained tale about family... what's not to like? All the first film's strengths are present here, and this is absolutely the most laugh-out-loud funny of any of the Marvel movies, including the original Guardians. The cast is solid, especially Pratt and Michael Rooker, with Kurt Russell continuing his tour through summer blockbusters as Starlord's mysterious father.



The Bad: Ultimately, I think the surprise of the original film was always going to be impossible to duplicate. In making efforts to top the original, this one occasionally comes off as trying TOO hard TOO often, with Baby Groot and Drax especially crossing the line into straight up crowd pleasing territory as opposed to actual characters as both were in the original film. There's a lot to like here, but ultimately the film's disparate plots don't all work and leave the film feeling at once overstuffed and also rushed, with some story lines and characters drawing the short straw because there's just so much going on all the time. Plus, I have to say it, the music just isn't as good here. The music is such a key part to these films and this time around it feels less inspired and more forced in. It's also very weird how expanded director James Gunn's brother's role was this time... I don't like nepotism, guys.

Ultimately, if you liked the original, you're going to like this one. It's not quite as good, but still an absolute blast, and the charming cast, great visuals, and rapid-fire dialogue won't leave you disappointed. Where the original Guardians is in the discussion for the best Marvel movie of all, this one is "merely" in the top half, but still well worth watching.

8/10.