2014: The Year in Film: "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" Review

The first latter-day Planet of the Apes flick was one of the more pleasant surprises in recent years. Even with the presence of a whole lot of James Franco, it was still a surprisingly emotionally effective portrait of Caesar, the legendary founder of the ape world referenced in the original Planet of the Apes, and how he came to be so special. Through Andy "Gollum" Serkis' CGI acting, Caesar came to be as fully realized and likable a character as any live human, so the sequel became one of my more highly anticipated movies of the year.

At the close of Rise of the Planet of the Apes, we saw that the virus responsible for Caesar and the other apes' cognitive development was also lethal to humans and quickly spreading across the globe.  Dawn of the Planet of the Apes opens with Caesar and his ape society several years later having built a peaceful society all their own in the forests of Northern California. A chance encounter with some humans scouting a nearby dam sets the human colony and the ape colony on an inevitable collision course.

The Good: First, props goes to everyone involved in bringing the apes to life. Sure they are CGI and don't always look as real as they maybe should - BUT THEY ARE 100% CGI and still look pretty damn great. These are characters who barely speak, if they speak at all, and they are wholly realized, developed, and capable of having emotionally resonant moments with one another and with their human counterparts. Special praise, obviously, goes to Andy Serkis as Caesar, who just might be one of the great characters, CGI or otherwise, in film of the last 10 years, (Not an exaggeration) but Maurice is especially endearing for me and Koba makes a pretty damn great villain. The human cast is strong as well, with the criminally underused Jason Clarke (BIG Jason Clarke fan over here, guys) standing out in a role that sees him interacting at least 50% of the time with CGI apes. Gary Oldman does more with his role than a lesser actor might have, and Keri Russell is more than adequate. The post-apocalyptic cityscape of San Francisco is pretty well done, and reminded me of The Last of Us.  But at its heart, this is a flick that's about humanity and apes battling, when we know that apes are going to win, and it still manages to be emotionally affecting, strangely touching, smart, suspenseful and occasionally Shakespearian. That's no small feat, especially for an effects-driven summer tentpole.



The Bad: some of the human characters were wooden and poorly drawn, which seems odd for a flick that gave so much development to CGI apes. The "bad" human at the heart of the onset of human-ape conflict was a caricature of a movie bad guy who seemed whisked right over from the set of The Walking Dead.  Additionally, Gary Oldman seems largely wasted - it seems odd to have an actor of his caliber in what amounts to a small role. The ape scenes are SO much better and more entertaining than the human scenes that we find ourselves rooting for the apes from the onset - which I'm not sure is exactly the point of the Planet of the Apes series.

In all, this is a surprisingly smart and touching summer blockbuster, one in which the action scenes serve a purpose and don't overwhelm everything else that's going on. At its heart, this is a film about Caesar, one charismatic CGI ape, and the best motion-capture acting happening anywhere right now.  This film has a lot to say, even if it's not QUITE as smart as it thinks it is, and I for one can't wait for the next installment.

8.5/10.

2013 & 2014: The Year in Film: "The Book Thief" & "Anchorman 2" & "Robocop" Review

 

So, in the interest of getting current and reviewing movies I've seen recently in SOME proximity to when they'll be in theaters, I've decided to take the unusual (for this VERY official blog) step of reviewing several of the films that are less memorable or noteworthy for whatever reason in one collective post. Why, you ask? Because, why not? So here goes nothing.

The Book Thief

This film, an adaptation of an international best-selling novel that was on the NYT best seller list for literally years, features a young girl, Liesel, who is sent to live with a foster family following her brother's death in WW2 Germany. Without having read the book, I went in to this one having literally no idea what this film is about, other than that the main character is a young girl, and it's set during WW2.

Having seen the film, let me say that I can see what would make the book so beloved, but that what makes the story so special and highly regarded is clearly literary and internal to the characters, and this makes for a difficult adaptation for film. The tale of Liesel, who discovers a love for books during the privation, book burnings and horrors of the Second World War, in the process displaying great personal courage against the powers that be in her home country is an interesting one, but unfortunately the execution on screen is clumsy and often feels cheesy.

The Good: The story is an inspiring one, and one well worth telling. Geoffrey Rush gives it his all and is absolutely killing it in this one. He's kind and charming yet sad and serious, and he absolutely chews up the screen. Visually, the film is impressive as well, with pretty great set designs and production value. It's great to look at, and there was impressive attention to detail in recreating 1940's Germany.

The Bad: Unfortunately, the rest of the non-Geoffrey Rush cast isn't quite up to the task.  The main character, while cute and likable enough, just isn't capable or mature enough as an actress to do the kind of heavy lifting that this film required of her. It's not necessarily her fault, few actresses of her age and inexperience would be, but it makes the film fall flat. Also curious is the decision to not age her up at all. At the start of the film, it's 1938 and she's ~10. By the end, it's post WW2 and she should be 18ish, but she looks exactly the same. That's just a baffling decision. Additionally, the film didn't delve into the morality of Nazi Germany beyond "Nazi's are bad" in the least. Nazi's ARE bad, but they were also widely popular for quite a long time. Forgetting that fact does a serious disservice to the seriousness of your story. Additionally, the narrative device of having "Death" as a narrator, which I understand is something from the book, just didn't work at all. It was clumsy, cheesy, and heavy-handed, and more than a bit morbid. Maybe be a little less direct in your adaptation next time, guys.

In all, this is a clumsily executed book adaptation that ultimately fell short. If you're a Geoffrey Rush fan or a huge fan of the book, check it out, otherwise, if you're looking for an uplifting tale of the power of words and perseverance in the face of evil and adversity, maybe just read the book instead?

5/10

Anchorman 2

First, let me say that at the time of its release, I LOVED the first Anchorman. Loved it. I still do, and I'm not sure that I've ever laughed as hard in a movie theater as I did the first time I saw Ron Burgundy and his news team and their absurd hijinks. At the same time, much of the appeal of the first Anchorman was the randomness of it all. This was a world that was utterly bizarre and completely sold out in pursuit of laughs, which I absolutely appreciate. With all of that being said, a lot of what made Anchorman great was the surprise element of it. Movies that achieve "cult" status often do so by virtue of being unexpected and wholly unique. With that being said, I believe that one of the things that most hurt Anchorman 2 was the full court press advertising campaign. Will Ferrell as Ron Burgundy was hosting TV and radio shows, appearing in commercials, and doing countless interviews.  Other actors appeared in character as well on the promotional circuit. Now Ron Burgundy is hilarious, no doubt, but he's also a bit of a prick, so being completely saturated with Ron Burgundy for months before the movie was even released was an awful decision by whatever marketing or corporate entity decided that that was the way to approach the flick's promotion. But, enough of that, let's talk about the movie, shall we?

Following the events of the first Anchorman film, Ron Burgundy and his wife, Veronica Corningstone, are successful news anchors in New York City and have a young son. After Veronica is offered a promotion, Ron storms off, falling into a deep depression and returning to San Diego, where he is approached by a representative of a new, 24-hour news network, GNN. GNN is seeking to create a 24 hour news network, and is scraping the bottom of the barrel for newsmen, causing the reunification of the "news team" from the first Anchorman flick.

The Good: the actors are all funny, funny people, in pretty hilarious and likable roles. They are trading on massive amounts of goodwill from the first Anchorman go-around, and the obvious chemistry between the main characters shows, as everyone is obviously having a blast. The addition of some new faces, especially Kristen Wiig, is welcome as well. There are some funny digs at the modern day TV news networks, and ultimately, if you enjoy the characters from the first Anchorman, you'll like this one as well.

The Bad: a huge chunk of what made the first Anchorman so likable and fun was how unexpected and random it was. By its very nature, a sequel isn't going to be able to duplicate the "lightning in a bottle" feel of the first film, and it shows. The brain trust behind this one seems to have decided that "more and bigger" was the order of the day, and when it comes to the world of Anchorman, this isn't necessarily a good thing. Everything is bigger in scale and grander, and this comes off as just trying too damn hard. The battle of the news teams, one of the highlights of the first film, is duplicated by having MORE celebrities and MORE absurdity, for instance, and that's not what made the first film great.

So, in the end, if you enjoyed the first Anchorman, you'll like this one as well, as hanging out in this world with these absurd people can't be a bad thing. Is it as good as the first one? No. But how could it ever hope to be, when it comes down to it?

6.5/10

Robocop

There's a troubling trend happening in film today that we need to band together and put a stop to. That trend, simply, is rebooting things that don't need rebooted for purely financial reasons. If the creators have a specific creative re-imagining in mind? Sure, see: Chris Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy or Battlestar Galactica. If you just want to make money off of a potentially profitable property? STOP. From the Tim Burton/Mark Wahlberg  'Planet of the Apes' to the Colin Farrell 'Total Recall' to any number of a countless number of sanitized, soulless corporate reboots and remakes that have hit Hollywood over the last 15 years or so, these films pretty universally add absolutely nothing to the enjoyment and mythos surrounding the original while simultaneously robbing the entire enterprise of anything fun, creative or unique en route to an utterly forgettable piece of corporate PG-13 rated garbage. The original 'Robocop', something of a classic in a very "80's" way, is a solid entrant to 80's action and sci fi. It's a smart, subversive, bleak, dystopian, and ultra violent film painting a troubling picture of a future torn between societal violence and corporate dominance. (sound familiar?)

For the remake, the basic plot outline remains the same. A police officer suffers brutal injuries, and in order to save his life, he is remade into a cyborg killing machine in near-future Detroit. What's missing, however, is any of the subversion, the ultraviolence, the social commentary or, honestly, the raison d'etre.

The Good: The cast is tremendous. How they got this many strong actors to sign onto what became an obvious piece of corporate schlock the instant the studio insisted on a PG-13 rating is anyone's guess. Blackmail? Check out this cast: Michael Keaton, Gary Oldman, Jackie Earle Haley (who kind of kills it, btw), Michael K. Williams (Omar comin'!) and Sam freaking Jackson. Oldman does really good work here, but the script simply doesn't provide enough for the rest of the cast to do. The effects are strong, and the effort to explain how Robocop could exist is at least worth an "atta boy", considering it's kind of nonsensical in the original.

The Bad: Why, exactly, does this movie exist? It's PG-13, and its version of Detroit seems WAY nicer than the actual city, which seems to beg the question of why, exactly, the city needs a Robocop in the first place? It's bland, PC nonsense, which goes to the trouble of creating a Bill O'Reilly type talking head without ever actually giving him an identifiable political position for fear of pissing off members of the audience. That's not the key to creating a dystopian social commentary, you guys. The lead, who I liked in 'the Killing', is largely wasted here, and he's unable to bring the needed humanity to the character to get us to actually care about whether Robocop lives or dies. For that matter, none of the excellent cast is given enough to do. We're given scenes with a wife and son who literally no one cares about in lieu of actual plot. It's not 1985, guys. Putting in a random kid and random wife and just having them on screen isn't characterization. That's just lazy. Plus, WHY DOES HE HAVE A RANDOM HUMAN HAND?? He's a super strong robotic killing machine with a random flesh hand that would be shattered the first time he made contact w/ something using his super strength. Not smart, you guys.

All-around, this isn't a BAD movie, per se, but rather a pointless, safe one, that does disservice to the original. Hopefully, someday, corporations will allow creative people to be creative and step out of their way. Forgettable, safe, PC schlock like this needs to be left in the trash heap.

5/10. Just watch the original.

2012: The Year in Film: "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" Review

Caught this one on Friday night, and truth be told, I've been excited for this flick since I found out about it last fall. It's been getting serious awards buzz, and having seen it, you can definitely see why. An absolutely stacked cast, great aesthetic, and tense, mature story combine to create one of the more watchable and enjoyable adult flicks I've seen in a long time. This one is based on a novel by John Le Carre, who was a former British intelligence agent and thus likely knows a thing or two about the spy game. If you're a British actor and you AREN'T in this movie, you should give your agent a call. John Hurt, Gary Oldman, Mark Strong, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock), Toby Jones, Ciarán Hinds and "boy of the year" candidate Tom Hardy star as the veteran intelligence officers of "The Circus" and younger trigger operations agents who do their bidding. Swedish director Tomas Alfredson (Let the Right One In) makes his mainstream Hollywood debut, so let's check this one out, shall we?

It's 1973 and "Control", the head of British foreign intelligence, is convinced that there's a Soviet mole in the highest levels of British intelligence. After a failed operation, Control and Smiley, his top Lieutenant, are forced out, but the hunt for the mole continues. Over the next year, Smiley and his team meticulously attempt to puzzle out the complicated chess match that is cold-war era espionage. These aren't your James Bond spies, these are bookish men whose jobs consist of study, analysis and obsession rather than bedding exotic women and destroying cities with fanciful gadgets.

This flick is about two things: atmosphere and performances.. and it doesn't disappoint in either department. The setting is London, 1973, and this one is all muted colors, whispered conversations and backroom deals. The brief moments of action and excitement are unexpected and serve as punctuations to the tense machinations and maneuverings. The performances? Knocked out of the park. John Hurt, Tom Hardy, Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Strong and Oldman, especially. Through the use of flashbacks, the characters and their relationships with one another and their families are fleshed out, and we really see the human side of what was the front line of the Cold War. Oldman is given the most to do, and he doesn't disappoint, absolutely crushing this one out of the part and putting himself square in the middle of any awards conversation. His George Smiley is subdued, reserved and supremely competent, dedicated, loyal, determined and yet sad. In the hands of a lesser actor Smiley would come off as depressing or quiet rather than the complicated, confident and effective professional that Oldman presents.



This flick looks great, feels entirely authentic and presents Cold War intelligence as an unglamorous, thankless grind rather than the heroic romance so often presented by Hollywood. These are damaged men who sacrifice everything for country and in the name of world peace, and the flick pulls no punches in this depiction. The flick does very little hand-holding for the audience, foregoing expository dialogue for character-driven flashbacks. The performances are absolutely spectacular.. easily the best work by an ensemble I've seen all year. If I have complaints, simply that the plot at times is a little unclear.. but I feel that everything makes sense by film's end, in addition, the identity of the mole is tipped a LITTLE too heavily for my taste. The ending? Simply great. The always great Gary Oldman delivers, check this one out if you're in the mood for a complex flick made for people older than 16.

8.5/10.