Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) - Review

Not much to say in preface, other than I love the "Planet of the Apes" franchise. I love the originals (even though they got campy and more silly as the movies progressed) and I even really like the Tim Burton attempt at a reboot (minus the ending that is so WTF, even Burton can't explain it). So when they attempted a 2nd reboot I met it with a mix of apprehension and geek glee, I mean it is rare for Hollywood to reboot something and it work with very few glaring exceptions like the Ocean's movies, Batman, and Star Trek. I loved it though. For a mainstream movie it was thoughtful, meaningful, and touching. So I met this new one with a bit of trepidation. Would it continue the first's thought provoking kind of story or would it fall to the pressure of being a summer blockbuster with lots of action and nothing to say (which will be the focus of an upcoming post)? Let's find out.

Summary from IMDB:

"In the wake of a disaster that changed the world, the growing and genetically evolving apes find themselves at a critical point with the human race."

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2103281/?ref_=nv_sr_1 

Technical (4.5) - An almost flawless action flick. This is a major credit to Matt Reeves who has only really done three features: 1 rom-com ("The Pallbearer") and two low-budget horror movies ("Cloverfield" and "Let Me In"). Granted they were all decent enough, but no one would have believed he coulda pulled off such a effects heavy movie so well. Speaking of effects, they are fantastically realized with natural movement of the apes, the sets which I'm sure were mostly CGI don't look it, and the action sequences are well staged and realized. The musical score is absolutely AMAZING with its major nods to the music in the original. Every penny of the rather large budget was well spent and seen on the screen. The only real issue here I had, and therefore the .5 deduction, is the sound. Now I saw it in a Dolby Atmos theater which was absolutely amazing with the natural surround sound, so it wasn't the effects, it was the voices of the apes. Not the way they were realized either, but the levels and how unnatural they seemed in the flow of the movie. It was a little too obvious that they were either completely recorded separately or recorded at the same time, but altered considerably before hitting the screen. Just took me out almost every time they spoke.

Script/Dialogue (4.5) - The real star of the film. It is intelligent, organic, and heartfelt. There are lots of parallels between the apes and humans that are subtly drawn and everyone acts in a way that makes sense for their position. Conversations flow naturally and smoothly with no one acting out of character. There are several nods to the original movies, though as with "Rise" they are kind of veering slightly from cannon, but it makes loads more sense than how the original dealt with the origins of the overthrow. I think they are basically treating it as if the sequels never existed and just treating the original "Planet of the Apes" as the endgame. Which is fine with me, they got kinda campy and nonsensical as things went on. It does, however, continue the original's tradition of being deep and meaningful beyond what is overtly the storyline. My only issue with the story is that they humans are not as fleshed out as I would like. We spend loads more time with the apes and how their relationships are defined than with the humans. I feel like there was way more written, but they started having to cut out parts and had to use way more shortcuts to the character's motivations like the slightly out of place break down by Gary Oldman at one point after finding a picture. Just rings of having to truncate for time.

Acting (4) - Honestly there's not much going on with the acting. The humans are basically just passable. No one really is that great. Gary Oldman is solid as usual, but he doesn't have loads of screen time and the only other one I think is slightly above average is Kirk Acevedo as the resident untrusting asshole. Otherwise they aren't amazing, but aren't bad. They serve their purpose and that's about it. The apes really steal the show with Andy Serkis in the center as Caesar. Someone please give this man an Oscar, because he acts more with a rubber suit and dots all over him than 99% of Hollywood. I doubt they will ever change the rules and allow him to be nominated in anything that isn't a technical award, but he deserves way more. I'm sure he'll eventually get some sort of special award, but that isn't really fair.

Tilt (5) - I enjoyed the hell out of the movie. It isn't perfect, but it damn sure is one of the best movies of the year so far. Never once did I look at my watch or nod off (and I've been working overnights, so I'd only had about 2 hours of sleep in the previous 24 hours). It really is that good. It wasn't perfect, but sometimes it can't be. I think the only way to make the movie they really wanted to would have been to make it over 3 hours. Not that I would have cared, but the studios rarely will allow over 2.5. Definitely see it, but watch "Rise" one more time before you go, there are several things that reference it.

Total Score: 4.5

Estar Gwars

Once again I am back because I feel I have something to say and it's about one of the things that EVERYONE seems to have an opinion about: Star Wars Episode VII. Like I normally say, this isn't an argument to defend the movie, just to make you think more about it. I'm gonna bring up a few things that people are skeptical about with it and see if maybe I could shed some light on those issues.

Let's begin.

"It can't be good that Disney is behind it."

I know it is kinda fashionable to pick on Disney, but why is that? Yes they are a big conglomerate that has loads of money and continues to pick up properties left and right (and geek properties at that), but what exactly have they gotten wrong lately? Marvel has gotten better with the Avengers continuity being great so far (including their animated outings) and their cartoons are way better than they've been in years. Part of the reason for the latter is a bit of a detriment to the one thing that has gone down under their "parentage": Pixar. The reason for that, though, is that most of the original team from Pixar has moved on. Brad Bird is doing live action ("Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" was directed by him under J.J. Abrams as producer), so is Peter Docter, Steve Jobs has passed, and John Lasseter and Edwin Catmull have gone on to be in charge of all Disney animation.Only Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich are really still doing the hands-on and that's a harder job when you aren't surrounded by the others anymore.

But, honestly, we aren't talking animation anyway. Now, Star Wars movies are not R-rated and are pretty family friendly to begin with, so what exactly is the problem? Even if you want to go down that road, Disney owns Touchstone pictures who have done "Con Air", "Sister Act", "The Prestige", "Dead Poet's Society", and "The Insider". They also owned Miramax and therefore Dimension films during their heyday, producing "Scream", "The Faculty", and the Quentin Tarantino, Kevin Smith, and Robert Rodriguez films. So they have a very diverse pedigree that doesn't have a huge track record of stifling creativity (except maybe when Michael Eisner was in charge). So really, nothing to fear there.

"George Lucas isn't involved, oh no."

And what is exactly wrong with that? He almost killed the franchise himself! Episodes I and II were awful and he was in charge of them from start to finish. Plus, he allowed the lore to get muddled and the canon to get contradictory. Soooooo, can they really screw it up more? Nope. Canon is being streamlined and made into a more cohesive narrative which is a good thing (although don't get me started on Korriban being made into Moraban) and they hired Lawrence Kasdan of "Empire" and "Raiders" fame to write, so I think the story is in good hands.

"J.J. Abrams? What the hell?"

This seems to be a main sticking point and one I really don't get. What exactly has he done wrong? Sure he started with "Felicity" (which I never watched, but I'm told was actually pretty good), but he's also created some of the biggest Sci-Fi shows in the last decade and a half: "Alias", "Lost", and my personal favorite "Fringe". He also is a huge fan of the era that spawned the original Trilogy. "Super 8" was a love letter to the works of Spielberg and he has said himself that he's afraid to screw up "Star Wars" because he loves it so much. He didn't feel the same way about "Star Trek" and I think he did a bang up job with those.

Speaking of reboots, he has a history of rebooting franchises that have strayed considerably in a successful way. As I said, I liked the "Star Trek" reboot and felt it had a reverence for the originals that had not been seen in a while. Most forget he also rebooted the "Mission: Impossible" movies after John Woo completely disregarded what made the franchise so good in the first place and made a flashy action packed movie that had more to do with Bourne than M:I (for the record, I like the Bourne movies, they just aren't what a M:I movie should be). Abrams made a movie that really felt like an extension of the first movie and took the series to a whole new level. In fact, I'd kinda like to see him get a crack at the Bond franchise. Sure he's not the most talented director ever and he certainly loves those lens flares that I'm not fond of, but he isn't Uwe Boll. He respects the source material and is afraid of failure. Sounds good to me.


So give him a chance. Give the movie a chance. I doubt highly it could ever be as bad as "The Phantom Menace".