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

Freaky Friday - Prometheus

With the home video release just about a week and a half away, I thought it would be good time to do a review of "Prometheus" since you can download the digital copy right now and some stores are giving the digital copy free to download today when you pre-order (hint: one of them is where I work). Anyway, I'll get a little more into this during the review, but yes Virginia, this is a prequel to "Alien" no matter how you look at it.

Summary courtesy of IMDB:

"A team of explorers discover a clue to the origins of mankind on Earth, leading them on a journey to the darkest corners of the universe. There, they must fight a terrifying battle to save the future of the human race."

Prometheus (2012)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/

Technical (5) - All hail Ridley Scott's return to Sci-Fi! Seriously, though, this is the man that made two of the most influential Sci-Fi movies ever ("Alien" and "Blade Runner") and he hasn't returned to the genre in 30 years. And it's too bad, because the man knows how to make the most memorable movies. Go look at a list of the movies he's made and try and tell me you don't vividly remember something from almost every one even if you haven't seen them in a while. Sorry to ramble, but I have to say Scott is one of my all-time favorite directors. This movie is no exception. From the opening scenes, you know that you're watching magic being made. The cinematography is breathtaking, the music is flawless, and the set designs are just awesomely done. I really love the nods to the original "Alien" in almost every design, but then they are updated and changed to be more in-line with where the technology is headed. It also shows the dichotomy between the ship and crew of "Alien" being set for mining and "Prometheus" being a scientific expedition that was greatly financed. Yes CGI was used to great effect, but I love the fact that Ridley (we're on a first name basis now, didn't you know?) used old school prosthetics and animatronics to achieve his vision as well.

Dialogue/Story (4.5) - Here's where it can get a bit sticky. Again, this is a prequel, but not in the traditional sense of this one ends where "Alien" begins. In fact, "Prometheus" is a movie that gives you answers, but then gives you more questions. I think this is why so many people were disappointed in it. They wanted it all wrapped up in a neat little bow and that's just not what happened. We get to see who created the aliens and to what purpose, but the "why" is still a mystery. All the while you have human mistakes and heroism that show us for who we really are and an android that for once, doesn't want to be human. He's perfectly happy in who he is. The dialogue is very natural and flows well. I think because Ridley allowed and encouraged ad-libbing on the set. I have to dock some for a section about 3/4 through the film where it all seems a bit rushed which I blame on the studio. I'm sure the Director's Cut when it inevitably comes out will flow better.

Acting (5) - Superb. Everyone is really great in this. Even not Tom Hardy (Logan Marshall-Green) who I've been dubious about in the past was really good here. To me, the two that out shined everyone else, though, were Michael Fassbender as David the Android and Idris Elba as Janek the pilot. They both embodied their respective roles completely. And again, here was proof that Ms. Theron was not to blame in "Snow White" because she's very understated and not at all over acting in this one. Not much else can be said other than Noomi Rapace is a great successor to Sigourney Weaver's throne as a Sci-Fi queen (sorry though, Noomi, she's not giving it up easily).

Tilt (5) - I really loved it. When I saw it in the theater I had some reservations, but after seeing it again a couple of nights ago, I realized most of them were unfounded. I still think the studio screwed with what could be a complete masterpiece, but time will tell. Ridley's Director's Cuts are always so much better than the original release of the film, so why do they continue to make cuts to his movies? Ugh.

Ta-ta for now meatheads.

Freaky Friday: Fringe

Today's Freaky Friday is an extension of Tuesday's Top 10. It is more of a plea than anything and really to no avail since the show won't be continuing past this season anyway. It's about this open letter to the general public that I got:

Dear American Audiences,

Why don't you love me?

Sincerely,
Fringe

Of course I jest, but it really rings true to me. Sure it has a rabid core fan base, but why did it never catch on? This is one of two shows that I cannot let go 24 hours without seeing (the other being Game Of Thrones) and I think if most people gave it a chance instead of dismissing it as "weird" they would love it too. Let's see if we can break it down a little and see what the major complaints can be.

1. Olivia is too cold as a character. No, she's an FBI agent that acts like an FBI agent. You have plenty of emotion in other characters and it's not that she isn't emotional, she just tries not to let her emotions interfere with her work. Why is it that a woman who doesn't let her emotions get the best of her and thinks in a logical manner considered cold when a man does the same thing he's just doing his job? Bah. Double standards.

2. Stuff like this could never happen. Besides this being the most idiotic statement ever about a SCIENCE-FICTION show (and I've really heard this complaint) it just isn't quite true. The best Sci-Fi is based in reality and where science is headed. This show is no different. Every time they come across something wholly unbelievable and then Walter starts to come up with an explanation, it actually makes alot of sense. Sure, this stuff is highly unlikely and sometimes far-fetched, but at least the "why" is grounded in real science.

3. I've never heard of it. Bullshit. I call you on it. Bullshit. Fox did a remarkable job in pumping this show the first season and really every season after that. They even strategically placed an "Observer" (the bald guys in hats) in live events that they aired during the first year. Magazines like "Entertainment Weekly" repeatedly do stories on the show to get you to try and watch. It's been everywhere so if you say you don't know of it, you're either oblivious or you really just don't care.

4. It's too convoluted. This one I will give you, but only so far. It had a rough first season where they overhauled it during the winter break and ditched a bunch of main story lines, shaking up some of the story that had been continuous in favor of a more "procedural" FBI show where each episode really didn't lead into the next much. By the mid-point of season 2, they had started to develop a real mythos (a show's distinct set of rules and terminology that is really important in Sci-Fi) that built on some things that were said and done in the first season and a half. So they didn't really dismiss much (other than Mark Valley's character), they just finally had an endgame they were working towards. Once they had this, the show made much more sense and was much easier to follow. I started watching the show from the beginning again and I'm noticing way more stuff that was said even in the first episode that made it into that over-arching mythos than I first believed.

5. It's too intellectual or "geeky". This is the only complaint that I will grant you depending on who you are. This show requires a level of intelligence because of the way things are explained. Not in a "Big Bang Theory" kind of way either. That show has some standard sitcom tropes that will keep almost anyone entertained, but "Fringe" is just not that way. You have to pay attention to everything. Hell, even those weird glyphs like the ones on the right here are actually representative of letters that spell out a word every episode. In true geek style, the show gives nods and shout-outs to many Sci-Fi staples like Star Trek (William Bell is played by Leonard Nimoy!), Phillip K. Dick (the Observers are basically the Adjustment Bureau), DC Comics' "Crisis On Infinite Earths" (the alternate reality and it's impact on this reality), and "Altered States" (the sensory deprivation tank used numerous times) just to name a few. Still, it's fun, engaging, and most of all never dry like some Sci-Fi can get.

So if you've ever said one of the above about this show, I'm hoping to have at least slightly changed your mind and that you'll seek out this show and try it. I know it is going to be sold into syndication after this season because it will hit the 100 episode mark, so when it does, try it out. I'm kinda hoping this is one of those shows that people will pick up on for years to come so that it becomes cult. Hey, Star Trek was only on for 3 seasons...it could happen...

Freaky Friday: Donnie Darko

I thought I'd, once again, try and get a rhythm and structure to the week by having some things done weekly. Thus begins the Freaky Friday segment of our show. This will be every Friday and will be a review of a horror, sci-fi, or foreign (let's face it, they're usually freaky to us) film. Usually it will be an older movie because there isn't much in the way of good horror or sci-fi that has come out in the last 10 years as far as I'm concerned and I'm not going to subject myself to some horrendous trash again just to do a review.

So to start things off, I'm going to review a movie that is a bona fide cult "classic". I use classic loosely because it isn't at least 25 years old which is where I draw the "classic" line. A little arbitrary, but I heard it once somewhere and it stuck. Which means, for anyone out there that is my age this will mean something, Nirvana (and most of the grunge era) is about to hit "classic" status. Ugh. I digress. I'm reviewing "Donnie Darko" which I knew nothing about until we got a crapload of them as a new release when it came out on DVD, so I instantly wanted to know what it was. I watched it and...well read on.

And here's the synopsis from IMDB because I will give something away if I try and do it myself: "A troubled teenager is plagued by visions of a large bunny rabbit that manipulates him to commit a series of crimes, after narrowly escaping a bizarre accident." Large bunny rabbit...lol...this isn't "Harvey" let me tell you.

Donnie Darko (2001)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246578/

Technical (4.5) - This one is fantastically done and even more impressive is that this was Richard Kelly's full-length feature debut made for a paltry $4.5 million. It never feels like it is either of those things. I guess part of the reason he was able to pull it off is setting it in high school in the '80s. I'm sure most of the budget went to the cast and securing the rights to some of the music (Tears for Fears and Duran, Duran mostly) which is absolutely appropriate for the time period. The song at the end is one of the best covers ever. There are a few special effects scenes which are done very well with the exception of one part that has always seemed unnecessary and a bit silly, hence the .5 deduction (it involves a beckoning hand). Otherwise it is edited in a way that adds to the uneasiness and slow unhinging of the tile character, has fantastic pacing, and doesn't ever shy away from the subject at hand. I feel bad for Kelly, though. His Freshmen effort was so good (and the Director's Cut even better) that everything else he's tried has not done so well, despite good casts and stories that aren't badly written. I think with "Southland Tales" he tried something WAY too conceptual for the general public and "The Box" could have tied better to what I assume was the inspiration: "The Monkey's Paw".

Dialogue/Story (5) - I'm not gonna dwell too much here because I will give something away if I do. It is a tight, well-written script that even though you sometimes think it is meandering, it is always moving the story forward. This is one of those movies that can definitely make your head hurt the first time you see it, but on subsequent viewings, you understand it more and more. The Director's Cut is a little easier to understand, but either way, at the end of it you will invariably go "Whaaaaa?" that first time. You're left with more questions than answers, but, unlike "The Hunger Games" you want to find answers and there are clues to give you answers. Nothing is too spelled out and the whole point of the ending is for you to draw your own conclusions. Immediately after the credits start rolling you want to start it over and call a buddy to talk it out with. I LOVE that kind of movie (the "Inception" effect).

Acting (5) - This is an absolutely AMAZING cast. Jake Gyllenhaal as Donnie just embodies the troubled, moody teenager in a way rarely seen. The way he stands, the way he sits, the way he walks, the psychotic smile sometimes, even the way he reaches for the popcorn...all just punctuate the issues he's dealing with. But not to say he outshines all the other cast. I can't imagine how much everyone got paid, but there are lots of people in this movie. Drew Barrymore (who executive produced, so I'm sure some of these were favors she called in), Noah Wyle, Jena Malone, Mary McDonnell ("Battlestar Gallactica"!), Patrick Swayze (awwwww), Maggie Gyllenhaal, and even an appearance by a young Seth Rogan. There are others in the cast that you'll go "Hey! That guy!" or "That lady!". Everyone pulls their own weight here so it never seems out of balance.

Tilt (5) - If you haven't guessed it by now, I LOVE this movie. I've bought at least 4 different versions of it since it's release (VHS, DVD, DVD Director's Cut, & BluRay) and I watch it at least once a year. Every time I watch it, I glean something new which to me is the sign of a great sci-fi movie. If you've never seen it, it's on Netflix (the original theatrical anyway) and if you like it, go out and buy it so you can see the Director's Cut. Don't bother with the sequel "S. Darko" though. It's pure crap. Kelly had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Total Score (4.88)

The Hunger Games

Right off the bat I'm gonna tell you I haven't read the books, so this is in no way going to influence my views on the movie other than a allusion to what might be in the books.

Based on a book written by a television writer (which explains some things) about a dystopian future where there has been a civil war and, as punishment, a young girl and boy from each of 12 Districts must battle to the death in a heavily controlled woodland environment and it's all broadcast on TV. That's about it from a setup point and I will throw up a SPOILER ALERT from here on in because there is no way I'm gonna be able to discuss this movie without spoilers.

Onward and upward.

The Hunger Games (2011)

 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392170/

Technical (3) - Everything here is not too bad considering you're talking what should have been a high budget movie made for only $78 million. It has a distinctively SyFy movie feel to it that I just couldn't shake for most of the movie. It was all pretty passable. Nothing spectacular, nothing too detrimental other than the clothing styles of the people of the Capital which were pretty distracting and just plain odd. I understand it was supposed to accentuate the dichotomy between the rich Capital and the poor Districts, but I don't understand why they had to do all that craziness with the garish makeup and clothing that made me think they should have been doing The Time Warp instead. Not everyone was so crazily dressed. Harrelson, Kravitz, Sutherland, and Bentley all showed their elitism without going way over the top. I can see guys wearing glittered eye shadow and trimming a crazy beard (he claims it was real and he had to wear it in public when not shooting...), but not a woman wearing makeup like a damn clown (I'm looking at you Banks). Otherwise the CGI works but isn't remarkable, the set pieces are pretty sparse, the music is mostly forgettable, and the camera work does it's job (except I will be glad when "Blair Witch" cam finally dies out).

Dialogue/Story (1) - Here's where the whole thing takes a dive. It pains me to see a writer not only allow their work to be butchered, but actively participate in that butchering. I can only see it that way because what I assume was sort of central in the novel is nowhere to be seen here. Bella has Jacob at home, but is out gallivanting around on TV with Edw...oh...wrong names. You get the picture though. I can't imagine that the internal conflict of the boy at home (which is never clearly defined as her love interest in the beginning) and the boy who seems to be just using her as a means to an end isn't a central theme. Another issue is that there seems to not be an over-arching story that goes beyond this one. It's alluded to at the very end, but they really didn't establish the gravity of the situation. That seemed to be a problem with the whole story! They didn't establish much in the way of relationships (we're not given time to "get" the older/younger sister thing with the girl from District 11 before she's dead which takes away from the emotional impact the scene should have had), of the history (Were the Districts there before? How are these Districts divided? Why are some so much poorer than others? Why were the black kids from the poorer district?), and even of the structure of this mythos (Was Harrelson a winner from District 12? Who the hell was Banks in all this? Other than obviously being a stylist, did Kravitz really have a purpose in sending her off?). SO many questions and not in a good way like "Donnie Darko" where you really want to discuss them, more like questions that frustrate and that you're not even given a crumb to go on. I'm absolutely SURE most of this was more detailed in the books (I'm gonna read it, I'll let you know). Dialogue was fairly predictable too.

Oh and I don't feel like looking up their character names in the movie, so deal with it.

Acting (4) - Stellar cast here. Only Hutcherson was a little bit of a let down. Otherwise, everyone was really on their game. Tucci is over the top, but in a good way for what his character requires. Banks is reaching just a little, but it wasn't so bad that it detracted from the movie. It kinda showed how detached emotionally she was from the idea of a bunch of kids trying to kill each other. The rest of the cast perform admirably, with no one really standing out too much which I think in this kind of a movie is good.

Tilt (3) - I didn't hate it. I didn't LOVE it, but I didn't hate it. I enjoyed it as a popcorn movie and nothing else. I'm trying not to dissect it too much, because the more I do, the more it falls apart (did we completely forget about the cannons for all the middle of the movie???). The more I think about it, the more it should have had something to say. Futuristic dystopian movies should all contain a lesson and the only lesson I can glean is "stay out of the way and everyone will pretty much kill each other and then you can pull some sort of bullshit out of  your hat at the end and win...pretty much pissing everyone in power off.

Total Score - 2.75

Overall not a bad movie, per se, but definitely had the potential to be so much more.