Movie Review: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Caesar (Serkis) and Will (Franco).

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)
Directed By: Rupert Wyatt
Starring: James Franco, Andy Serkis, Freida Pinto, John Lithgow and Brian Cox

Heading into the summer, Rise of the Planet of the Apes wasn't likely at the top of most filmgoers "must see" lists. After all, it appeared as though Hollywood finally felt like admitting that it had run out of fresh ideas and was willing to settle on rebooting yet another tired franchise as a quick cash-grab.

After five films, two TV series and Tim Burton's most recent interpretation, what more could studios possibly say about those "damned dirty apes?" A lot, apparently.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is not only the surprise smash of the summer, but it's arguably the best film of the entire franchise, which dates all the way back to the 1968 original. As the first film in a planned trilogy, this reboot starts all the way back at the beginning -- essentially making it a prequel (of sorts) to the Charlton Heston original.

Set in present day San Francisco, disease researcher Will Rodman (James Franco) spends nearly every waking moment concocting and testing a cure for Alzheimer's -- from which his beloved father, Charles (John Lithgow) suffers. He and his girlfriend, Caroline (Freida Pinto), wind up secretly taking custody of a baby chimp named Caesar (Andy Serkis) after a presentation to a for-profit research company takes a disastrous turn. As Caesar grows, Will discovers the chimp has inherited the chemically induced genius IQ of his dead mother -- making him smarter (he's fluent in sign language) and more aggressive with each passing year. When Caesar violently lashes out in defence of his loved ones one day, the chimp is taken to a brutal ape "sanctuary" run by a cruel man (Brian Cox) and his sadistic son (Tom Felton, with more lines and screen time here than in his entire 10 year stint with the Harry Potter franchise). Caesar is left to fend for himself as he struggles to come to terms with his own potential and live up to his regal name.

Caesar (Serkis).

Even for those reluctant to see yet another ape-fest, do yourself the favour and watch it for Serkis -- covered by motion capture technology and CGI but not, by any means, buried beyond recognition. Somehow the personality he instills in his characterization of Caesar shines through all the computer graphics, resulting in one of the years finest performances to date. Caesar is a complex bundle of emotions and instincts -- both human and animalistic. It says a lot about Serkis' performance that his creation of Caesar is, by far, more fascinating than any of the humans on the screen. Serkis has perfected the difficult art of giving a truly wonderful, subtle performance while physically obscured by technology and it will likely be years before anyone comes close to his masterful ability.

Essentially an action film at its core, Rise of the Planet of the Apes has moments of emotional commentary on animal cruelty interspersed with wooden dialogue and over-the-top action sequences. However, it never ceases to entertain and grab viewer attention which is ultimately what is expected of a summer blockbuster -- if it can tug at your heartstrings in between its action sequences, it's a job well done.

Overall, it's a very good film. Certainly better than anyone expected. In yet another summer filled with lackluster blockbusters and quick cash-grabs, Rise of the Planet of the Apes rises above its seasonal competition and emerges as one of the top quality films of the summer. It even already has Oscar buzz for Serkis' performance (although it will remain to the be seen whether or not that hype can still stick months down the road). While the film won't be recognized for any awards other than deserved ones for Serkis and the special effects, it's arguably the best summer blockbuster since the 2009 Star Trek reboot.

FINAL GRADE: B+

Upcoming Release: Twixt (2011)

Elle Fanning and Val Kilmer

An original (way to go, Hollywood!) gothic horror film written and directed by Francis Ford Coppola! I'm already lined up for opening night.

A friend of mine showed me the Twixt trailer early last week -- and it had me intrigued right away. It's not so much a trailer (it's nearly four minutes long) as a sneak peek. It's focuses on a series of bizarre child murders in a small town -- and throws in suggestions of witches and/or vampires as the culprits.

Val Kilmer plays a Stephen King-ish horror novelist who has arrived in town for an autograph signing when he's lured into the murder mysteries by both the local sheriff (Bruce Dern) and a ghostly girl named V (Elle Fanning) who keeps appearing in his dreams. On top of it all, actor Ben Chaplin is listed as playing the role of Edgar Allan Poe. How could you not be intrigued? It all sounds very Stephen King meets Twin Peaks!

Val Kilmer and Ben Chaplin ...as Edgar Allan Poe.

It could be a really interesting departure for Coppola -- no gangsters or rebellious teens in sight. Most of his recent film dealings have been as a producer over the years, so it was about time he got back behind the camera.

My only concern is the reminder of his 1992 foray into supernatural horror -- Bram Stoker's Dracula, with Gary Oldman in the leading role. Although that interpretation of the classic vampire novel has its loyal fans, I could barely sit through it in one sitting. But that was all nearly 20 years ago now and Twixt looks like it has a lot of potential to be a perfectly bizarre and grisly film. I haven't come across an official release date (some websites have different dates than others), but it is listed as being a 2011 film, so it's likely it will be released around Halloween.

I love a good horror film as much as anyone, but so few great ones have come out over the last few years. I have high hopes for Twixt.

What do you think of the sneak peek trailer? 

Casting News: Tarantino's Django Unchained

I realize I'm a little late with this news, but a few weeks ago it was announced that Kevin Costner would be joining the cast of Quentin Tarantino's upcoming Django Unchained. I think he's the final missing piece of the puzzle and it will be set to start filming soon.

Tentatively scheduled for a Christmas 2012 release (although I really hope we don't actually have to wait that long!), Tarantino's latest is a throwback to the spaghetti westerns of the 1960s. There are only a few details released about the plot so far -- and, if the rumours of the premise are true, it sounds fantastic!

Costner will play Ace Woody, a man who trains slaves to fight to the death solely for the entertainment of a sadistic plantation owner named Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). Django (Jamie Foxx), one of the slaves, manages to escape and teams up with a German bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) to exact revenge and rescue his long-lost love (Kerry Washington). The film also co-stars Samuel L. Jackson and Keith Carradine.

I'm beyond excited -- I'm such a huge fan of Tarantino and he so rarely disappoints. In fact, the only Tarantino film I was a little bit disappointed with was Death Proof (2007) and even that wasn't all that bad! If I were an actress or screenwriter working in Hollywood, I'd give up the opportunity to work with pretty much anyone else in order to work on a Tarantino film.

Anyway, I love the premise and I'm really loving the cast. I like that a couple Tarantino regulars are returning (although I'd really love to see him work with Harvey Keitel and Tim Roth again in the future!). I especially love that he wrote another part for Waltz who needs another great role immediately in order to save his reputation (his agent should be fired ...he hasn't made a good film since his Oscar win). DiCaprio and Costner are really interesting choices: I think both have the potential to fit really, really well in a Tarantino flick and they'd probably ace his dialogue. It would be something different for DiCaprio and Costner, who both tend to play a variation of the same role in a lot of their films.

All in all, should be another great film for Tarantino!

What do you think of the cast announcements for Django Unchained?

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two

Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two

Directed By: David Yates

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman and Helena Bonham Carter

Ten years and eight feature length films later, the adventures of J.K. Rowling's boy wizard comes to a close. A generation of kids who grew up reading about black magic, goblins and hidden Horcruxes will now be closing a chapter on their childhood. Although I have not read the books myself, many of my friends credit the series with teaching them about loyalty, friendship and first loves -- essential life lessons that go above and beyond what is normally expected in your average fantasy series. 

However, as I mentioned in my November 2010 review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One: Peter Jackson managed to make all three of his The Lord of the Rings films a cohesive story. They followed one thread and worked well, both together and as individual, stand-alone films. I find that this has never been the case with the Harry Potter franchise. Granted, there are a lot of films that the screenwriters have to struggle to string together, yet for someone like me who has never read the books, it can be alienating. Nearly each Harry Potter film has had a new director and, as a result, has a different tone and atmosphere than its predecessor, which I also think is the root cause of some of its issues. I think it makes them feel like jagged vignettes that don't always quite fit together as a whole.

In this final instalment the film begins right where the last one left off -- Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has retrieved the Elder Wand from the corpse of Dumbledore (Michael Gambon). Meanwhile, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint) team up to try to find the mysterious Horcruxes -- each one containing a small, yet vital, fragment of Voldemort's soul. In destroying each of the Horcruxes, Voldemort's power weakens and sets the story up for the much-anticipated duel between Harry and his snake-like nemesis. 

Director David Yates returns with his same cast and crew and, as a result, these final two films in the franchise come together nicely in terms of atmosphere, tone and visuals. The cinematography is beautiful -- all dark greys, browns and earthy greens, lending the finale a sort of aesthetic acknowledgment that it has come to a dark, emotional end. 

Yet, Deathly Hallows Part Two lacks a structural tightness to its story, although this has more to do with Rowling than it is the fault of the screenwriters. From what I gather of the book series, it's ultimately all leading up to this final duel between good and evil. However, it does seem to have taken an awfully long time to get to the point of it all. Did Rowling really need seven novels of misadventures at Hogwarts to effectively illustrate her life lessons on friendship, loyalty and good vs. evil? Probably not. As a result, the entire film series was a combination of false starts and anti-climaxes, resulting in sometimes plodding films (specifically the sixth film, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, of which I remember next to nothing, despite having seen it more than once). 

Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort.

The strongest link in this film franchise has, and always will be, the acting -- all of which improves with each film. Emma Watson (as Hermione) and Rupert Grint (as Ron), in particular, have both matured into great young actors who brought a lot to their roles as young, blossoming wizards. Without them, Harry would have ultimately failed in many of his tasks. Their unflagging loyalty to their gifted friend remains one of the franchise's most powerful lessons in what it means to be a true friend. It makes it inevitable that both Hermione and Ron will both come to appreciate that dedication in one another and fast-track their relationship past the platonic stage -- and thankfully Watson and Grint have a charming, opposites-attract chemistry. 

However, if this final instalment belongs to anyone, it belongs to Ralph Fiennes and Alan Rickman. Both do a tremendous job with what they are given to work with (which isn't a lot, especially in the case of Rickman). 

As Lord Voldemort, Fiennes is fabulous -- teaching the audience the art of subtlety; giving a masterful performance of evil, even while buried beneath layers and layers of caked on make-up with only his eyes to convey his dark thoughts. It's a pity it took so long for his character to come anywhere near front and centre in the franchise. Fiennes is absolutely fascinating to watch and he turned Voldemort into a remarkably creepy villain. 

Alan Rickman as Severus Snape.

As the tragically misunderstood Severus Snape, Rickman is finally given his chance to shine. Why Rowling took so long to reveal the unrequited love Snape harboured and his desire to protect Harry is anyone's guess. Rowling very nearly deprived her audience of feeling any sense of understanding for the Hogwarts teacher, choosing instead to reveal everything all at once at the very end. As a result, the audience is forced to quickly catch up on an entire life's worth of pining and loss in Snape. Oh, what might have been -- for both the character of Snape and Rickman as an actor -- had Rowling delved deeper into her creation much earlier in the series, allowing her audience to relate and grieve with Snape, instead of making it all feel like an afterthought. Instead, the audience is left wondering about what more there could have been to the tragic (and disappointingly underused) character of Snape. 

Once all is said and done, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two will likely leave all those loyal Potterheads happy, thrilled and nostalgic for their childhood. If those devotees left the theatre satisfied than that's ultimately all that matters. Although it was a flawed series it still achieved what any good blockbuster should -- a loyal fanbase that welcomed its coming-of-age life lessons and its portrayal of good vs. evil. 

FINAL GRADE: B

Question: What was your favourite Harry Potter film?

Movie Rant: Saddest Movie of All Time?

The Champ, starring Ricky Schroder and Jon Voight.

So, two American psychology professors did a little research and determined that the nearly three minute climax of the 1979 boxing flick, The Champ, makes it the "saddest movie ever made."

...Alright.

They've supposedly been working on this research project since 1988 (!!) in order to find the saddest film clip ever (I wish I had that job! Seriously). After testing more than 250 movies on a bunch of subjects, The Champ came out the champ of tearjerker moments.

Random, right? You'd think the most tear-worthy scenes would be from films like Titanic, Schindler's List or anything involving the tagline "based on a true story." Nope. Supposedly even the most cynical of viewers lost their composure watching the climax of the Franco Zeffirelli flick.

The Plot:  Billy Flynn (Jon Voight), a former boxer-turned-horse trainer, raises his little son T.J. (Ricky Schroder, that kid from Silver Spoons) all by himself after his wife, Annie (Faye Dunaway), abandoned the family years earlier. Billy struggles to save what little money he can, but ultimately decides to return to the ring one last time to earn more money so his son can have a better life. After winning the final fight and being named The Champ, Billy suddenly dies and (*cue tears*) his little son tries to wake him up.


Now, I've never seen this film but after this research study was released I looked up the climax scene (linked below). It's a little hard to get completely wrapped up in it having not seen the whole movie, but I can see why it would be very touching for a lot of people. All credit must be given to Ricky Schroder who is super-cute and can cry with the best of them in this scene. It looks like he gives a great performance ...something rare for child actors. My only beef with this study is that it calls The Champ the "saddest movie of all time" ...but I highly doubt the other nearly two hours of the films are sad. It shouldn't win that distinction based on one scene alone. A more appropriate title would have simply been "saddest movie scene of all time."

I couldn't choose one "saddest movie scene of all time", just like I couldn't pick "saddest overall movie of all time" ...there are too many to count. I wouldn't even know where to start.

Question: Do you have a pick for either "the saddest movie of all time" or "the saddest movie scene of all time"?

Movie Rant: (Fairly Recent) Movies I Think Are Underrated

The Talented Mr. Ripley

I thought this could be a sort of companion piece to the Popular Movies I Dislike list I did last week.

The movies on this list were pretty much all universally acclaimed by critics. But I consider these films underrated because, in talking with other people, I find many either haven't seen them or they've never even heard of them at all.

There are a ton of underrated films out there, from each and every decade. This list will be more "recent" films -- the oldest being from 1984 and the most recent from 2008. Going back through the history of world cinema to find more underrated gems from other decades would be a task and a half -- so, in no particular order, here's a list of fairly recent movies I consider underrated/sadly ignored by the masses nowadays.

(1) The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)
In this mostly faithful adaptation of Patricia Highsmith's novel, the late Anthony Minghella directed a moody, atmospheric murder mystery among the sights and sounds of Italy. It feels like an old-fashioned thriller and Matt Damon's restrained, yet perfectly awkward and eerie, performance allows the audience to get lost in the bizarre enigma that is Tom Ripley. I still consider this Damon's best performance.

Amadeus

(2) Amadeus (1984)
The film won Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor, yet it remains largely forgotten by almost everyone outside of its loyal fan base. Those expecting a straight-forward biography of the brilliant composer, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, will be disappointed -- however, this visually beautiful film focuses on the myths, the addictions and the jealousy behind the famous Austrian genius' short life. With rich performances (especially by F. Murray Abraham as the jealous Salieri) and an authentically historical atmosphere, Amadeus is an absolutely fascinating look at an artist's dark descent.


(3) Zodiac (2007) 
Everyone loves David Fincher, right? Well, no one seemed all that interested in his masterful recreation of the investigation into the famous 1970s Zodiac murders. The film was a dud at the box office and most people complained about its running time and the slow pace. Granted, it's recommended that you brush up on your knowledge of the case beforehand, but I believe Zodiac will go down as Fincher's most underrated masterpiece. It was ignored and is already largely forgotten, but it's an eerie look at a horrific murder case with wonderful performances (especially by Mark Ruffalo) and a great attention to period detail.

(4) Amelie (2001)
Nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Academy Awards, it wound up losing in a shocking upset. Incredibly popular upon it's initial release ten years ago, it has since receded into the background. This whimsical gem from France was a breakthrough for star Audrey Tautou but, more importantly, it's that rare film that improves with each viewing. It's more than just a fairy tale love story and it's filled with wonderfully genuine commentary on how people choose to live their lives. It will leave you wishing you could see the world through the eyes of someone like Amelie Poulain.

American Psycho

(5) American Psycho (2000)
You either love it or you hate it. The first time I saw the film I know I missed out on a lot of its dark comedy and commentary on yuppie society of the 1980s. Having re-watched it a couple of times over the years, I realized what a great (albeit understated) adaptation it is of a very complex (and graphic!) Bret Easton Ellis novel. Christian Bale nails his performance as Patrick Bateman, the wealthy New York investment banking executive who slowly loses himself in his perverse and violent fantasies.

(6) Boogie Nights (1997)
This cautionary tale of how a young man went from small town student to a big-time porn star named Dirk Diggler is arguably director P.T. Anderson's best film to date. It's a film that is rarely mentioned anymore, but it's an intimate and often hilarious look at the porn industry of the 1970s and 1980s through the eyes of the famously well-endowed Diggler. Full of wonderful performances in a large ensemble cast that includes Mark Wahlberg, Julianne Moore, Burt Reynolds, John C. Reilly, Philip Seymour Hoffman and William H. Macy, Boogie Nights also boasts a killer soundtrack. Anderson has Quentin Tarantino's knack for picking great songs to accompany his films.

(7) In Bruges (2008)
This film debuted in one lonely theatre in Toronto a few years back and, when mentioned, it's usually met with blank stares. Despite the fact that it was critically acclaimed and earned Colin Farrell a Best Actor Golden Globe, it's an under-the-radar film from the U.K. that deserved more attention than it received. Watching the delightfully un-PC hitmen, played by Farrell and Brendon Gleeson, run around the medieval city of Bruges is hilarious, heartwarming and tragic all at once. In Bruges is classified as a dark comedy, but it's so much more than that.

Secretary

(8) Secretary (2002)
Speaking of small indie films that are often met with blank stares -- Secretary is that fantastic little film that you haven't even heard of, let alone seen. Maggie Gyllenhaal is so perfectly cast as a mentally ill young woman heading back into the workplace that I often continue to associate Gyllenhaal with her character, Lee Holloway. James Spader plays the demanding lawyer that she works for -- and the two ultimately embark on a sexual, sadomasochistic affair. It's a wonderfully bizarre love story.

(9) The New World (2005)
The fact that this is widely considered to be Terrence Malick's weakest film is no insult to the work itself -- it's still a lyrical, poetic ode to man's ever-changing relationship with nature, told through the eyes of 17th century Englishman John Smith (Colin Farrell) and Pocahontas (Q'orianka Kilcher). With it's leisurely pace, long segments of stunning visuals and whispered dialogue, The New World won't be to everyone's personal taste, but it's a masterpiece that often gets lost in the shuffle of other more well-received Malick films.

Downfall (Der Untergang)

(10) Downfall (2004)
This German film was nominated for a Best Foreign Language Film award at the Oscars -- only to suffer a surprising loss, much like Amelie in 2001. Bruno Ganz gives a stunning and authentic-feeling performance as Adolf Hitler during the rapid decline of his power. With his subtly trembling hands (Hitler was rumoured to have had Parkinson's Disease), watery eyes and stooped shoulders, Ganz embodies the diminishing fire of one of the world's most violent dictators. The entirety of the film takes place in Hitler's bunker in Berlin during the final days of his tumultuous life. Downfall dared to show a softer side to the dictator -- one who thanked people for their loyalty, married his longtime girlfriend, Eva Braun, and tearfully mourned the betrayal of Albert Speer, one of his most trusted men. You'll feel as though you are watching an actual documentary on Hitler's final moments.

Question: What films do you think are underrated or have been largely forgotten?

Movie Review: Horrible Bosses

(Left to Right): Bateman, Day and Sudeikis

Horrible Bosses (2011)
Directed By: Seth Gordon
Starring: Jason Bateman, Charlie Day, Jason Sudeikis, Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston, Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx

The same summer that gave us the uninspired comedy sequel The Hangover 2 has also given filmgoers two fresh, hilarious hits -- Bridesmaids and, now, Horrible Bosses.

We've all had our fair share of unlikeable bosses -- but did we dislike them enough to actually want to conspire to kill them? (If the answer is yes, maybe keep that bit to yourself). Jason Bateman, Charlie Day and Jason Sudeikis play three average joes whose only real excitement in their lives is the stress level they reach at work -- all three have nightmare bosses that make the workplace a living hell.
 
Nick (Bateman), Kurt (Sudeikis) and Dale (Day) conspire to do away with each of their bosses during a drunken visit to the pub one night. Why do their bosses inspire such hatred in the seemingly harmless pals? Nick's boss, David Harken (Spacey), enjoys tormenting and publicly humiliating him, going so far as to withhold a job promotion from Nick, simply because he can. Kurt, on the other hand, is devastated when Bobby Pellitt (an unrecognizable Farrell), the son of Kurt's beloved (and recently deceased) boss, takes over for his old man and proceeds to make everyone miserable in the process. And, finally, there's Dale, who elicits the least amount of sympathy from his two pals because his boss is the beautiful Dr. Julia Harris (Aniston) -- a dentist who has taken a particular liking to Dale and sexually harasses him on a daily basis. The three friends hire Dean "Motherfucker" Jones (Foxx) as a "murder guru" of sorts, in an attempt to come up with a plan that will satisfy all three of them and free them from those evil overlords.

Audiences can take comfort in knowing that these three buffoons could never actually successfully pull off a triple homicide, allowing you to just sit back and enjoy the ride. It's that rare dark comedy that has a few surprising tricks up its sleeve to keep you guessing about the outcome until the very end.
 
Bateman and Sudeikis both play characters similar to those they've played numerous times before, but their comedic timing is impeccable, especially the droll and sarcastic Bateman -- a master of understated comedy. As for this Day fellow, I've never seen him in anything but his small stature and impish charm actually reveal a large talent for hilarious scene-stealing. He usually overshadows his other two co-stars with his manic energy and perfect comedic timing. 

Farrell as Bobby Pellitt

Spacey excels at playing evil, conniving men -- and his character, David, is the most unlikeable of the three bosses because he's probably the closest to how some top corporate men can be in real life. You hate the guy and that's all thanks to Spacey's ability to inspire loathing.

Aniston is probably the most shocking, playing against type. She's never been raunchier in her entire career and, for the first time, has eliminated any passing thoughts of her Rachel Green character from Friends. She's such a funny comedienne, and it's great to finally see her cut loose.

The standout, though, is Farrell. With his receding hairline (complete with wispy comb-over) and added paunch, he a coarse, vulgar and rude cocaine addict who gets off on ruling the roost. Not only does he get in some great one-liners, but just watching him roll around the office in his chair will make audiences laugh.

In the middle of yet another summer movie season full of blockbuster sequels and comic book adaptations, Horrible Bosses stands out as one of Hollywood's better offerings -- a genuinely funny film with an all-star cast that each bring something different to the table. Here's hoping they don't ruin this film by giving it countless sequels.

FINAL GRADE: B+