Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes (2011) ****1/2

Let's be honest with ourselves. This summer has not been the greatest movie wise. It's been kind of weak actually, with the lackluster Green Lantern opening it up and things have gone down hill from there. Then I heard of another Planet of the Apes movie, which after the last one seemed like a horrible idea. Let it die, I said. It's a franchise pushing fifty and Tim Burton's remake fest did nothing to help the cause of re-introducing damn dirty apes to the public.

Planet of the Apes was one of the staples growing up, along with Star Wars. There is still a Planet of the Apes trash can sitting at my moms house as I write this (any offers?). I was cautious about this film, with its predecessor and the fact it was getting the August end of summer release date which usually isn't a good sign. Shockingly, I will admit how wrong I was about the Apes for a new generation.

Rise is pure prequel that follows Will Rodman (James Franco) in his quest to cure Alzheimer's with a drug that repairs lost brain cells. After a catastrophic event that sets his research back by a decade he ends up caring for a baby chimp named Caesar (Andy Serkis) that has inherited that enhanced IQ of his mother and develops even faster than a human child. Caesar is raised as a human, yet doesn't fit in. He doesn't know where he falls in the ways of the world, being shunned by humans and apes. Eventually he makes a choice after seeing the suffering and indignities laid upon his fellow travelers.

The key to Rise of the Planet of the Apes  are the performances, mainly by the CGI enhanced apes themselves. There's more feeling and emotion from the faux primates than their human counterparts, yet it's not over the top, cartoony emotion. It's buried underneath the face of the wild. It's subtle, yet it's not. This is very difficult to explain. By the second half of the film they steal the show. Once again an Apes film delivers state of the art special effects, although they are comparable to the invention of a stone wheel and a Corvette. That's progress.

Apes is the best movie I've seen this summer and probably this year. It could be accused of being a little slow in the beginning, but it keeps you interested and that's they key to the movie. I don't care how much stuff you blow up in the second half, if you fail to keep people interested with a good story all will be lost. The length doesn't bludgeon the film as we've seen in the last few years and it succeeds from it. A great flick to end the summer with.

Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part Two (2011)****

Harry Potter 7.5 begins where the last film left off. Harry (Daniel Radliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) continue to scour Britain for the remaining horcruxes containing the soul of Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). The film comes to a climax at Hogwarts where the forces of good and evil face off. 

To start I have to say that I didn't care for the first half of Deathly Hallows. The film was a slow, dull journey about camping in the woods. It's like the British version of Deliverance. This second half makes up for all of that, leaving one to wonder if splitting the book up was actually to fit everything in or to get movie goers to pay to admissions. This is a high spirited film with more to offer than last time. Instead of dragging 7.5 flew by to it's ultimate climax between Harry and Voldemort. A fitting ending for the series.

Phenomenons like Harry Potter are rare things. This has been a film series that an entire generation has grown up with. I never understood the obsession, but it's not for my generation of fuddy duddy's. We had Star Wars. It's a universal amazement by a piece of fiction that will transcend ages.

Arthur (2011) **

Arthur (2011) is another example of why remakes suck. It's like a bolt of lightning if a remake is actually any good and this film has no spark in it at all. The basic story is the same as the original: rich Arthur (Russell Brand), arranged marriage with Susan (Jennifer Garner), falls in love with Linda-eh-Naomi (Greta Gerwig) Hobson (Helen Mirren) even had a sex change in this one. 

The problem with this remake is that where the original shied away from using cliches, this one is chock full of cliches from the wonderful world of film. There's the sadistic future father in law meeting. There's the "I've got another woman hidden in my house." We get them all. The sad part of this film is when it tries to resurrect scenes from the original, which instead of giving nostalgia, just seem uncomfortable for the actors and the viewer watching it. Maybe it's because I watched the original a few nights before. I don't know.

There are some funny parts and it's almost an even film. It would be quite forgettable if it wasn't the remake of a good film.

(Ironically Helen Mirren and John Gielgud were in that Penthouse produced classic Caligula.)

Arthur (1981) ****

Arthur is the story of a lovable drunk. A rich lovable drunk. Lovable drunks only appear in movies because most drunks break your stuff and urinate everywhere except the toilet. Arthur (Dudley Moore) doesn't work, just spends money with his faithful butler Hobson (John Gielgud) shaking his head in disgust. Arthur has been given an ultimatum: be the groom in an arranged marriage or be cut off. Dependence on money leads Arthur to reluctantly propose, but he ends up meeting his true love Linda (Liza Minnelli), a shoplifter from Queens. What everything boils down to is will Arthur decide to be rich and miserable or poor and happy.

Arthur has a dated feel that all early '80's comedies have. It's hard to describe, it just has that vibe of life just before CD's and such. It could have easily become another one of the cliched films that cam from this era thirty years ago, but the story isn't a cliche. It's very basic and develops into something more than it would have been. Of course the combined efforts of Dudley Moore as Arthur, spouting drunken jokes as he stumbles through life and the dead pan wisecracking of Gielgud as Hobson push this film beyond standard date night celluloid. Gielgud rightly deserved the Oscar for this one.

Dated? Yes. Still entertaining? Sure. It's like a time capsule film. Sure, it's dated, but its worth digging up every couple of years.

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly (1966) *****

Everything Sergio Leone did before 1966 built up to The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly. A Fistful Of Dollars and For A Few Dollars More steadily increased the epic western that Leone envisioned until he released what is probably his greatest creation and the film that sealed Clint Eastwood's star power.

As gritty as its predecessors, The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly is set during the Civil War as the title trio goes on the hunt for $200,000 dollars in stolen gold.  The Good is Blondie, played by Eastwood as he reprises his Man With No Name character. The Bad is Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef), a cold blooded killer who happens upon the gold story while working for another man. The Ugly is Tuco (Eli Wallach), a degenerate criminal hell bent on getting vengeance on Blondie, but is forced to change his tune when Blondie gains the key information to the hidden gold. The quest for gold begins in front of the back drop of the Civil War as battles impede the movement toward the buried coins and the gritty, bombed out towns serve as a refuge to the treasure hunters.

This is the third and final film in the Dollars trilogy and shows how popular and profitable Leone's vision had become. Given a larger budget for TGTBATU, Leone builds a larger world than in any previous dollars film. As in the others the west is a dirty place where there are no cowboys in black and white, just everyone wearing a shade of gray. The Good really isn't very good, he's just a man in his element. 

Of course all of the Leone trademarks are present; the close ups and the grand vistas borrowed from John Ford. It's a drastic change from the almost crystal clean westerns of decades before. Is it realistic? Probably not, but life appears a lot closer to real human nature than other westerns. Survival of the fittest is the main theme in these films.

When looking at the cast the three leads are perfect. Eastwood's character is obviously a very good rehash from the previous dollars films, but Eli Wallach's Tuco is a sight to be believed. He appears to be bungling, but is actually way ahead when you really delve deeper into his character. "If you're going to shoot, shoot. Don't talk."  The real switch is Lee Van Cleef, who played the fatherly Mortimer in For A Few Dollars More. In TGTBATU he is one of cinemas first natural born killers. A professional at what he does in every sense of the word.

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly has a legacy that has followed it since its release almost two generations ago. The west got harsher. The line between good and bad became blurred, bringing on a decade of the anti-hero. This film still influences directors and writers throughout the world. It is a masterpiece of film making with a story that is epic. Not only one of the greatest westerns ever made, one of the greatest films ever made.

Aguirre: The Wrath of God (1972) *****

Deep in South American jungle there's something afoot. A splinter group from Pizzaro's expedition is sent to find El Dorado, the legendary city of gold. This group is steeped in Christianity as they spread it throughout the new land and the natives that inhabit it. It's like a trade in a way: We'll give you Christ if you give us the gold. As the film progresses and the group heads further into the jungle everything begins to fall apart as the natives become more and more restless and Aguirre (Klaus Kinski) develops the obsession of being the next Cortez.


Aguirre lends itself to so many films that came after it, particularly Apocalypse Now. The basic premise between the two films is the same. A mission on a boat slowly falls into total chaos. Just like the characters on screen, we have no idea what's around the bend in the river ahead. With Aguirre, there are two things that make it such a great movie. The first is Werner Herzog's direction. All great directors use the environment and the background as another character in their film. Herzog accomplishes this by making shots seem so beautiful and so sinister at the same time. What lies in the trees over there? Herzog gets into the soul of the jungle right along with the souls of the characters. 


Of course when we talk about characters we have to discuss the second part of the Aguirre equation and that is Klaus Kinski. He is that desire, that rage, that cut throat individual that will advance to his goal no matter what the cost. He surveys the land like a god looking over his domain. He will start is own empire, even when things are at their darkest. In a way Aguirre and Kinski are bound by their identities. They're the same person in the end.

Aguirre is one of those films that people stumble upon. A story that doesn't sound like much on the surface becomes an imaginative journey into the unknown. A story that is universal in nature, Aguirre is a great piece of German cinema.

Black Swan (2010) *****

Black Swan is about a dancer named Nina (Natalie Portman) who has already cracked under pressure. We don't know when and we don't know where she finally snapped, but the damage had long been accomplished by the time the movie starts. Nina's whole life is ballet. She is the object of perfection, almost like a Snow White complex. Nina is up for the lead in Swan Lake, where the dual roles of perfect, virginal angel, and the black clad seducteress are the headlining attractions. Nina is made for the White Swan, but can she let herself going playing the Black Swan, a completly different charachter and psyche. It's this metamorphisis that brings to mind the old adage "life immitating art".

As I said in the beginning, Nina was already unstable as she deals with psychological issues and being full of paranoia throughout the film. What Black Swan represents is the aftermath after breaking, the abyss in which people swim when they hit the bottom. Here fate was sealed before the studio moniker comes up. That's what is so sad about it.

Natalie Portman deserved her Oscar for this film, hands down. A mesmerizing performance that takes us into Nina's world of trying to balance the two personalities that she must become to be a success. Portman is the key ingredient in this film. 

While watching this I was struck by how similar the story compares to Darren Aronofsky's other masterpiece The Wrestler. Both feature two people on the verge in their careers, although when is at the end while the other is at the beginning and the idea that they are willing to self destruct to reach their goals. Aronofsky has created another great film that explores the yearning of the soul and the lengths one will go to succeed in their life. 

The Last House On The Left (1972) *

Last House On The Left is an example of early 1970's exploitation cinema that deals with Mari (Sandra Cassell) and her friend Phyllis (Lucy Grantham) as they indulge on the eve of Mari becoming a woman ie. turning seventeen years old. They go to a concert in the big, bad city and wind up in the hands of Krug (David Hess) and his gang of fugitives. In the process of heading for Canada both girls are tortured, raped, and eventually killed. Ironically, their car breaks down in front of the home of Mari's parents (Gaylord St. James and Cynthia Carr). The group spends the night at their house posing as traveling insurance salesmen, but what happens when Mari's parents find out who they really are and what they did.


So what is Last House On The Left? Is it an early work of genius from Wes Craven? A masterpiece that showed a man that was well on his way to create films like The Hills Have Eyes and Nightmare On Elm Street? Is this effect doubled because it was produced by Sean "Friday The 13th" Cunningham? This is why the legend of this movie has grown as much as it has- because of the folks involved in it. This film is no different than the hundreds of other drive-in exploitation films that were being pumped out of various producers garages in the early 1970's. It's no better and no worse. A bad script, bad acting, a lack of money, and an inexperienced director makes this film almost laughable if it wasn't for the violence on the screen. That's the key to a film like this and I Spit On Your Grave. A quote comes to mind when thinking about these two films. One comes from Roger Ebert's original review of Spit in which he discusses a fellow patron at the theater he was watching the film at saying "that was a good one" at the end of one of the numerous rapes scenes in that film. There's an audiences for stuff like this. It's like porn. Screw the plot, as long as it has that stuff and an unsatisfying conclusion.


Just look at this like a rough draft for some of the films that Wes Craven would make later. It's his first one so we can't be to hard on the guy. it was the genre in 1972. But a classic of horror cinema? If that's the case then you can call a used piece of toilet paper a classic too.

Beauty Shop (2005) *1/2

OK, so what's the plot? A hair stylist (Queen Latifah) walks out on her boss (Kevin Bacon). Boss doesn't think she'll make it. She makes it while stealing all of his customers in a comedic process. Meets hot guy (Dimon Hounsou). Boss tries to get revenge. 


Yes, you have seen this movie before.


It has a few funny moments, some of them not intentional, but Beauty Shop really is your standard, predictable, recycled film. File this one under "Been there, done that".

Limitless (2011) ***

Limitless opens with the Hollywood stereotype of writer Edward Morra (Bradley Cooper) sitting in front of a blank screen with nothing on it. You know there's a deadline or advance riding on this. His girlfriend (Abbie Cornish) has dumped him. He's a guy on the ropes with a knockout punch waiting to knock his jaw loose. By a chance meeting in the street Eddie stumbles upon something that could change the world that isn't an everlasting gob stopper. It's a pill that can be described as steroids for your brain where you use more than twenty percent of your available brainpower, holding and recalling vast amounts of data that you thought you forgot. Our hero Eddie is obviously going to use this wonder drug to his advantage, but with something to good to be true there's going to be somebody else out there that wants it. The film basically follows Eddie as he balances his gifts, the people who want to take them away, and his own sanity.


I have to say that Limitless is an amazing concept that is very intriguing on the surface. I thought it was a cool idea, the whole pill to the brain thing. The thing is that the film is a bit contrived and very predictable in nature. There will be no surprises because they don't leap out at you, they call before they come for a visit. Considering the trailer ruins what could have been a great plot twist also lowers the rating of the film for me (blame the studio). I know this is a movie about a noggin drug, but moments even exceed those plot points- killers that will run through 70+ people in a park, Scarface's apartment building. Over the top all the way.


This is an entertaining film, but nothing earth shattering. I'm sure in a few weeks it will be forgotten until the DVD comes out and then it will gain a slight freshness to people who don't go to a theater. And then you'll never hear about it again. A great plot poorly executed. Entertaining for the time being, but out of your system in a matter of days.

The Fighter (2010) ****

The only way to start explaining The Fighter is to say "Imagine Rocky if he had his family lumbering around running his career." Mark Wahlberg plays Mickey Ward, a boxer on the verge of being over the hill. Mickey's considered a stepping stone for other fighters to pummel on their way to fortune and glory. Mickey's brother Dickie (Christian Bale) is a local legend who acts as a trainer for his brother. Dickie has also developed a crack addiction that is spiraling out of control. The family controls Mickey's career, but it soon seems that he's just a piece of meat while Dickie still rides on past glories. The eventual crash is set up almost from the beginning.


Did Bale deserve the Oscar? Of course he did. There's no screaming "Hey, it's Patrick Bateman!" or "Hey, it's Batman!" while watching this film. Bale morphs into the role of Dickie Ecklund. It's an amazing performance that should be highlighted as one of the best from the last decade, let alone the last year. 


The funny thing is that art imitates life in that Bale's performance has overshadowed Mark Wahlbergs outstanding performance. He's a man torn between his family and what he wants. Props also go to Amy Adams as Mickey's girlfriend, going from the bubble gum films of yesteryear to deliver a gritty performance of a bar maid from the streets of Lowell, Massachusetts.


It's not really a perfect film, but the performances out do the issues with the story. The acting acts like an eraser. A good movie with terrific performances.

Hereafter (2010) ***1/2

What happens when we die? Do we go to the light like Carol Anne said or do we just snuff out like a candle in a hurricane. Hereafter doesn't examine whether or not we all shine on, it examines how the idea of life after death affects three people in different parts of the world. Marie Lelay (Ceclile De France) is an in depth news reporter on a holiday. When a tsunami hits she is pulled away in the rising tide, dying for several minutes in the process. She sees a light. She sees people in the light. The few minutes she travels to the other side end up having a profound affect on her life and her career. Marcus (Frankie and George McLaren) is forced to deal with the loss of his twin brother, the death equating almost to the point of half of his being dying along with him. Then there's George (Matt Damon) a gosh darn real psychic who can see and talk to lost loved ones. George's problem is that his "gift" has left him isolated because everyone either A) wants something from him or B) his gift teaches him too much about other people, making them skittish.

Directed by Clint Eastwood, Hereafter is a film that delves into the other worlds we know nothing about, but doesn't rely on parlor tricks like Paranormal Activity and its kin. It's a thought provoking film, one that will have you discussing with others what the hell is on the other side of this life. The movie is wonderfully acted, though it drags a bit in parts. This isn't Eastwood's best work, but it does deliver the goods.

Let Me In (2010) ****

Everyone wants to do a vampire movie. It's the hip thing to do like disaster movies were the hip thing to do a few years back. And superhero movies. If money can be made it will be rammed down your throat until you vomit dollars back at the wonderful studios giving you quality product. We even have parody vampire movies now, which are horrid, horrid films to have to sit through.


The thing about the vampire today is that he's not some creepy guy in a cape anymore, he's the Abercrombie model spewing cheesy lines with an even cheesier look on his face. It's sad that this is popular, but so was disco so I'll move along to the real point. When investing time in Let Me In I was paranoid that I was going to go on an A) vampire cheese filled ride or B) another girl psycho killer ride. So I sat down, watched the thing, and had by expectations exceeded on all levels.


Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is the kid that lives with his mother, gets picked on at school, and has death fantasies in the courtyard of his apartment building. This is the kind of kid that will be bringing firearms to school in a few years. One night while threatening an imaginary girl with his knife he meets real girl Abby (Chloe Moretz) who can't be friends with him, which means they'll become friends later in the film. As the film slowly ticks away we learn about the nightly excursions of Abby's "father" (Richard Jenkins) and the changes that develop throughout the film, particularly in Abby's relationship with Owen.


Let's get this out of the way to start- Let Me In is the film that the Twilight series wants to be. This is a well acted, well produced film that doesn't make the viewer cringe with every piece of harlequin dialogue. It's gory without making you ill. It's scary while keeping you at ease. And the main difference between this and the other franchise is that this film has a heart whereas Twilight films have neither heart nor soul. It's a shell. Let Me In fills that shell and delivers a film that is worthy of the praise it receives.

Winter's Bone (2010) ****1/2

 

Even though it's set in the Ozark Mountains, Winter's Bone isn't an intimate look at Branson and the Japanese violinist or Bald Knobbers. The film cuts deep into the soul of people scraping by in the wilderness on the Missouri-Arkansas border. The film follows Ree Dolley (Jennifer Lawrence), a 17 year old girl saddled with the responsibility of caring for a household populated by her two young siblings and a borderline catatonic mother. When her father vanishes after making bail Ree has to find him or his carcass to keep the bail bondsman from taking away the little sliver of mountains they call home. The problem Ree encounters, and is a constant in movies with an isolated population is the "code" that everyone is expected to follow. From stills to meth, the crime culture of the area stands in the way of Ree saving her family. 

The thing about the way Jennifer Lawrence portrays Ree is in a way that contradicts itself. At times she is a confident young women that is focused on her mission at hand; at others she seems to be wandering aimlessly, wondering where her 17 year old head and heart should go. It's a sad tale in that the only way the father can help his family is by showing up somewhere as a corpse. It soon becomes apparent that Ree doesn't care if he shows up dead or alive. Hell, he was only half alive in their lives to begin with.

A finely made film by director Debra Granik, the key to Winter's Bone beyond Ree's story is the Ozark Mountain culture that you don't see in brochures for Silver Dollar City. For lack of a better term it's almost like a hillbilly mafia with cops in the pockets and beatings for the nosey. Granik reveals this world, a world beyond what we saw in Deliverance. This film redefines mountain people as more than the inbred hillbillies we city folk see. The woodsman has gotten smart.

 
This film is a great little gem that delivers a meaningful story filled with angst, but not the typical 17 year old angst we're usually treated to. You can't call it a coming of age story because Ree came of age a long time ago and is far beyond her odometer reading. Winter's Bone represents one obstacle in a life that's had plenty before it and will probably have many more after it. And we all know it.

Tron: Legacy (2010) ****

There's an episode of Family Guy where Peter asks a group of people if any of them have ever seen Tron. Most say no. It's a cult movie, released during the summer of E.T. and before Return of the Jedi the original film made more of an impression in video arcades than movie theaters. I distinctly remember playing the video game at the arcade behind Pizzans (how many of you remember that joint?). The movie, however, remains a vague memory. 

Before seeing Tron: Legacy i wanted a little refresher. Everyone I talked to had seen the original, but like me Ronald Reagan was still President at the time. I tried to rent it. I tried to buy it (out of print copies are going for $100+ on Amazon and ebay). I was amazed that Disney didn't re-release the original before the sequel came out since everyone had been out of the Tron Zone for close to three decades. I assume I'll have to wait for the eventual two pack on Blu-Ray.

The first good thing about Tron: Legacy is that you don't have to know the original film inside and out to enjoy it. The film picks up in 1989 with Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges, whose face is digitally time warped back to 1989) disappearing, leaving his son Sam (Garrett Hendlund) the majority stockholder of Kevin's software company, which has become the kind of evil empire that most companies become or are seen as epitomizing. After getting a vague message from his father's arcade, Sam takes a look around the old Donkey Kong and Galaga machines to discover his fathers workshop. Through an accident Sam is sent to the Grid, a computerized world full of programs and their leader Clu (also played by Bridges sans twenty years), whose program goal of creating a perfect world has turned him into the computerized equivalent of Adolph Hitler. Sam's goal becomes finding his father and bringing him back home after all these years.

Visually Tron: Legacy is a feast for the eyes, light years ahead of the original film and, dare I say, on par with Avatar's 3-D effects. This is a beautifully designed film that really pulls you into the world of the Grid. Usually with movies like this that are full of eye candy, the story sucks. I'm not saying this movie has the greatest story known to man and there are cringe worthy moments, but for the most part the story keeps you in the film and combined with the visuals creates an exciting film that also has very good 3-D effects. That's right, I liked the 3-D in this movie. I generally hate 3-D, but when my head movies with the action on the screen I have to say someone did a good job. I could discuss the actors, but let's be honest: the effects are the real stars.


As a follow up to a film that's almost thirty years old and no one remembers, Tron: Legacy delivers as an awesome popcorn flick. There's no deep meaning (unless you're really gullible), but it's an entertaining two hours that won't disappoint a soul. It may not be a classic, but it's effects will allow it to be a stepping stone to the future just like the original film.

Machete (2010) ***1/2

Based on the awesome trailer during the Grindhouse double feature (rumor has it that Thanksgiving and Werewolf Women of the S.S. could be showing up on screens soon) Machete follows our title character (Danny Trejo) as a left for dead Federale that ends up a day laborer in Texas. When a man in a Mercedes (Jeff Fahey) shows up and offers Machete $150,000 to kill a Texas state senator (Robert DeNiro) out hero decides to take the deal, to a point, but a screw job leads to an over the top comic book orgy of violence that explodes on the screen.

Machete isn't much on story. It's your basic stock story of revenge, and implausible espionage, and hot ladies that Machete scores with over and over again. Remember, the roots are in Grindhouse films and this gives us a better representation than Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror, the film that hosted the germ that became Machete. Most of the cast hams up their roles, which is OK because this is a roast pig dinner of a film. It's a movie that's larger than life, but you can enjoy it without it going into corniness. It's a good group film because you will be yelling "Holy shit! That's a (fill in blank with instrument of destruction or body part)." Machete is as basic a movie as they come and is great because of it.