Gone Girl *****

We get caught up in the whole idea of thrill rides when we talk about the soundbites that come from merchandising films, especially in the last decade or so. We're promised a roller coaster, but we get the usual, mundane drive to work that we've seen time and again. In Gone Girl we get the opposite. What starts out as your typical Lifetime movie fodder suddenly slams on the brakes and becomes something original in that it takes our emotions on the thrill ride that we're always promised, but rarely receive.

Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) leads a mundane life with his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike) in South Eastern Missouri. After a pedestrian encounter with his twin sister (Carrie Coon) discussing the chore that going thru the game that has become their anniversary has become, Nick returns home to find his wife missing and the signs of something being afoot. Cue the impending investigation, the secrets that Nick and his wife hold close to their chest, and the transformation from helpless victim to heinous villain and back again.

Gone Girl is a difficult movie to discuss with someone who hasn't seen the film because you lose the central pivot of the film that everything is centered on. Just as with his previous work, David Fincher has chosen to take us on a ride where we think we know where the hell we're going, but the bus took a right instead of a left and takes us to a shocking new direction that delights us because we just don't know what's going to happen next. That's what makes a movie great- it takes us somewhere we've never been before.

Another aspect of Gone Girl is the way it manipulates the audience and the commentary that this makes with society today, in particular reality television. I can't really call it a commentary. It's more like a metaphysical conversation with the way people turn on a dime emotionally on the screen and the way our emotions as an audience are twisted. You will wonder how gullible these people are, being told how to feel by the talking heads on the television, all the while you're making your decisions on how you feel about the characters based on what you see on the screen. Your feelings for these characters will change more than once as the movie progresses and it's great. It's wonderful to have a film that doesn't have characters that fit right into their cookie cutter positions. It's even better when they can't figure out which little slot they belong in, either.

David Fincher has delivered another masterpiece that can be considered a thrill ride. The audience is emotionally whipped around on his Gone Girl roller coaster, the main difference being that you don't see the curves coming or the big drops that cause our hearts to race and adrenaline to flow. They're just dropped on you. It's like a sunny day after a week of rain. You've almost forgotten what a great film looks like.

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.