Sin City: A Dame To Kill For *

It's been close to 10 years since Robert Rodriguez brought us Frank Miller's vision of urban decay and decadence to the big screen with the original Sin City (apparently I have never reviewed Sin City, but I did review the bastard cousin of these films here). The original film held the story together, even though it diverged into separate tangents, zig zagging like a runaway gunfight. It's not a masterpiece, but it is a great example of comic/film cinema that really represents the heart of Frank Miller's work.

Sin City: A Dame To Kill For (we'll call it Sin City 2 from here on out) is quite frankly a mess, which is strange since this film has been in development from the moment the first film hit theaters. Many of the same characters from the original film return to cause havoc and mayhem in Basin City. There are some new faces and recasts, but the general idea is the same. A collection of stories all tied together into a bigger picture. I won't go into details, but it's the same concepts as the first film. They're just executed very poorly.

I've seen the first film at least half a dozen times, recently watching it about a month before. While watching Sin City 2 I was lost on where this event fell into the chronology of the first film and wondering if there was a plot hole or not. I like movies that make you think, but when I'm sitting there trying to figure out if this is a filmmaker screw up it really dampens the experience of watching the film.

The film cliches itself constantly. Within the first hour three characters are thrown from a moving car. It turns into a running joke and as the film continued on it was almost like I was watching a parody of the first film. What I hoped was going to be a continuation of the story Miller had created turned into a tedious experience that just had me hoping for the end. This turned into one of the worst films of the year and a huge disappointment for me.

I don't know if it was the long length of time it took to get this film made or the need to present it in 3-D (ugh) or poor film making in general, but Sin City 2 is a stinker. If you have never seen the first film or even haven't visited it lately, you will be lost in the convoluted story that literally goes nowhere. If you're a fan of the previous film you will be disappointed.

Carrie (2013) **

It's been 40 years since Stephen King published his first novel. Over the proceeding decades we would see an onslaught of King's work translated to the big screen, some with great results and the others resulting in garbage, but that's the way it is with a body of work that is continuously wanted by an eager public.

This is the third time that the first novel by King has been presented, the first being Brian DePalma's early classic that exhibits all that DePalma was to be, good or bad, and starred and excellent Sissy Spacek as the title character. There was a sequel somewhere, a TV remake (neither of which I can comment on because why should we bother). This newest version comes to us from director Kimberly Peirce (Boys Don't Cry), bringing us an examination of a scared, uninitiated high school girl from an actual woman. Who would have thought...

The story is the same. Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz) has lived a sheltered life with her mother (Julianne Moore), a religious zealot trying to make amends with what she considers a hedonistic past. As always, this goes great for a senior in high school who becomes a woman in the middle of gym class. a guilt ridden fellow student decides to have her boyfriend take Carrie to the prom to make amends, but other students aren't as guilty as she. If you have seen any other the previous incarnations, you know the rest.

The film is your basic rehash of the original film and book. There is nothing new here. It's the same animal as 40 years ago. The big finish is epic and satisfying, but the ending leaves something to be desired, almost taking a twist into action overload Michael Bay territory. This is where the original film has the advantage over this new model. The ending here is just to much for a film such as this. It just doesn't gel with the rest of the film.

As always, remakes are remakes and Hollywood still tries to milk an old franchise for all its worth. Carrie is a simple rehash that isn't even twisted around a bit to bring us something new. Unless you're viewing this for free, skip it. You've seen the original. Go find a nice independent film or documentary. Experience something new.

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.