Dawn of the Planet of the Apes - Seriously though who's the guy in charge of choosing these titles

Written by Brennan

If in 2010 someone had told me “Hollywood is going to make two sequels to The Planet of the Apes, and they will be two of the best action blockbusters of those years.” I would have said “What? Who are you? Get away from me bro.”

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is the sequel to 2011’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes, which was a reboot/origin story of the original movies. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (henceforth shortened to “Dawn”) is set about ten years after the simian flu epidemic that began in Rise of the Planet of the Apes (“Rise”). Human civilization has collapsed and all that remains of humanity are isolated populations. Human-trained Caesar (Andy Serkis) leads a large group of apes living in the forest outside of San Francisco. The apes have not seen any humans for two years and are beginning to think that there are none left, when the apes encounter a group of humans living in San Francisco, led by Malcolm (Jason Clarke) and Dreyfus (Gary Oldman).

Even if this had been a bad movie, I would have recommended it for the sole reason of seeing the special effects. “Rise” and “Dawn” could have failed spectacularly; I remember first hearing that “Rise” would use only CGI apes and thinking that that was the stupidest thing I’d ever heard. Bad CGI is the kiss of death for a movie; nothing is more distracting than obviously fake characters. Part of the magic of movies is that they are able to trick our sub consciousness into believing that what is happening on screen is REAL. That’s why we feel scared in horror movies, despite knowing perfectly well that it’s not real. That’s why we cry real tears for completely made up characters and situations. That’s why we get a rush during intense car chases or believable action; it FEELS real. So when crappy-looking CGI is thrown in our faces, it looks very jarring against the realistic world of the movie, and those real feelings are dissolved because we are reminded that it’s all fake. “Rise” and “Dawn” avoid this lethal mistake with some of the best-looking effects I’ve ever seen; the apes look organic to the point that you forget that you are looking at graphics, and instead buy into the idea that these are characters, real apes with personalities, emotions, and fears. The ape characters are done so well in fact that the human counter parts can feel stilted and boring in comparison.

Now I'm making it sound like the movie bought into the overplayed, “humans are evil, nature is good” dichotomy, which is the kind of simplistic mindset that really bogs down movies like Avatar. The makers of “Dawn” were too smart for that though, they instead tell a story about fear, family, tribal politics, and misunderstanding. In the end, there isn’t really a “bad guy”, just imperfect humans and apes who give in to their emotions of fear and hatred. Even the character that is eventually shown to be the main antagonist has a complicated history that explains why he acts the way he acts. I really appreciate it when filmmakers don’t take the lazy route of mustache-twirling villains; it feels much more like the world we live in.

Along with great characters, intelligent themes, and phenomenal graphics, the movie looks great in every aspect, especially in set design and action sequences. The post-apocalyptic world feels worn out, the ape-village and technology are interesting and show an emerging society and culture, and the foggy, rainy forests are used to great effect. The action sequences are well-staged and well-lit, and they produce some memorable moments.

Almost without exception, for an action/adventure movie to succeed there must be 1) relatable characters that we like and want to see succeed and 2) thrilling action. Dawn receives top marks in both of these categories, and on top of that it gives us some things to think about and some of the best CGI we've ever seen. I would recommend this movie to everyone; if you were holding out for a great summer movie, this is it.

 Did you enjoy this review? Click here for more reviews by Brennan.

Read More

X-Men: Days of Future Past - Seriously what a stupid title

Written by Brennan

Directed by Bryan Singer
Written by Simon Kinberg

Plot Synopsis:
In the near future, mutants have been hunted to the brink of extinction by robots called Sentinels. In a last ditch effort, the remaining mutants decide to send Wolverine back in time to prevent the Sentinels from being made.

----------20^TH CENTURY FOX STUDIOS, HOLLYWOOD, CA - 2011----------

(A Fox executive sits down with some writers)

Fox executive: “X-Men: First Class was a hit! We’re back in business, boys! Let’s make a sequel because money. Here’s what we want. First, Wolverine. People want Wolverine! It’s an X-Men movie so Wolverine has to be the main character! Duh. Make sure Hugh Jackman hits the gym and puts on like 40 lbs of muscle.”

One of the writers: “But Wolverine isn’t in the X-Men yet, remember? He didn’t join until the first X-Men movie, which is decades after X-Men: First Class.”

Fox executive: “Who invited this nerd? Shut up and put him in! Next items. This Jennifer Lawrence girl is trending, make her more important! Also, audiences like James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as the young bald guy and the young magnet guy, but audiences like Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen too, and they’re still alive…….ish. So put them all in! Next, set up more sequels, for future money. Next, get that Dinklage guy from that fantasy nerd HBO series. Last, comic book nerds want to see uhh… (looks at a list) … Beast, Iceman, Shadowcat, Bishop, Colossus, Quicksilver, and Blink. Or whatever. Put em in boys! Ok? Did you get all that? Good! And don’t screw it up like we screwed up X-Men 3 and the Wolverine movie! Now get to work! I want a screenplay in 2 weeks!!”

(the writers look at each other nervously)

The point I’m trying to make is that the story X-Men: Days of Future Past is a convoluted mess. Luckily for us, they got Bryan Singer back (director of X-Men and X2) and they assembled an A+ cast. The smart direction and the excellent characters and performances elevate what could have been a complete disaster into an exciting and ambitious superhero movie with a heart.

Things that work:

•           The strong moral messages about the cycle of violence, consequences, hope, teamwork, and sympathy. One of the most moving parts of the movie is when young Charles Xavier is faced with his fear of entering minds and sharing in the pain of mutants and humans. He must decide whether or not to embrace the pain of his brethren to unlock his potential. Another is when Jennifer Lawrence’s character Raven/Mystique is faced with her aversion to kill and her desire to avenge the lives of fellow mutants. She must decide whether or not to let go of hate, as justified as it may be. The themes inspired me and I came out of the theater hopeful and wanting to do better and be better. It’s been a while since a superhero movie has done that for me.

•           Strong characters, as I just mentioned. Eric/Magneto, Charles/Prof X, Raven/Mystique, and Logan/Wolverine are all multi-dimensional people who struggle against themselves and the other characters. These internal struggles give the characters depth and make the movie much more compelling. Also, because I cared about the characters, I was able to overlook a lot of the problems in the script.

•           Some excellent visual sequences. If you’ve seen the movie, you know that I’m talking about Quicksilver’s wonderful scene in the Pentagon. I haven’t had that much fun in a superhero movie in a long time. Also, the “past” scenes all took place in the early 70s, so the visual style and soundtrack kept things pretty groovy.

•           Assured direction. I’m so glad they got Bryan Singer back; I don’t think this would have worked without his ability to get great performances out of his actors and keep difficult narratives engaging.

•           The performances. James McAvoy conveys his character's deep fear and emotional scars very well. He’s not as fun as he was in X-Men: First Class, but his character is in a much darker place now. Michael Fassbender is perfect as the young Eric/Magneto. He is cold and calculating, but he burns with indignation and loyalty to his fellow mutants. Watching Fassbender in his role reminds me of the clips I’ve seen of Malcolm X, with his intensity and confidence. Hugh Jackman is good as always as Wolverine, although his character took a backseat, and Jennifer Lawrence is good in her role as well. Also, Tricky Dick gave his best performance since he glad-handed Mao Zedong in 1972.

 

Things that don’t work:

•           As I’ve said, the story. At least ten times I thought to myself “Huh? Wait why don’t we just do this? What?” As I illustrated earlier, there are so many things going on that it’s amazing that it worked at all, it’s a mix of Looper and The Matrix with four main characters, about twenty-five supporting characters, AND it’s a sequel to two movies that take place 30 years apart. I can’t help but think that there had to be a better way to do it.

•           Some characters needed more time, in particular, Jennifer Lawrence’s character Mystique. Her role is pivotal to the story, but not very much time is given to her, and I feel like her motives aren’t very well established.

While Captain America: The Winter Soldier had a much more coherent story, I have to say that X-Men: Days of Future Past is the best action movie of the year because of its heart and ambition. The former is grounded, efficient, and exact, but the latter is big, moving, and messy – and most importantly, human.

 Did you like this review? Click here for more review by Brennan

Tweet

Read More

Neighbors: Another raunchy comedy from Seth Rogen

Written by Brennan

Directed by Nicholas Stoller

Written by Andrew J. Cohen and Brendan O’Brien

Produced by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg

Zac Efron is just beautiful. Let’s get that out of the way. The guy has given me the motivation to go to the gym (will probably last about a week). If I could look half as good as he does…*starts daydreaming*

Anyway! Neighbors is a new comedy from Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg. It stars Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne as Mac and Kelly Radner, a young, married couple with a baby girl, and Zac Efron as the president of Delta Psi, a college fraternity that moves next door to the Radners.  Queue comedic situations.

Things that work in Neighbors:

-         -- Rose Byrne. She’s great. She’s funny, sexy, and she plays off of Rogen well (and she's way out of his league).

-        --  Zac Efron. Not only is his body a Plinko game for your eyes, but he’s really good in his role. His character is that typical cocksure frat boy, but he has a soft side for his buddies and has deep apprehensions and insecurities about joining the grown-up world. He’s probably the most sympathetic character in the movie, which is a bit of a problem that I’ll address later.

-         -- A good, relatable theme. The theme of the movie is getting older and accepting change. Rogen and Byrne’s characters are afraid that they are becoming old and lame since they now own a house and have a baby, and Efron’s character is terrified of getting older and is obsessed with squeezing as much fun out of his last school year as possible. I only wish the story had focused more on this theme.

-         -- About 40% of the scenes are really funny.

Things that don't work in Neighbors:

-        -- The story/editing. It all feels thrown together. Some scenes work really well and it feels like the story is about to take off, but it ends up skidding and sputtering around.

-         -- The characters and pay-off. (Mild spoiler) About half-way through the movie, Rogen and Byrne’s characters start to act like real jerks to the frat boys. I expected it to be about even, with the fraternity and the young couple pulling pranks on each other, one trying to gain the advantage on the other, but no, eventually the frat boys try to play it cool to stay out of trouble and the young couple just keeps messing with them and getting the fraternity into serious trouble. Now, it’s ok that the movie didn’t exactly meet the standard expectations, but we needed a scene near the end where Rogen and Byrne realize that THEY are being the real jerks. But we don’t. As a result, I can’t help but dislike the two main characters and feel more sympathy towards Efron and the frat boys.

-         -- About 60% of the scenes are not funny and are extremely off-putting.

Like This Is the End, Knocked Up, and The 40-Year-Old Virgin (all from Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg, and frequent collaborator Judd Apatow), Neighbors has great performances, some really funny scenes, a good message underneath all of the vulgarity, and a very improvisational feel as the actors are given a chance to develop scenes. However, these movies are also very unfocused and episodic, and when the funny scenes don’t really work, they come off as very over-the-top and awkward. It’s almost like they shoot a bunch of scenes, then they take their favorite 90-110 minutes and throw it all together in a vaguely chronological sequence, the result being a sloppy, poorly-paced story that is about half funny and half fail. I feel like a good editor needs to come in and rein in all of the good aspects, trim the crap, and tighten up the story. They should also probably cast someone else besides Seth Rogen as the lead. He’s a funny dude, but I don’t think he has the acting chops to carry a movie and make a compelling character.

My favorite Rogen-Goldberg movie is 50/50. Joseph Gordon-Leavitt plays a very sympathetic and dynamic character and makes a great lead. It’s definitely a Rogen-Goldberg movie, but Rogen only plays as a supporting character and riffs off of Gordon-Leavitt. The movie is also well-written and well-directed, and treats its touchy subject-matter with respect while being very funny at the same time. So this idea of a well-made, successful Rogen-Goldberg movie isn’t even a hypothetical idea, they’ve done it before!

I give Neighbors about a 5/10. There’s a lot of good stuff, but overall it’s just not a very good movie. See it if you REALLY like Rogen-Goldberg-Apatow comedies. I probably wouldn’t recommend this movie to anybody else. Better luck next time.

Agree? Disagree? Feel free to comment and explain why I'm wrong!
Did you enjoy this review? Click here for more reviews by Brennan

Tweet

Read More

Cap's Back in Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Written by Brennan

Directed by Anthony and Joe Russo

Written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely

Plot synopsis: Two years after the events of The Avengers, Steve Rogers lives in Washington, D.C., continues to work for the espionage agency S.H.I.E.L.D., and struggles to adapt to contemporary society. After a typical mission saving hostages from Algerian pirates, Steve learns that the agency is hiding things from him.

Superhero-movie mania continues with Captain America: The Winter Soldier, sequel to 2010’s Captain America: The First Avenger. It has received wide acclaim from critics (88% of reviews are positive according to Rottentomatoes) and it is sure to be a huge hit at the box office. My thoughts on the movie can be summarized in two words: yeah ok.

It is easily the best big action movie so far this year. That’s not saying a whole lot (looking at you, Robocop and 300: Rise of an Empire), but Captain America: The Winter Soldier is definitely a very well-crafted action movie and will continue Marvel’s dominance. At this point I think that Marvel knows exactly what they are doing. Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger had problems, the former’s being that it was played a little too seriously and too straight and the latter’s being that it turned into a schlocky mess with Nazis with space lasers. Marvel recognized these problems and corrected them in the sequels; Thor: The Dark World went off the rails into silliness and craziness (as a movie about a Norse sky god with a magic hammer should) and Captain America: The Winter Soldier has a much more grounded story about corruption and politics, which is more fitting for Cap’s character. It was a smart move and a definite improvement from the first movie, but the movie still has some problems that keep it from reaching the heights of 2012’s The Avengers.

This movie feels more like a CIA spy thriller than a superhero movie. The majority of the movie is very down to earth with double crossings, car chase sequences, escaping from buildings, hand-to-hand combat, and other elements that have more in common with The Bourne Identity and The Dark Knight than with the bombastic, skyscraper-destroying action of The Avengers. This keeps things at Cap’s level, at least until later in the movie when things start to get a little crazy, but for the most part it’s kept under control. This keeps things tense and thrilling as the story retains a level of plausibility. In this way, it’s a much better written and much better executed movie than Captain America: The First Avenger. Unfortunately, what this sequel makes up for in story it loses in characterization and fun. Captain America is reduced to “distressed action man” who is simply on the run and punches things when he can. His character doesn’t really develop or do anything interesting. Probably my biggest complaint about the movie is the lack of fun and interesting characters. I kept hoping that Tony Stark would make an appearance for some witty dialogue and to make fun of Captain’s 1940’s mentality, but that would have ruined the story as Iron Man could just do everything for Captain. So what we are left with is a bewildered and anxious Captain America, the boring super spy Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow played by Scarlett Johansson, a generic army veteran sidekick played by Anthony Mackie, and a grumpy Nick Fury played by Samuel L. Jackson. Yawn. The only redeeming character was Robert Redford as a senior leader of S.H.I.E.L.D. He seemed to have some fun messing with other characters.

Other pros:

-     - The major theme of the movie is the rise of modern day fascism, which worked very well since Captain America’s original foes were the Nazis 70 years earlier. The theme could have been explored further, but it was interesting to see Captain America’s black-and-white worldview contrasting to the modern ideas of sacrificing freedom, surveillance, data collection, pre-emptive strikes, and drones.

-     - The action is limited and effective. Marvel seems to have found that perfect medium between plot development and dialogue and action scenes. Too much action makes for a boring and numbing experience *cough* Man of Steel *cough*.

-     - Anthony Mackie’s character Sam Wilson/Falcon, while a pretty boring character, is a VA counselor helping veterans with PTSD. This is a small element and not very important to the story, but it was another nice touch. I like it when movies choose to bring social issues to light like that.

Other cons:

-     - The plot and “twists” were completely predictable. The twists didn’t even feel like twists; I think everyone in the theater knew exactly what was going to happen, and we were just waiting for when they would happen. I understand that it’s just a superhero action movie, and that I shouldn’t expect a complex and sophisticated plot with nuanced political messages and deep themes of morality, but can’t we at least have something that feels new and fresh? I swear Hollywood has like eight basic stories that they repackage for every action movie.

-     - The quick cutting style of the fight scenes. Here is a great video that explains the how to effectively shoot a fighting scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YuJtOgeLpw&list=PLB6N1J-D-TR4SJRgtNUreuzTvZfbS6gCG. In my opinion, Captain America: The Winter Soldier does not do this very well.

-     - A CG grandma face? Why?? Just cast a freaking old lady!! I’m sure there are thousands of cheap extras in Hollywood who would play a grandma for two minutes. That way I can actually focus on the dialogue and characters instead of just looking at how horrible the CG looks. Whatever.

Review Summary:

A very competent if predictable superhero action movie. While it doesn’t reach the heights of The Avengers, it is a definite improvement on the first Captain America movie and is better than most Hollywood movies of the same genre. I would recommend this movie to pretty much everyone. It’s exciting and well-made with some good themes.

Rating:

2 and a half wrinkly Robert Redford faces out of 4 wrinkly Robert Redford faces

 

 Did you like this review? Click here for more reviews by Brennan

Read More

Spring Breakers: A Trojan horse

Written by Brennan

When I first heard about Spring Breakers I put it on my “never watch in a hundred years” list along with other gems like One Direction: This Is Us and The Smurfs 2. Why would I want to watch a bunch of Disney Channel teen stars go on spring break and be “bad girls”? Then I heard the movie was nominated for the Golden Lion at the Venice International Film Festival. Then after that some of my friends who love raunchy movies told me that they HATED it. This is when I knew there was something more to this movie, and that I ought to check it out.

To it’s core this movie is a Goodfellas-esque exposition of the alluring world of power, money, sex, and drugs. It starts with the main characters being drawn into what they believe to be REAL life, into what they believe will make them truly happy, and then we get to watch as they are sucked into the seedy underworld and eventually torn apart. Essentially it is a slightly ham-handed moral story for teenagers and young adults. For this reason, I believe that the misleading trailers and marketing were actually intentional. The creators of Spring Breakers allowed the movie to be marketed as a raunchy, fun, party movie because they wanted to make young adults witness the underside of the lifestyle that the youth idolize. This would explain casting decisions too. James Franco is a favorite of young adults, and the idea of Franco as a blinged-out rapper is a huge draw. Also, the two Disney Channel stars Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens must have brought in big numbers of young fans.

There is a huge disconnect between the content and the tone of Spring Breakers. The screen is packed with beaches, beer, and bikinis, but underneath all of the ruckus and partying is a feeling of distance and sadness. Whenever things slow down for a minute and the characters are faced with a moment of silence you can feel the discomfort, the feeling that it’s still not enough. These moments are hastily pushed away by more yelling, drinking, and shenanigans. In this way Spring Breakers reminds me of John Cassavetes’ 1968 classic Faces, where the characters move from location to location, joking and shouting, scared that if they stop moving they will be faced with the emptiness inside. They must keep up the appearance of happiness in order to escape the reality of their hollow lives.

Overall, Spring Breakers is a solid movie. Some sequences fall flat, and the movie as a whole is not very fun or entertaining, but the themes are important and the film is well-made. I was impressed by the acting, especially by Selena Gomez’ performance. She is very convincing and natural as a pressured, guilty, trying-to-be-naughty-but-really-nice girl. I was most drawn to her character, as she is able to see more clearly the destructive path she and her friends were on. She returns home with a better idea of what will and will not bring real happiness. Spring Breakers is a Trojan horse; a cautionary tale disguised as a loud, flashy party.

Did you enjoy this review? Click here for more reviews by Brennan

Tweet

Read More

The Master: Master Filmmaker Paul Thomas Anderson's Latest Challenging Film

Written by Brennan
 
It has been 5 years since There Will Be Blood, Paul Thomas Anderson’s modern masterpiece. It goes without saying that the half-decade and enormous critical success of the film had raised expectations for The Master to astronomical heights. Did PTA deliver? I wish I could give a definitive answer but alas, I cannot. The Master is both complex and difficult to digest, and while writing about it after only one viewing may prove be a futile effort, I will do my best.

The Master is a story of two men in post-WWII America. Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) is an alcoholic veteran who suffers from what is implied to be post-traumatic stress disorder, and is struggling mightily to adjust to civilian life. Lancaster Dodd (aka The Master or Master, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman) is a charismatic leader of the newly-formed philosophical movement called “The Cause”. The two men meet by chance on Lancaster’s yacht, where The Master takes a liking to Freddie and brings him into the movement.
 
The two main characters interact throughout the film, but taken in hindsight the two men have different stories, linked together by their inescapable need for each other. The two being near opposites, their relationship brings to light one of the many themes of The Master: the disturbed and weak’s need to follow and to be told what to do and how to live by an almost god-like leader, and the leader’s need for praise and devoted service of the weak. Many critics have said that PTA has taken a role of critic and portrayer of the American story with There Will Be Blood, showing the greed and coldness of capitalism and the devoted pious, and the strained and paradoxical relationship between the two. The Master continues this exposition of America by showing the conflict between the rugged individualism that pervades American culture, with the contradicting need to follow and trust explicitly a charismatic and confident leader.

PTA succeeds in striking a distinct visual style (one of the many great traits of There Will Be Blood). The Master is true to it’s time period but feels very different from other movies that are set in the 1950’s America. The Master is grittier and greasier, much of this stems from Freddie, who is gangly, unkempt and sickly-looking. The pristine vision we have of the 50’s does not exist in The Master, and as a result the movie is not a comfortable watch. That fact, along with Jonny Greenwood’s characteristically brilliant modern soundtrack and the erratic nature of Freddie makes for a suspenseful and uneasy viewing experience.
 
Aside from the style of the movie, the other great strength is its acting. Both Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix give incredible performances, both actors bringing their characters to life. Hoffman is absolutely convincing as an organized, sociable, articulate and beloved leader, and Phoenix is reptilian and disturbed, I could hardly recognize him when I first saw the trailer. Look for both great actors to receive attention come Oscar season. It would be an injustice if I didn’t mention Amy Adam’s excellent take on Lancaster’s stiff, cold wife, which is a huge contrast from Adam’s usual warm and likable characters.

Despite considerable strengths, The Master has an unfortunate amount of weaknesses. While There Will Be Blood seemed to meander without focus at first viewing, in retrospect a clear story is being told in Daniel Plainview’s gradual descent into greed and hate, with strong themes and tone. Likewise, The Master meanders, but upon conclusion it is not clear what the story was about. The themes are loose and the tone seems to jump around, as the viewer struggles to decide what to make of this challenging, 143-minute marathon. I do believe that The Master may have growing potential, as critics and film fans revisit The Master in years to come, its significance and meaning may develop and turn PTA’s latest into one of the best films of 2012.

Did you enjoy this review? Click here for more reviews by Brennan

Tweet

Read More