After watching Rise, I was immediately excited to watch Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. I have to say that I had no idea what I was in for, how exciting this film would be, or how much fun I would have watching it. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a superb sequel that shows the violent conflict between the humans and the apes.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is the story of Caesar and his army of genetically enhanced apes being threatened by human survivors of the virus that was unleashed ten years earlier. One of the things that this movie does well is continue the story of the previous film while also standing on its own as a great sequel. There are a couple of plot points and character arcs that carry over to this film in a wonderful way. For example, we saw at the end of Rise that the virus that enhances apes has a vastly different affect on humans. Then, at the beginning of Dawn, we see that the virus has actually killed 150 million Americans. This leaves the apes as the dominant species on the planet. However, perhaps the most important aspect about this movie is how the conflict between the apes and the humans arises. While Caesar (Andy Serkis) and Koba (Toby Kebbell) both have opposing points of view about the humans, the most important thing about their relationship is that their points of view are CORRECT. They are both right in everything that they say about each other. This makes Kobas' betrayal, and his showdown with Caesar at the end of the film, so much more powerful. Also, like the previous film, Caesar is extremely adamant that the apes will only fight if necessary. This adds to the conflict between Caesar and Koba because Koba feels strongly that the humans are the enemy, and that they need to be eliminated. In fact, Koba feels as strongly about fighting as the humans do. The fact that Caesar sticks to his beliefs, even after Koba goes behind his back and does things without his knowledge, speaks volumes about Caesars' character. Tonally, this is a much darker film than the first, with many violent action sequences that enhance the story and the conflict between the characters. I would have liked to see a scene that explains Ellie's (Keri Russell) medical background but, other than that, this film is superb in every way.
Matt Reeves is the director of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. As per usual with the second chapter in a story, this film is darker and more violent than the previous installment. However, it does not start that way. The conflict slowly builds through several scenes that are quite dramatic and tense to watch. This is is not only because you do not know how the characters will behave in certain situations, but also because Reeves uses long takes and good reaction shots to build the tension. The scene where Koba pretends to be a playful ape in front of two humans, and then shoots them point blank with their own guns, is a perfect example of this. I also love the sequence in which the apes attack the stronghold where the humans are located. The cinematography is beautiful, and the quick cuts make the action incredibly intense to watch. The long P.O.V. "turret shot" is a personal favorite of mine. I also enjoy the way the fight between Caesar and Koba is handled. This fight, between two CGI characters, could have easily been silly and laughable. However, given the tone of the movie and the emotions going through these two characters, this is more an emotional battle than a physical one. Also, given the arcs of both characters, the end result just about makes you leap for joy. This film is one of the better sequels in modern cinema, and that is due to the tone that Reeves set for this movie, and the direction in which he takes the story and the characters.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a rare example of a sequel being better than its predecessor. It expands on the relationships between the characters, and the action sequences are incredibly exciting to watch. If you enjoyed the first Apes movie, you will LOVE Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.
Monday, August 28, 2017
Saturday, August 19, 2017
Simian Takeover: Part 1
I was extremely skeptical of watching these new Planet of the Apes films. Even though I have become more tolerant of remakes in recent years, the original Apes movie will always have a special place in my heart because of my genetic connection to its director, Franklin J. Schaffner. Needless to say that, once again, I was proven wrong. Rise of the Planet of the Apes is quite an enjoyable film that has powerful themes within the story line.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes is the first installment of this new, reinvented Apes film franchise, and is the story of a brain-repairing substance that makes chimpanzees super-intelligent. I have to say that I worry about the future of humanity when I see film that makes us seem like the bad guys. Not that there is anything wrong with that. In fact, it is one of the main reasons this film is so compelling. We see how evil the human race is at its core right from the beginning of the movie. Instead of breeding the apes in captivity, and testing Substance 112 on them when they reach the right age, the humans go out into the jungle and capture them. Also, when the substance has an adverse affect on Bright Eyes, instead of tranquilizing her or putting her down in a peaceful way, she is violently shot in front of dozens of witnesses. The saddest part about this particular sequence is that she was just being protective of her son Caesar (Andy Serkis) which, of course, the humans were too reactionary to think about. The most important part of this film, as far as realizing the evil of humanity goes, is when Caesar is taken to a primate shelter after protecting Charles Rodman (John Lithgow) from their violent neighbor. We see that Caesar does not understand why he is being punished. After all, he is not the bad guy. He was just doing what he was taught to do by his master, Will Rodman (James Franco). Caesar sees the human race as primitive, and the apes as the superior, and more intelligent, race. Perhaps this is why Caesar leads the apes into the redwood forest at the end of the film: to wait for humanity to catch up to their intelligence level so that they do not react in a violent way, which of course is something that we begin to see. This is quite an enjoyable film that has a powerful message: some things are not meant to be changed. However, there are a couple of minor plot holes that I need to address. At one point in the film, I believe we see a picture of Will and his father. We are to understand that this picture was taken earlier in the film, and yet we do not see this happen. Also, later in the film during the sequences at the primate shelter, it is revealed that owner of the shelter is actually Dodge Landons' (Tom Felton) father. I think that this could have been revealed at an earlier time because, as it stands, it feels somewhat forced. These are EXTREMELY minor plot holes that in no way detract from how good this movie is. This movie proves that, if you get the right creative people involved, remakes/re-imaginings can actually be great films.
Andy Serkis plays Caesar. I truly love the way Caesar is portrayed by Serkis. The range of emotions that are portrayed on Caesar's face is nothing short of extraordinary. There is a beautiful moment in the film where Will opens the back door of his truck to let Caesar in, and Caesar refuses, instead choosing to ride in the back seat like a typical human being. The look on his face when he asks Will, "Am I a pet?" is the perfect combination of anger and confusion. I also love Caesar as a character because, even when the ape uprising starts, he feels strongly about not killing any humans unless absolutely necessary. He feels that killing makes them no better than the savageness of humanity. This groundbreaking role is a major reason why Serkis has become the godfather of performance capture.
Rupert Wyatt is the director of Rise of the Planet of the Apes. As I mentioned before, I enjoy the themes that this film deals with. Specifically, this movie shows how cruel humanity is at its core. When the humans realize that the apes have the potential to be better than them, both physically and mentally, they react in a violent way. That being said, I was actually quite surprised at how little violence is in this film. The violence does not escalate until the climax of the film, and it is only after the apes present a serious and legitimate threat. The action scene on the bridge is well shot and thrilling to watch. This action scene also shows the cruelty of humanity once again. The humans are the ones who instigate the violence, and the apes are responding in self-defense. The apes rarely kill any of the humans because they realize that doing so would mean that they are no better than them. This scene is exciting, and it also sets up the extremely violent second chapter in the Apes trilogy. Wyatt does a wonderful job of setting up the journey of Caesar. The sequence where we see Caesar grow up and develop is quite moving to watch. This is an epic and emotional film, and that is due to the tone that Wyatt set with this film.
I love being proven wrong about films. Rise of the Planet of the Apes breathes new life into this franchise while also reinvigorating my love for all of the previous films. All I can say is that if you are skeptical about watching this reinvention of the Apes franchise, as I was, I urge you to take a chance on it.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes is the first installment of this new, reinvented Apes film franchise, and is the story of a brain-repairing substance that makes chimpanzees super-intelligent. I have to say that I worry about the future of humanity when I see film that makes us seem like the bad guys. Not that there is anything wrong with that. In fact, it is one of the main reasons this film is so compelling. We see how evil the human race is at its core right from the beginning of the movie. Instead of breeding the apes in captivity, and testing Substance 112 on them when they reach the right age, the humans go out into the jungle and capture them. Also, when the substance has an adverse affect on Bright Eyes, instead of tranquilizing her or putting her down in a peaceful way, she is violently shot in front of dozens of witnesses. The saddest part about this particular sequence is that she was just being protective of her son Caesar (Andy Serkis) which, of course, the humans were too reactionary to think about. The most important part of this film, as far as realizing the evil of humanity goes, is when Caesar is taken to a primate shelter after protecting Charles Rodman (John Lithgow) from their violent neighbor. We see that Caesar does not understand why he is being punished. After all, he is not the bad guy. He was just doing what he was taught to do by his master, Will Rodman (James Franco). Caesar sees the human race as primitive, and the apes as the superior, and more intelligent, race. Perhaps this is why Caesar leads the apes into the redwood forest at the end of the film: to wait for humanity to catch up to their intelligence level so that they do not react in a violent way, which of course is something that we begin to see. This is quite an enjoyable film that has a powerful message: some things are not meant to be changed. However, there are a couple of minor plot holes that I need to address. At one point in the film, I believe we see a picture of Will and his father. We are to understand that this picture was taken earlier in the film, and yet we do not see this happen. Also, later in the film during the sequences at the primate shelter, it is revealed that owner of the shelter is actually Dodge Landons' (Tom Felton) father. I think that this could have been revealed at an earlier time because, as it stands, it feels somewhat forced. These are EXTREMELY minor plot holes that in no way detract from how good this movie is. This movie proves that, if you get the right creative people involved, remakes/re-imaginings can actually be great films.
Andy Serkis plays Caesar. I truly love the way Caesar is portrayed by Serkis. The range of emotions that are portrayed on Caesar's face is nothing short of extraordinary. There is a beautiful moment in the film where Will opens the back door of his truck to let Caesar in, and Caesar refuses, instead choosing to ride in the back seat like a typical human being. The look on his face when he asks Will, "Am I a pet?" is the perfect combination of anger and confusion. I also love Caesar as a character because, even when the ape uprising starts, he feels strongly about not killing any humans unless absolutely necessary. He feels that killing makes them no better than the savageness of humanity. This groundbreaking role is a major reason why Serkis has become the godfather of performance capture.
Rupert Wyatt is the director of Rise of the Planet of the Apes. As I mentioned before, I enjoy the themes that this film deals with. Specifically, this movie shows how cruel humanity is at its core. When the humans realize that the apes have the potential to be better than them, both physically and mentally, they react in a violent way. That being said, I was actually quite surprised at how little violence is in this film. The violence does not escalate until the climax of the film, and it is only after the apes present a serious and legitimate threat. The action scene on the bridge is well shot and thrilling to watch. This action scene also shows the cruelty of humanity once again. The humans are the ones who instigate the violence, and the apes are responding in self-defense. The apes rarely kill any of the humans because they realize that doing so would mean that they are no better than them. This scene is exciting, and it also sets up the extremely violent second chapter in the Apes trilogy. Wyatt does a wonderful job of setting up the journey of Caesar. The sequence where we see Caesar grow up and develop is quite moving to watch. This is an epic and emotional film, and that is due to the tone that Wyatt set with this film.
I love being proven wrong about films. Rise of the Planet of the Apes breathes new life into this franchise while also reinvigorating my love for all of the previous films. All I can say is that if you are skeptical about watching this reinvention of the Apes franchise, as I was, I urge you to take a chance on it.
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
Sweaty Nerd Fandom: Part 7
When it comes to superhero/comic book movies, Superman: The Movie is the grandfather of them all. The sheer spectacle of the film, as well as a flawless performance by Christopher Reeve, helped pioneer these kinds of films into their own genre. This is such a revolutionary movie that helped launch comic book characters off of the printed page and on to the cinema screen.
Superman: The Movie is the story of an alien boy who gets sent to Earth because his planet is dying. This boy grows up to become Earth's first superhero. What this movie does so well that, quite frankly is insanely hard to do in narrative storytelling, is dive right into the action by giving you a scene of exposition. We learn about the history between Jor-El (Marlon Brando) and General Zod (Terence Stamp) without actually seeing the events that happened. One could argue that it would have helped the film if we actually got to see these events, but I believe that there is enough dialog in this opening scene to understand what happened, and to also understand the intentions of the characters. This film also does a wonderful job of explaining the mythology of the character of Superman. We see Kal-El's birth mother, Lara (Susannah York), wrap him in the red and blue clothing that he will eventually wear as Superman. We also clearly understand that Clark Kent is a disguise, that he took his adoptive mothers' middle name, and Superman is the kind of person that Kal-El is at his core. This film does a magnificent job of bringing the Man of Steel to the big screen in a beautiful way. After nearly forty years, this film still holds up for the most part. However, after re-watching it recently, there are some cheesy elements that just do not feel right. After the sequence where Kal-El speaks to Jor-El at the Fortress of Solitude, Jor-Els' face turns to ice and slowly spins off screen. If this was meant to be a metaphor for his permanent disappearance, I do not believe that this was executed well. I think it would have been better to have his face just slowly fade away into nothingness. This would also help us understand that Jor Els' task is done, and that Kal-El does not need his fathers' wisdom and advice anymore. Also, in the scene where Superman and Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) are flying together, we hear narration by Kidder that explains her feelings when she is with Superman. This is unnecessary. We can clearly see how she is feeling from the way she is looking at Superman. We do not need to be told this through narration. There are also a few flaws in the scene where Lois Lane interviews Superman. Lois asks a few questions that begin with, "Is it true that...." In order for her to phrase the question like that, she had to have heard rumors about Superman, and yet there are no previous scenes where she is learning anything about him. Also, later in the film, when Eve Teschmacher (Valerie Perrine) is reading about the interview in the newspaper, some of the traits she reveals about Superman were not even asked in the interview! Later in the film, Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) puts Superman through a gauntlet of attacks before he enters Luthors' lair. While this is all visually splendid to watch, Luthor knows these attacks will not kill Superman. So, why does he do this? Does he think Superman will retreat?? Now, towards the climax of the film, it is revealed that there are two nuclear missiles that Lex Luthor and Eve Teschmacher have altered (even though it was actually Otis, played by Ned Beatty, that did the altering). The only thing is, we only Otis alter ONE missile. Where was the other one this whole time?? During the exciting climax of the film, an earthquake occurs which results in a dam breaking, sending endless amounts of water towards a neighborhood. Wait....is there really a neighborhood near a dam?? Does that even make sense?? I feel that this particular scene exists just so we can witness the power of Superman. Despite all the glaring plot holes, Superman: The Movie is still just as influential and entertaining as it was forty years ago. I personally never get tired of watching the movie that launched superhero films as their own genre.
Christopher Reeve, in one of my personal favorite performances of all time, plays Superman/Clark Kent. What Reeve does in this movie is so beautiful. His physical nuances as Clark Kent and his gentlemanly demeanor as Superman are captivating to watch. The first scene with Clark Kent at the Daily Planet is a personal favorite of mine. Reeve completely disappears into the character, and it feels genuine. When Superman says, "I'm here to fight for truth, justice, and the American way", you believe him. There are truly not enough words for how much I love Reeves' performance in this film.
Margot Kidder plays Lois Lane. Personally, I find this version of Lane to be somewhat dimwitted. Yes, she does display remarkable exuberance when it comes to her job, but other than that it just seems like nothing can go right for her. Now, her being "dimwitted" may partially have something to do with her being head-over-heels in love with Superman, which is understandable. I just do not see her purpose in being in the film other than being Supermans' love interest. I mean, how can you be a writer at the Daily Planet if you do not know how to spell?? Kidder is fantastic at playing the character, do not get me wrong. I just do not like the character all that much.
Gene Hackman plays Lex Luthor. Quite honestly, I have always had mixed feelings about the way Hackman plays the character. I enjoy seeing the maniacal, intelligent side of Luthor. However, I do not particularly care for the scenes where he shows his more humorous side. I believe this takes away from how cunning the character can be. In fact that cunning side is played brilliantly by Hackman when Luthor and Superman come face to face near the climax of the movie. Even though I do have some misgivings about the portrayal of the character, that does not take away from how much I enjoy watching Gene Hackman play the character. This is a solid piece of acting by one of cinemas' finest.
Richard Donner is the director of Superman: The Movie. I love Donners' work in this film because he dives right into the conflict between the characters, and sets up their characteristics and motivations. This makes you care about the characters even more when all the spectacular visual effects scenes happen. I love the set design of the Daily Planet and Lex Luthor's lair. The Daily Planet is bustling with people doing their jobs, people typing and phones ringing off the hook. Luthor's lair is lined with encyclopedias and research books written by well-renowned authors. I have to say that some of the visual effects during the flood sequence at the climax of the film do feel a bit dated. You can tell that the sets of the neighborhoods are miniatures. Other than this minor complaint, Donner does a marvelous job with this movie. The characters, sets and visual effects are handled with the greatest of care by one of the most brilliant directors of our time.
Superman: The Movie is an unmitigated classic in every sense of the word. It has a great story, wonderful characters, and spectacular visual effects. If you have not yet checked out the movie that started the superhero movie genre, I highly suggest that you do as soon as possible. You will love it.
Superman: The Movie is the story of an alien boy who gets sent to Earth because his planet is dying. This boy grows up to become Earth's first superhero. What this movie does so well that, quite frankly is insanely hard to do in narrative storytelling, is dive right into the action by giving you a scene of exposition. We learn about the history between Jor-El (Marlon Brando) and General Zod (Terence Stamp) without actually seeing the events that happened. One could argue that it would have helped the film if we actually got to see these events, but I believe that there is enough dialog in this opening scene to understand what happened, and to also understand the intentions of the characters. This film also does a wonderful job of explaining the mythology of the character of Superman. We see Kal-El's birth mother, Lara (Susannah York), wrap him in the red and blue clothing that he will eventually wear as Superman. We also clearly understand that Clark Kent is a disguise, that he took his adoptive mothers' middle name, and Superman is the kind of person that Kal-El is at his core. This film does a magnificent job of bringing the Man of Steel to the big screen in a beautiful way. After nearly forty years, this film still holds up for the most part. However, after re-watching it recently, there are some cheesy elements that just do not feel right. After the sequence where Kal-El speaks to Jor-El at the Fortress of Solitude, Jor-Els' face turns to ice and slowly spins off screen. If this was meant to be a metaphor for his permanent disappearance, I do not believe that this was executed well. I think it would have been better to have his face just slowly fade away into nothingness. This would also help us understand that Jor Els' task is done, and that Kal-El does not need his fathers' wisdom and advice anymore. Also, in the scene where Superman and Lois Lane (Margot Kidder) are flying together, we hear narration by Kidder that explains her feelings when she is with Superman. This is unnecessary. We can clearly see how she is feeling from the way she is looking at Superman. We do not need to be told this through narration. There are also a few flaws in the scene where Lois Lane interviews Superman. Lois asks a few questions that begin with, "Is it true that...." In order for her to phrase the question like that, she had to have heard rumors about Superman, and yet there are no previous scenes where she is learning anything about him. Also, later in the film, when Eve Teschmacher (Valerie Perrine) is reading about the interview in the newspaper, some of the traits she reveals about Superman were not even asked in the interview! Later in the film, Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman) puts Superman through a gauntlet of attacks before he enters Luthors' lair. While this is all visually splendid to watch, Luthor knows these attacks will not kill Superman. So, why does he do this? Does he think Superman will retreat?? Now, towards the climax of the film, it is revealed that there are two nuclear missiles that Lex Luthor and Eve Teschmacher have altered (even though it was actually Otis, played by Ned Beatty, that did the altering). The only thing is, we only Otis alter ONE missile. Where was the other one this whole time?? During the exciting climax of the film, an earthquake occurs which results in a dam breaking, sending endless amounts of water towards a neighborhood. Wait....is there really a neighborhood near a dam?? Does that even make sense?? I feel that this particular scene exists just so we can witness the power of Superman. Despite all the glaring plot holes, Superman: The Movie is still just as influential and entertaining as it was forty years ago. I personally never get tired of watching the movie that launched superhero films as their own genre.
Christopher Reeve, in one of my personal favorite performances of all time, plays Superman/Clark Kent. What Reeve does in this movie is so beautiful. His physical nuances as Clark Kent and his gentlemanly demeanor as Superman are captivating to watch. The first scene with Clark Kent at the Daily Planet is a personal favorite of mine. Reeve completely disappears into the character, and it feels genuine. When Superman says, "I'm here to fight for truth, justice, and the American way", you believe him. There are truly not enough words for how much I love Reeves' performance in this film.
Margot Kidder plays Lois Lane. Personally, I find this version of Lane to be somewhat dimwitted. Yes, she does display remarkable exuberance when it comes to her job, but other than that it just seems like nothing can go right for her. Now, her being "dimwitted" may partially have something to do with her being head-over-heels in love with Superman, which is understandable. I just do not see her purpose in being in the film other than being Supermans' love interest. I mean, how can you be a writer at the Daily Planet if you do not know how to spell?? Kidder is fantastic at playing the character, do not get me wrong. I just do not like the character all that much.
Gene Hackman plays Lex Luthor. Quite honestly, I have always had mixed feelings about the way Hackman plays the character. I enjoy seeing the maniacal, intelligent side of Luthor. However, I do not particularly care for the scenes where he shows his more humorous side. I believe this takes away from how cunning the character can be. In fact that cunning side is played brilliantly by Hackman when Luthor and Superman come face to face near the climax of the movie. Even though I do have some misgivings about the portrayal of the character, that does not take away from how much I enjoy watching Gene Hackman play the character. This is a solid piece of acting by one of cinemas' finest.
Richard Donner is the director of Superman: The Movie. I love Donners' work in this film because he dives right into the conflict between the characters, and sets up their characteristics and motivations. This makes you care about the characters even more when all the spectacular visual effects scenes happen. I love the set design of the Daily Planet and Lex Luthor's lair. The Daily Planet is bustling with people doing their jobs, people typing and phones ringing off the hook. Luthor's lair is lined with encyclopedias and research books written by well-renowned authors. I have to say that some of the visual effects during the flood sequence at the climax of the film do feel a bit dated. You can tell that the sets of the neighborhoods are miniatures. Other than this minor complaint, Donner does a marvelous job with this movie. The characters, sets and visual effects are handled with the greatest of care by one of the most brilliant directors of our time.
Superman: The Movie is an unmitigated classic in every sense of the word. It has a great story, wonderful characters, and spectacular visual effects. If you have not yet checked out the movie that started the superhero movie genre, I highly suggest that you do as soon as possible. You will love it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)