DAWN of the PLANET of the APES   3.5***

 

 

        Among Hollywood's recent output of mediocre  remakes of Sci-Fi classics, 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' (2011) was the rare movie which stood out, for it had as much of a brain as it had a heart. Having said that, 'Rise' practically pales in comparison to the current sequel.  'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' which is a Science-Fiction near-masterpiece at a budget of  $170 million.  

 

The storyline picks up ten years after we saw Caesar and his fellow simian escapees seek refuge in the woods near San Francisco.  During the pre-movie credits sequence we see the results of the deadly spread the simian flu virus among humans  ( only I in 100 survive) as well as the setting  up of an advanced colony of apes outside of San Francisco where  in the city a decimated and battered humanity is struggling  to make some kind of life for itself. From there human and apes come into contact, and conflict builds: between ape and human, ape and ape, human and human. Andy Serkis is back again as  Caesar, who rules the apes with his intelligence and physical strength. Serkis is utterly outstanding and long overdue for major award recognition. It's a performance provoking awe, fear and joy in equal measure.

 

What needs to be mentioned first is what an astonishing achievement 'Dawn' is when it comes to the use of CGI. The level of craftsmanship displayed here simply has to be admired. It only took me seconds to forget I was watching digital characters (brought to life through the outstanding motion-capture performances by Andy Serkis, Toby Kebbell and Judy Grier – to name but a few), and I can't begin to imagine what a task it must have been for the artists and wizards in the animation department to work on every background and every tiny little detail of every character until this level of seamlessness and reality could be achieved.

But nearly every other aspect of the movie has been realized equally well. The haunting musical score fits and reflects the drama on screen perfectly . The often amazing and both beautiful and terrifying images on screen are spectacular . When it comes to the action;  'Dawn' is not your usual summer blockbuster. This is no light-hearted, comic-book-style fantasy film with fun, over-the-top action scenes. What we have here is a gritty, realistic portrayal of a slowly escalating conflict, and when we do get to the battle scenes in the third act, those scenes are a spectacular,

But the core of this film – and also the reason why the action scenes in the third act really do have an impact and all the mayhem really gets to you – is the intelligent, skilfully told story with its well-drawn, believable characters . The tragic simian/human conflict mirrors our real – and very human – past and present day wars and social frictions in a very credible way and thus makes this film resonate far beyond what any mere Sci-Fi premise would let you expect.

 

So, with its beautiful imagery, highly relevant story and breath-taking effects, 'Dawn” is an excellent Sci-Fi movie… an astonishing achievement reflecting the best of all the new technology !!

 

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and brief strong language.

 

Clark|  

 

 

BOYHOOD   3.5****
         The simple, but remarkable idea behind this movie is that we follow one boy and his family as he ages from age 6 through 18. It's not a documentary, but a fictional look from director Richard Linklater (  Dazed and Confused; the 3 Before movies and School of Rock among others ) who spent 12 years, going back once a year for 2 weeks to film more footage until the boy has grown up. The idea is very ambitious and what most people want to know is whether it was worth the wait. The answer is YES !! Boyhood is not a complex artsy exploration of the state of childhood nor does it even have a complex story. It's simply about a boy named Mason (played by Ellar Coltrane) who goes through childhood along with his parents (played by Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke) and sister Samantha (played by Lorelei Linklater, the daughter of the Director). The stepparents, new schools, love and life fall into place as we  witness  Mason's journey into adulthood. That's it.

Watching someone's life on cinema is nothing new, but to see it this so extensively and impressively done is quite unique. Had it been done with various child actors, it would have not been as interesting. It helps that young actor Ellar Coltrane made the growing-up trip… the 12 years rather well as a fine young actor. We get to see what kind of kid he was and go with him as he learns from his mistakes and others.

Mason doesn't have much of a personality until the second half of Boyhood, but he's not really supposed to. He's the every BOY who reacts to the decisions and personalities of his family and environment. This allows for his ideology and thoughts to shape his personality later on. Both Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke add much to a movie that needs great performances from everyone to make this situation work. Boyhood works because it all feels natural. There's no sudden heart attack or car accident or lottery win that changes the basic story line.
 

"Boyhood" is like a photo album. Instead of focusing on some of the major things of childhood, we get to see the smaller moments. The ones that can mean so much more to us, whether it's moving to a new house and school, a camping trip with a parent, or a discussion with a teacher. Richard Linklater captures the essence of childhood and shows it all. There are plenty of coming of age films, but this one truly gets at the heart of childhood and the transition to adulthood.

 

The movie is 2 hours and 40 minutes long and for some people it may seem slow and too long. Also since it doesn’t have any startling or really dramatic moments, it could leave some folks a little bored. BUT capturing and showing 12 years of growing up and living takes  time and spending approximately 13 minutes per year ( 166 minutes divided by 12) is hardly overdoing a story. If you accept the premise you need to be patient to let the story flow.

 

Clark

 

PS: Boyhood was shot in 39 days, which is modest by Hollywood standards. What isn't modest is the fact that those 39 days were spread out over the course of 12 years.  Every summer for a weekend or so the cast and crew reunited with $200,000 of the studio's money to create the next chapter in Mason's life, with even Director Linklater  not knowing how the story would evolve from one year to the next. (Linklater said he'd check in with Coltrane prior to shooting to see where his life was, then loosely base Mason's evolution on it.)  The movie is 166 minutes long and  every 10-15 minutes, the story jumps to the next year in their lives, and the results are endlessly fascinating

 

GUARDIANS of the GALAXY      4.0***

 

      “Guardians of the Galaxy” plays out like Star Wars at warp speed !!! It’s a fast, ferocious and  bad-ass entertaining thrill ride throughout. Following a rag tag group of intergalactic criminals, Guardians has the plot line of a Star Wars film, the characters of a Dirty Harry film and the action of every Marvel movie combined. What makes this film stand out from the rest of the Marvel films is that it engages you knowing that you probably have absolutely no idea who or what the hell this is. Unlike the fans of the comic, I had no knowledge of “Guardians of the Galaxy” but the movie educates you on everything you need to know  while giving proper character development without too heavily relying on the comic books as "common knowledge".

 

Chris Pratt as Peter, the leader of the “band of bad-asses” is awesome in this film. He reminds me a lot of Indiana Jones in space. He's a wise cracking, ass kicking rebel who can beat-up with his words or his fists (more times than not, it’s his fists) . The film comes at you like a bullet train that’s about to derail. You're always engaged with these characters despite the fact the main crew of misfits  consists of a talking high octane raccoon named Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper), a tall talking tree named Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel), a massively muscled angry guy named Drax (pro wrestler Dave Bautista), a green- skinned female assassin named Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and the only true human, Peter (Chris Pratt ) .The film is really amazing in that you look at these characters and the ridiculousness of the situation and still don't even question it .

 

The movie looks spectacular throughout, probably thanks to the huge number of "Digital & CGl Artists" who take up a large part of the end credits.  Sound wise, it may seem odd that a 2014 state of the art sci- fi movie would have a 1970's super music  soundtrack including   “Fooled Around and Fell in Love”, “Ooh Child”, “A’int No Mountain High Enough”,” Escape”( Pina Colada Song) and, of course, Blue Swede's "Hooked On A Feeling", all of which is completely explained and rather poignant.( It would be nice,  if kids started downloading some of this awesome old stuff (including the early 60’s “beach music”) and  listened to some real music (so spoken by an old fart). As for whether to see the 3D version. YES. And furthermore, it’s even more spectacular if seen at a true Imax theater. Movies like Guardians is why IMAX and 3D were created.

 

“Guardians of the Galaxy” is the ultimate summer flick. Something that's just plain  fun for you and the whole family. Geeks will bow, audiences will cheer, and the film will secure itself as a new and enlightened franchise for years to come. It's a blend of every clever nuances and many of the thing you love about the movies all rolled into one spectacular experience. It's delicious in nearly every way. And,  even if you are not a comic book superhero movie fan,  you'll have a great time seeing this movie  so long as you like action movies ). It is that good.

One thing people want to know about Marvel films is whether to stay for the end credits ? YES, and without being a spoiler, I'll say two things: one, it's NOT a big reveal or anything like that, but two, it's really funny.

Rated PG-13 forsome intense sequences of violence and action, and for some language

LIFE ITSELF…3.5***

           The face on the above movie poster is very recognizable to many movie fans : Roger Ebert, Pulitzer Prize winning film critic for the Chicago Sun Times, celebrated television reviewer, and one of the foremost advocates of film . We remember his small stature, roundish face and horn-rimmed glasses  and his trademarked thumbs up or down for his movie ratings. We think back to his well-crafted movie reviews and that impish grin (later be lost to bone cancer, along with his jaw and voice). This is his story, as told by one of his favorite documentary filmmakers, Steve James, in his gripping documentary, Life Itself.

The film chronicles Ebert's rise to fame in the sixties as a hard working reporter to becoming a syndicated film personality (along with his fellow critic, Gene Siskel) on their highly popular TV programs: Sneak Previews, At the Movies, and finally Siskel & Ebert which brought him fame and fortune .  But Life Itself is also a touching love story about Roger and Chaz, his devoted wife, and their relationship.  The film  never skirts the issues of Ebert's problematic life, from his early bouts with alcoholism and to his battle with cancer in his later years. The movie expertly transitions from before and after contrasting images of Ebert as the upbeat critic and crusader to a brave man disfigured by the ravages of cancer.   This is  an honest and absorbing tribute filled with interviews of other movie critics, close friends and film directors who truly admired this man and his impact on their lives. The film also uses wonderful footage from the Siskel / Ebert television programs which have a nostalgic and entertaining quality sorely missing from today's mass media. The bantering and rivalry between these two critics not only communicates their passion and devotion to the art of film, but ultimately illustrates their far-reaching effect on the film industry.

Re his bout with cancer, the movie vividly shows the brutality of the disease. Unable to eat, drink or talk, Ebert relies on his computer and his love for Chaz to get through the difficult, painful days. These hospital and rehab scenes are almost unbearable to watch but are never gratuitous.

I would like to take a minute to talk about  movies and writing reviews and what they mean to me. They are surely my favorite hobby and something I feel passionate about.  When I decided that I wanted to write movie reviews (about 10 years ago), I knew I didn't want to be an academic critic. I'm not someone who analyzes the deep themes and symbolism of the movies. It doesn't mean I don't sometimes see them, it's just something I don’t feel qualified to write about. My approach has always been to keep it rather  simple. My objective is to tell people if I think a movie is good or not and why. Roger Ebert was an excellent academic critic and my favorite by far. The thing I admired most about Ebert's reviews was his writing style…how simple, accurate, and eloquent he made everything. It was always about the movies with Ebert. He helped inform, describe and analyze what movies had to offer.  

This is no longer in the theatres but can be found on DVDs,  TV and through Netflix.

Clark

                       

THE PURGE: ANARCHY  3*** for its Genre (violent shasher type)

         There are some movie franchises that surprise the viewer by creating a better sequel then the original. This does not happen often but when it does it is quite enjoyable, especially when original was rather poorly done.. The original "Purge" had a great premise but somehow in casting a well known Hollywood lead like Ethan Hawke, though solid in his role,  nonetheless ruined the illusion of reality and delivered a standard 'family entrapped in the house needs to defend itself form intruders' type Hollywood scenario which has been done much better by other movies.

I was  quite surprised by "The Purge: Anarchy" one of the better movies of its genre lately (sort of a slasher type thriller)! This sequel picks up 1 year after the first purge and focuses on the stories of 5 individuals whose paths intertwine on the most horrible night of the year.    
Same concept as in the original: a radical “new” America creates one night a year, where for 12 hours (7 pm to 7 am) all crime - including murder - is legal . A man  heads out into the chaos of the down town streets of L.A, intent on seeking revenge for a reason not revealed until late in the film.  But early on he ends  up rescuing a stranded couple  as well as A mother and her daughter  in need of help. There is also a side story line that focuses on the  buildup of a resistance group that  knows that the true propose of the purge is to kill off the poor to control over population, while allowing the rich people to celebrate the purge by buying poor people and murdering them in ritualistic fashion . There is a lot of graphic chaotic violence here to the point that the intensity of it may cause you to look away at times. .The idea of casting relative unknown actors this time around paid off big time.  

You will like "Purge: Anarchy" if you like a smart, rough and sometimes graphically violent movie which this is.

Rated R for strong disturbing violence, and for language

Clark