Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is the exhausting title to the seventh entry in the Planet of the Apes series and it serves as a sort of reboot, as well as a prequel.  I know how much you like prequels and reboots!  I was not looking forward to this one whatsoever, if only because the last effort to revitalize this franchise was a huge disappointment for me, and that movie had a much better cast and director.  This director had made only one other movie, and I had never even heard of it.  What would it take to make Rise even halfway decent? 

Hint: more than a tire swing

Well, a different focus, for starters.  Rise of the Planet of the Apes begins with brilliant scientist Will Rodman (James Franco) experimenting a new drug on chimpanzees.  You see, Will's father, Charles (John Lithgow), has Alzheimer's and Will is trying to find a cure.  In other words, his drug will repair the brain, or enchance the brain if no damage is present.  When Will finally finds a chimp that responds positively to the drug, he pleads with his boss (David Oyelowo) to approve human testing; boss-man agrees to give Will a chance to convince the Board of Trustees.  On the very day of Will's presentation, the super-chimp (dubbed "Bright Eyes") goes, um, bananas, attacking people and destroying property.  Obviously, the drug is bad and all the chimps must be killed.  But wait...!  Will and his monkey handler guy (Tyler Labine) discover a teeny, tiny baby chimp in Bright Eyes' cage --- Bright Eyes wasn't drug crazy, she was protecting her child!  Aww...!

Free shipping?  Why wouldn't you buy a monkey?

So, yeah, that was tragic.  Will won't let the baby monkey get all murderdeathkilled, though.  He does what any scientist in a similar situation would do --- he experiments on the monkey because its momma was taking some crazy drugs when it was in the womb sneaks it out of the building and takes it home with him.  This was going to just be a temporary solution, but Will's dad seemed to like the monkey, so it stuck around.  More than that, this monkey turned out to be super-smart.  In fact, little Caesar (motion-capture-acted by Andy Serkis) is brilliant enough to convince Will to steal some of his experimental drug and try it out on his dad, on the sly.

"Pizza!  Pizza!"

Everything seems to be coming up Will for a while, but eventually Caesar is discovered by the neighbors and Will is forced to give him up.  And this is where the movie gets interesting.  Up until this point, Rise of the Planet of the Apes has been about Will raising Caesar almost like a son.  From this point on, the film is about Caesar becoming a man.  Well, not literally.

The human actors in Rise of the Planet of the Apes are just okay.  I don't completely buy James Franco as a brilliant scientist, but I thought he handled his role fairly well.  Freida Pinto's character didn't add a whole lot to the story, but she was also fine.  John Lithgow was pretty good as Will's father, but I would have preferred seeing his character's big breakdown happen at night.  David Oyelowo was less impressive as the greedy and ruthless science boss; his character could have legitimately had a mustache-twirling scene where he counted his imaginary money.  Brian Cox plays a small supporting role and is decent, although I think he has played the same basic bastard character a few times over by now.  This is the first first big post-Harry Potter role for Tom Felton, and he is once again stuck playing a villain.  I really wanted to like Felton here, but I couldn't wait to see him die.

If only for his lame "It's a madhouse" line

As the primary chimp, Caesar, Andy Serkis was phenomenal.  It's too bad that his acting isn't considered legit by most big-time awards shows, because his motion-capture work is just astounding here.  Really, the emotional weight of the film depends on Serkis' physical acting and he does not disappoint.  Shifting the focus of the story onto a monkey --- without a human to narrate to the audience --- was risky and potentially hilarious (in the wrong way), but Andy Serkis absolutely made this film.

Now, kiss

Director Rupert Wyatt did an impressive job with the actors who were imitating monkeys; the rest of the film he could have handled better.  The second half of the movie, which focuses almost exclusively on Caesar's struggles, is pretty great.  Monkeys fighting each other, monkeys fighting Draco Malfoy, monkeys being monkeys...the only thing missing was poop throwing.  Not all directors can handle CGI directing, but Wyatt did not appear to have a problem with that.  The first half of the movie, though, occasionally veered into the realm of ridiculousness.  Not all of it is Wyatt's fault, but as director, he should have prevented some of this.

Let's start with the title/tag line.

Okay, that's a pretty cool bit of promo work, but it (and the movie's trailer) definitely imply a hell of a lot more fighting and, well, revolution than the final product provides.  There are only two definite ape-on-human deaths in this film, despite a swarm (a flock?  A pack?  A murder?) of apes fighting the police on the Golden Gate Bridge.  Those scenes were entertaining, but if you went into the movie hoping for a lot more action like that, you would be sorely disappointed.  Instead of there being a "revolution," SPOILER ALERT: the apes go into the redwood forest.  Humanity then apparently suffers a pandemic during the closing credits.  That's right, the deadliest part of this movie happens off-camera.  Really, that was the most disappointing realization I had with Rise of the Planet of the Apes; it wasn't so much a "rising" as it was winning by default.

Fact: apes love railings

That ending would have been a slight let down in the best of times, but when you combine that with a supposedly smart story doing many stupid things, things start to get ugly.  I won't dive into my first problem with Rise of the Planet of the Apes in depth, but I have to mention it.  This movie takes place over a span of eight years.  Eight years!  And the only character that has even a slight cosmetic change in all that time is Caesar.  I'm not saying that Freida Pinto needed a perm or that James Franco should have had a mullet, but every human character is static over those eight years --- they have the same appearance, the same jobs, live in the same homes, and apparently have the same opinions.  If anything argues that this movie is about the CGI monkeys, it is that indifference to character development.

Slightly attracted strangers, or longtime lovers?  This could be any scene in the movie.

My biggest problem had to do with the way Will's scientist gig worked.  I'm not a high-profile scientist tasked with the job of creating something new, safe, and ridiculously profitable, but I imagine security at places where that sort of thing happens would be fairly strict.  Not only is Will able to sneak out a baby chimp in a perforated shoebox on "Kill the Monkeys" day, but he steals what amounts to dozens of canisters of his super-secret brain drug.  At least they hid stuff inside shaving cream cans in Jurassic Park --- he just puts them in his pocket.  And does nobody take an interest in Will's life at work?  "Gee, Will, it sure sucks that the company wants you to stop researching the drug that might cure your dad's Alzheimer's...oh?  Your dad's much better now?  That...um...shouldn't happen, but...great!  Are we missing some of the brain drug canisters?"

There are moments of Rise of the Planet of the Apes that are truly entertaining.  Caesar's schemes were pretty cool and the CGI/motion-capture expressions were fantastic.  But this is a clumsy movie.  It has ham-fisted references to the original film (although the spacecraft bit was subtle and cool) and extremely shallow human characters running around in a plot with many convenient logic holes.  I can't overlook my utter surprise that this movie wound up entertaining me, but I was disappointed in the overall direction of the picture as well as its numerous moments of stupidity.  Given the same overall story and a less ridiculous script, I would probably give this movie eight stars.  But Rise of the Planet of the Apes sucks hard on the stupid lever, and I can't ignore that.

Ironclad

It's becoming a habit.  I see a movie that I am unfamiliar with and would normally ignore, but then I notice an actor or director.  And then I recognize other cast members.  Pretty soon, I am watching the movie with the hope of discovering a diamond in the rough; the problem is that diamonds are (unsurprisingly) rare.  That's how I stumbled upon Ironclad.  Paul Giamatti, Brian Cox, Jason Flemyng and Derek Jacobi --- none of whom I trust to headline a movie, mind you --- tend to play solid supporting roles, and I had a vague recollection of James Purefoy from the Rome DVD covers.  The tagline is "Blood.  Will.  Run."  All of that should add up to a decent movie, right?

Judging by hair and makeup, I'd guess a period comedy

Ironclad opens with some narration about some of the basic reasons King John of England (Paul Giamatti) was forced to sign the Magna Carta, the document that essentially began the decline of the monarchy in the West and the rise of the individual.  This movie is not about the signing of the Magna Carta, though.  Ironclad is the story of what happened next, which is often overlooked.  After signing this important historical document, King John quickly waged war on the barons that had forced him to sign it, and he did it with Danish mercenaries.  

All of whom were designed by Frank Frazetta

Marshal (James Purefoy) was a Templar Knight who, like so many other recent film knights, had seen too much evil done in battle.  And, because this is a movie, that means that he is fated to see even more battle within the next few hours.  Marshal passed word of John's ill deeds on to others, including  the author of the Magna Carta, Archbishop Langton (Charles Dance), and a freedom-loving baron, William Albany (Brian Cox).  Agreeing that John must be stopped, the trio also agree that the place to do it is at Rochester Castle.  The castle isn't much to look at, but realty and strategic military objectives often share the same slogan: location, location, location.  If John plans to take the fight to London, he needs to capture Rochester Castle.  Albany and Marshal agree to take a few men to the castle and protect it to the last man against the evil of King John. 

Actual dialogue: "YEAAARRGH!"

I don't have any real problems with the idea of Ironclad.  Sure, I realize that the details of the film are not historically accurate, in the same way that the course of history isn't accurate when you play Sid Meier's Civilization on "Easy."

Above: my Civilization III navy, circa 1400

That reminds me...nobody ever uses the word "ironclad" in Ironclad.  Isn't that kind of strange?  It's not without precedent, of course, but I expected to see something heavily armored in the movie, at the very least.  Oh well, that's not a huge deal. 

While I have no problem with the idea behind Ironclad, I have some significant problems with its execution, starting with the cast.  Brian Cox was over-dramatic, but it was a part that called for some bombastic speeches, and he delivered them with enthusiasm.  Vladimir Kulich was pretty entertaining as John's lead Danish henchman, but he didn't get enough opportunities to show off.  I was conflicted over Paul Giamatti's performance as King John, though.  I liked that John isn't portrayed as a coward or a spoiled child, as he typically is.  I'm fine with the choice to make him into a meanie jerkface.  But Giamatti's typically solid performance has a hard time overcoming the fact that he looks like this:

You know...like Paul Giamatti in a bad wig and silly clothes

Giamatti chewed on some scenery and gave a couple of nasty speeches, but I couldn't enjoy his nastiness because he just looked silly.  The rest of the cast of Ironclad doesn't have quite the same problem.  While many of them looked nice, there wasn't much acting or characterization.

You'd think something cool was happening here, but no

James Purefoy is the lead in this film, but he doesn't do much.  He starts out as a reluctant warrior, winds up fighting, and grimaces his way through a love interest.  Kate Mara treats Purefoy's acting as a gambling bid, seeing his grimace and raising awkward motives and terrible dialogue.  The supporting cast is fairly noteworthy, but none of their performances are.  Derek Jacobi, Charles Dance, Jason Flemyng, and Mackenzie Crook are all welcome sights in a lesser-known film, but their parts are shallow and their screen time is limited, forcing the actors into well-trodden stereotypes the audience can understand without requiring anything like acting or character development. 

Example: Crook was referred to as "Gareth"

On the bright side, I thought Jamie Foreman was decently entertaining in his limited part and relative newcomer Aneurin Barnard wasn't completely obnoxious as the idealistic youth.

Ironclad is not a complete waste of time, though.  Director Jonathan English may not have shown any skill in making me care about the fate of any of these characters and he may have co-written a script that is not terribly accurate from the historical perspective, but he did manage to do this:

Yes, that's a hatchet splitting a skull like an overripe melon.  That's not all the ridiculous violence Ironclad has to offer, either.  Hands, feet and a tongue are all forcefully removed from their owners in this film.  There is even a scene where Jamie Foreman severs a man's arm and then proceeds to beat the man with his own arm.  There's a lot of what you might expect in a castle siege fight sequence (stabbings, arrows, tar, loss of life and limb, etc.), but even the typical fare is pretty decent.  Perhaps English's greatest achievement is that he gave the battle meaning by explaining the strategic significance of it.  At one point, John's top Dane gets annoyed that he is wasting his men on this little castle and wants to move on, which seems totally sensible.  Not only did English do a good job of giving the heroes a reason to fight and die for that castle, but he also had John explain why the bad guys needed to fight and die for the castle, too.

But is that enough to recommend Ironclad?  Uh, no.  A movie like this doesn't need to have witty banter or a well-written supporting cast, but it does need two or three important elements: a hero you root for, a villain you love to hate, and/or a romance that you give a damn about.  Purefoy's character isn't charismatic, he just seems weary, and that's a tough lead character type to watch. 

This is his "I'm glad we're having pie" look

Giamatti acted well enough as John, but his hair and the obviousness of some of his schemes (like the promise he made to the Danes) were just ridiculous.  And Kate Mara...her character is married to Derek Jacobi, and yet she spends her entire siege time intent on forcing Purefoy to break his Templar vows and have sexy time with her.  Sorry, Ironclad, you are zero for three.  Still, the action is pretty good, and the warfare felt authentic to the time period.  Plus, I learned a new use for pigs; they truly are a magical animal.  I wouldn't say that Ironclad is good, but it's halfway decent entertainment if you like battles and don't want to invest much emotions into the characters.

Super Troopers

I'm fairly picky when it comes to comedies.  There are many reasons for that (discriminating taste, enough intelligence to see punchlines coming, a love of context-based humor, and utter snobbery), but I am usually willing to give a movie the benefit of the doubt and just rip it a new asshole once it's over.  I was definitely prepared to do that the first time I saw Super Troopers.  When a friend brought the DVD over to watch, everyone in the room groaned.  To be fair, that particular buddy has some pretty terrible taste and the television trailer for the movie looked wretched.  I've seen funnier commercials for the ASPCA.  Since my friends and I were open-minded (and we relished the possibility of revoking our friend's movie recommendation privileges), we chose to watch Super Troopers, despite our misgivings.  Good move, young Brian and Friends.

As with most comedies, the plot is pretty basic.  The Vermont State Troopers based in the Canadian border town of Spurbury are on the verge of being shut down, with their responsibilities (and budget) probably going to the jerks in the Spurbury Police Department.  That's not terribly surprising, since these State Troopers spend their time at work fishing, joking, masturbating, and smoking evidence from drug busts.  These amateur cops accidentally stumble into a murder/drug investigation, but can they solve the crime?  And will that be enough to make them look moderately competent?

A: Nope

No, the plot isn't anything special.  What the plot of Super Troopers does is allow the sketch comedy group behind the film, Broken Lizard, many episodic opportunities to crack wise.  Honestly, I usually don't like movies based on sketch comedy because the plots are awful and they are usually filled with a single joke spread over ninety minutes.  **cough, cough, anything originating from SNL in the last eighteen years, cough cough** What I appreciate most about Super Troopers is how well each sketch in the movie is framed.  The officers pull over a civilian and more or less ask each other what pranks they are going to pull this time.

Oddly enough, this is funny with context

It's a simple way to make a movie, but it's damned effective.  My favorite thing about Super Troopers is that the humor is generated within each sketch --- meaning that it isn't random or pop-culture based --- and that helps it stay rewarding even with (especially with) repeat viewings.

Nobody in the cast was going to win an Oscar for Super Troopers, but I thought everyone was pretty good.  The standout actor in this film is definitely Kevin Heffernan as Officer Farva; he has the best lines and perfectly embodies an annoying guy you like to laugh at.  The rest of Broken Lizard all turned in solid performances with their own highlights; Jay Chandrasekhar's ethnic and swinger jokes were great, Erik Stolhanske's rookie was made for hazing, Steve Lemme's Mac was consistently funny (and has both mine and my dad's favorite scenes), and Paul Soter managed to not suck, despite being the character with a romantic subplot.  Brian Cox added some much-needed legitimacy to the film, and he showed off that he can be pretty funny when he wants to be, too.  Daniel von Bargen was solid as the hard-ass Spurberry Police Chief.  Marisa Coughlan might have been in the film to add a romantic interest for Soter, but she pulled off a convincingly strong and likable female character in a movie where that was light years beyond what was required of her.  You might recognize a few other supporting cast members, too.  Jim Gaffigan, before he was famous, had a bit part, as did Lynda Carter (although hers was an "after she was famous" bit part).

Meow!

Philippe Brenninkmeyer, Joey Kern, and that bastard who married Christina Hendricks, Geoffrey Arend, all have minor (but memorable) roles, too.

I simply cannot believe this jackass married a hottie

What makes Super Troopers such a funny movie?  Honestly, I credit Jay Chandrasekhar for editing (and, I suppose, for directing) the crap out of the film.   Every scene has several jokes in it, and most of them are throwaway gags that don't detract from the story.  The weakest parts of the film are the ones that propel the plot forward, but even those have many fun moments.  The best parts are the scenes where the team pulls over drivers.  Maybe it is the perfect cop mustaches.

Maybe it's the material.  Maybe it is because the humor feels original and is usually hard to predict.  Whatever the reasons, I truly appreciate the blood, sweat and tears that went into the post-production on this movie, because it is a lean, mean comedy machine.

After I saw Super Troopers in college, I went home and rented the movie to show off to my family.  Well, not all my family --- mainly my father, who is a very funny man and helped shape my sense of humor.  His immediate reaction to my suggestion was the same as mine: the commercials made it look like crap.  I managed to talk him into watching the first scene, and from there he was hooked.  And when I say "hooked," I mean "having trouble breathing because he was crying from laughter."  To give you an idea of how funny my father found this movie, he decided to try and get my mother (a very generous and nice woman, although not nearly as funny as us male folks) interested in the movie by showing her this scene:

How high off laughter was my dad to think that his wife --- who isn't a big fan of stupid humor --- would watch a scene with a bullet-proof cup and the line "good enough to fuck your mother" and think to herself "Perhaps this is a film I should spend some more time with."  My dad is an idiot.

Is Super Troopers a masterpiece?  Absolutely not.  It's not very clever, the story is weak, and the characters are not very sympathetic.  I absolutely love this movie, though.  It is stupid humor at its best, and varied enough to make you want to watch it again --- and you are rewarded if you do, because the script is jam-packed with half-audible lines and throwaway jokes that you didn't catch the first time through.  This is easily the funniest movie I have seen in the last decade.

For the record, my favorite moment in the movie is when Mac tells Rando to sit down in the diner.  The timing of the syrup bottle is so perfect, it gives me the giggles every time.

Red (2010)

Apparently, America, we are having trouble saying goodbye to our aging action stars.  If you truly doubt that, please explain the appeal of Rambo or The Expendables.  Don't get me wrong, I miss the days when a hero could stand in one spot and shoot down fifteen thousand ninja-Communist-Nazis, without getting even a flesh wound, and I've enjoyed Stallone's increasingly idiotic movies.  Still, it's kind of strange that we haven't seen anybody (except maybe Jason Statham) truly embrace the stupid action hero role, given how important dumb action movies were in the 80s and 90s.  When you think about it, the success of The Expendables is an amusing insight into just how badly we want these actors to keep killing bad guys.  I don't know how intentional this was, but Red seems to be in on that joke, too.

It's kind of like the song from White Christmas...what do you do with a former CIA black-ops agent when he stops being a CIA black-ops agent?  Well, if you are Frank Moses (Bruce Willis), and you are living an inoffensive existence as a lonely retiree whose only friend is a customer service representative at a bank several states away, the answer is simple: kill him.  For reasons unknown to him, Frank discovers that his status in the intelligence community has been changed from "retired" to RED ("retired, extremely dangerous").  Being RED means that assassination squads infiltrate your home in the middle of the night, looking to terminate with extreme prejudice.  However, the "extremely dangerous" bit is an understatement; Frank quickly kills his attackers and begins a quest to find out who wants to kill him and why.

Along the way, Frank has to pick up that bank representative, Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker).  He realizes that his phone must have been tapped prior to the assassination attempt and that the next logical step for the bad guys would be to kidnap Sarah and use her as leverage against him.  She's not very willing at first, but as more people keep showing up to kill her, Sarah quickly gets on the Frank Moses bandwagon.  Frank can't unravel the plot against him all by his lonesome, though, which means he needs to find help.  Since he's retired, it turns out that his help is also a little past their prime.  Joe (Morgan Freeman), Frank's mentor, is now living in a retirement home and passes the time by ogling his nurse's ass.  Marvin (John Malkovich) is a well-armed conspiracy theorist that is paranoid to the extent of having a decoy house.  Victoria (Helen Mirren) is a prim and proper housewife, formerly the best wetworks specialist in the business.  With a little help from Ivan (Brian Cox), a Russian spy and former adversary, the group sets out to learn the truth.

I so so so wish he yelled "Flava Flaaaaav!" here.

 I was excited to see this movie after seeing the trailers for it.  It didn't look like a great action movie --- it has Morgan Freeman and Helen Mirren, remember? --- but I thought it looked funny.  I was wrong.  It is funny and a good action movie.  This is one of Willis' more wooden roles, but I don't know if I would have bought a black-ops specialist with a talent for wisecracks.  His stoicism was probably for the best.  Morgan Freeman and Helen Mirren clearly had a lot of fun in their roles, with Mirren taking particular relish in being the gun expert.  I go back and forth with my appreciation for John Malkovich, but he plays a pretty amusing paranoid here.  Malkovich was probably my favorite character in the film, but I also really enjoyed Brian Cox.  I think I just like the idea of former arch-enemies getting together and reminiscing about "the good old days," when they used to try to kill each other.  Cox doesn't get nearly enough comic work, in my opinion.  Mary-Louise Parker was also good as the relative newbie to all the danger.  Is it just me, or was Parker neither attractive or talented until she turned 40?  Weird.  I liked seeing Ernest Borgnine again, even if he wasn't threatening to shoot anyone in the face.  The rest of the cast was kind of meh.  James Remar was in the movie for all of two seconds.  Rebecca "Mrs. David Mamet" Pidgeon and her ugly jaw was as awful as she usually is, as was Richard Dreyfuss in his small-but-overacted role.  I'm not exactly sure why Julian McMahon took his small part in the film, but he was definitely many years too young for the character he played.  The bulk of the meh comes from Karl Urban, though.  While I appreciate his dedication to the action movie genre, Urban is best when he speaks little and doesn't develop as a character.  Here, he tries to actually act, with little to show for it.

Though this isn't from Red, Ernest Borgnine is still awesome.

This movie shouldn't be as good as it is.  The screenwriters that adapted this story from the comic book series are the same people who wrote the dreadful Whiteout.  The director, Robert Schwentke, has never shown a talent for either action or comedy, with his only other English films being The Time Traveler's Wife and Flightplan.  Somehow, those films managed to collectively gross over $300 million and still have absolutely zero appeal to me.  Regardless, the script was smart, the actors were directed well, and the action was pretty cool.  I don't think I've ever seen so many bullets fired into one suburban home before, but I liked it.

Probably the thing I appreciated most about this movie was that it didn't keep calling attention to the age of its characters.  Aside from an assassin calling Malkovich "old man," and maybe a similar remark made during a Willis-Urban fight, age was not a joke in this movie.  Thank you, screenwriters.  Instead, the humor was largely contextual and delivery-based.  The main actors were all very good, and only the bad guys weren't funny.  The pace is quick, the action is good, and many things go boom.  This is exactly what From Paris With Love should have been, but was not.  I will go so far as to say that Red is one of the most enjoyable action movies of 2010, and the perfect antidote for anyone who cannot fathom the success of The Expendables.

Manhunter

Manhunter is at a bit of a disadvantage with modern viewers.  While it was the first Thomas Harris novel to reach the big screen, it does not feature Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Leckor (not Lecter, as in the later films).  This was remedied when the movie was remade taking the source novel's name of Red Dragon.  That remake was a star-studded spectacle, even though it was clearly just an excuse to get Hopkins into the Lecter role one more time.  Because of Hopkins' success with the Lecter role, this movie has been unfairly overlooked.  While it is dated, this movie stands on its own well enough.

Manhunter is the story of Will Graham (William Petersen), a former profiler for the FBI.  His former coworker, Jack Crawford (Dennis Farina), approaches Graham with a serial killer case; Graham wants nothing to do with the work, but Crawford convinces him that the case is a ticking clock (the killer operates on a lunar cycle, so they know how much time they have) and Graham unhappily submits.  Graham is unquestionably the focus in this movie and is on the screen for the better part of the first half.  He approaches criminal profiling like method actors approach their roles; he takes the facts and then tries to get in the killer's head.  With this insight, he is able to follow their logic and, theoretically, catch them.  This killer, dubbed the Tooth Fairy, is harder to predict than most.  Graham has difficulty finding connections between the victims, so he turns to a criminal for help.  Graham's last case was that of Dr. Hannibal Lecktor (Brian Cox), who was both a psychiatrist adviser to Graham and the serial killer that Graham was hunting; Graham discovered Lecktor's secret and led to his capture, but not before Lecktor nearly killed him.  Meanwhile, Francis Dollarhyde (Tom Noonan) is the Tooth Fairy killer.  However, he manages to fall in love with a blind woman, Reba (Joan Allen), at work.  Her confidence and straightforward manner puts him at ease, since he is socially awkward and is self conscious of his repaired cleft lip.  Unfortunately, Dollarhyde is a psycho-killer and Graham is practically psychic, so this movie can't end well for everybody.

This is not a movie without its problems.  The production values definitely indicate that this was made in the eighties.  The title is just silly; the producers decided not to call it "Red Dragon" (partially) because it doesn't have any karate.  Toward the end of the movie, when Dollarhyde is reveling in his serial killer persona, he turns on Iron Butterfly's "In-A-Godda-Da-Vita" to frighten his girlfriend.  Unless she has a fear of organ music, he made a poor choice.  The movie's ending strays significantly away from the book's, which isn't necessarily a problem.  The ending is very physical, where the rest of the movie is psychological; the ending is abrupt because of this.

There are a lot of good things about this movie, though.  I liked William Petersen's performance; he seemed genuinely disturbed as he figured out what and why the Tooth Fairy did his work.  Some of his lines seemed a little unnatural, but I think that suits a character that can put himself in the mental shoes of killers.  Brian Cox does a decent job as Hannibal Lecktor, but he made the character seem more human; making him more approachable and understandable, though, makes his aloofness seem pettier.  My overall impression was that Hannibal was a fairly intelligent, snotty jerk --- not necessarily a monster.  Tom Noonan, on the other hand, was very effective as the Tooth Fairy.  Maybe it's because this movie does not give nearly as much background to his character as Red Dragon does, but he is socially awkward, abrupt, unsympathetic, and genuinely creepy.  Unfortunately, when he assumes his killer persona, he wears what appears to be pantyhose over half of his head.  While a little weird, it's also a little funny.  The other actors (basically Dennis Farina, Joan Allen, and Stephen Lang) play their parts well enough.

Michael Mann directed and wrote the screenplay to this film.  That means that this movie is a little long, has abrupt violence, and a gratuitous sex scene.  I think he did a pretty good job with the actors in this movie; Cox and Petersen do pretty well and Noonan (who is not a good actor) was impressive.  This movie is a lot less graphic than both the book and the remake, which I liked better than having Graham flash back to murders that he is imagining.  I disagree with the choice to omit all references to the Red Dragon from this movie; a lot of Dollarhyde's dialogue is based off of the ideas of William Blake, and ignoring the painting, tattoos and everything else made his dialogue more nonsensical.  I really didn't like much of Graham's monologuing, but it got absolutely terrible toward the film's climax.

In the end, the odd creative choices led to an ending that didn't match the tone of the film as a whole.  I liked several aspects of the movie, but it was occasionally awkward to watch.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox

Roald Dahl and Wes Anderson...in retrospect, it's hard to believe it took this long for those two names to be connected.  Dahl, the author of so many delightful, dark, and subversive children's books, seems to have delighted in writing legitimate literature for the young and the old.  In his books, adults were often evil, and the world is full of evil, so it always seemed fantastic when things went right.  Wes Anderson is perhaps the youngest genius director working in Hollywood right now.  His films don't always work (I'm looking at you, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou), but they are always worth watching.  As the writer and director of his movies, Anderson pays an amazing amount of attention to detail in all his films, so much so that re-watching his movies can often be a revelatory experience.  Anderson doesn't like telling safe or typical stories, so him basing a script on a Dahl book is a natural fit.

The first thing you will notice about this movie is the animation.  Anderson wanted to capture the look and feel of the original King Kong, so stop-motion animation was used.  However, unlike the claymation-style animation from Gumby or the original Clash of the Titans, this animation looks absolutely painstaking.  The hairs on each animal move.  Not all at the same time, or even in the same direction.  They move naturally, which is extremely difficult to achieve through artificial means.  The characters are far more expressive than you would think possible with this technology.  The animation style changes, from the ultra-detailed work of the close shots to fast and loose two-dimensional shots used to pass time quickly and show off the cartooniness of the story.  Nowadays, Pixar studios have the animation market cornered with their terrific computer animated films.  The Fantastic Mr. Fox is a welcome reminder that animation comes in many shapes and forms, and can be just as amazing as the best that technology has to offer --- or even better.

That's just the animation, though.  What about the story?  This is the tale of Mr. Fox (voiced by George Clooney), a former chicken thief turned family man.  Mr. Fox has sworn off the risky life of chicken thievery to please his wife, Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep), and provide for his son, Ash (Jason Schwartzman).  The movie conveniently skips over the twelve years where Mr. Fox kept to the straight and narrow and focuses on when he eventually starts stealing again.  There are three mean farmers near the Fox household.  Fox plunders them systematically until they decide to fight back.  This movie doesn't pull its punches with the mean humans; they have might and machines, and are willing to use them.  Fox's home is torn apart and the entire neighborhood is ruined, making Fox and his entire community homeless.  That doesn't mean that Fox stops fighting, of course.

Wes Anderson adds quite a bit to Dahl's original story, partly to make it feature-length and partly to fit into his unique cinematic vision.  The most notable change is the number of children, from four in the book to one in the movie.  This sets up Fox's somewhat odd son, Ash, for a rivalry with his cousin, the athletic Kristofferson; Mr. Fox seems underwhelmed by Ash, while openly applauding Kristofferson.  Then again, it wouldn't be a Wes Anderson movie without a strained father/son relationship, would it?

The voice acting here is fine, overall, but could be better.  Clooney is excellent as Mr. Fox.  Willem Dafoe is very entertaining as Fox's animal nemesis, the rat.  Bill Murray does a good job with Mr. Badger; not good enough to cancel out Garfield, but still pretty good.  Overall, though, it probably would have been better with voice actors.  As it is, the cast is a blend of Anderson's friends, coworkers, and actors that he likes.  That means that Adrien Brody, Brian Cox, Owen Wilson, director Garth Jennings, musician Jarvis Cocker, and Wes Anderson himself all make small contributions to the voice cast.  Anderson earns loyalty from his actors unlike any other director today; that is why so many of the same actors work with him, picture after picture, even if their part is minute.  That works wonders in an ensemble movie.  This is animated, though, and that affection does not always show through.  While the voice acting could have been better, it certainly could have been much, much worse (I'm thinking of Shark Tale as an example).  The movie circles around Clooney's character, so that makes a lot of the shortcomings inconsequential; it's called The Fantastic Mr. Fox, not An Animal Ensemble featuring Mr. Fox, after all.

From a visual standpoint, this movie is superb.  From a directorial standpoint, this movie is pretty awesome.  But the story...well, it is ambitious, but doesn't quite hit a home run.  Anderson's script calls attention to the anthropomorphic aspects of the characters, pointing out some of their odd behaviors, all while reemphasizing the fact that these animals are, in fact, animals.  It's not quite metafilm, but it's close.  The movie likes to step back and point out some of the oddities of animals acting like people, and that quality of self-awareness, while often funny, detracts from the story . It sometimes felt like Mr. Fox was giving me the old wink-wink-nudge-nudge, letting me know that animals don't really act like this.  This isn't overt stuff, like Jimmy Fallon mugging the camera, but I noticed it.  Anderson also takes the time to show the consequences of Mr. Fox's actions; Fox's selfishness (or wildness, I suppose) threatens the lives of his friends and family in the short- and long-term, makes his son feel inadequate, and might ruin his marriage.  This is theoretically fine, but a little heavy-handed in practice.  Do I need a realistic marital argument in a children's film about foxes?  No, but I admit that it was written well.  The fact that it was written, though, just feels like a case of wrong time, wrong place.