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.

Leap Year

I would like to take the time to point out the colorization of this movie poster.  If you can't get a good look at the actors' eyes, check it out the next time you're at Best Buy or Target or wherever.  Their eyes are glowing.  Seriously, zoom in to the picture.  This guy's eyes look either completely photoshopped, or he is about to ask where the Keymaster is.  Either way, it is bad news for this movie; either it is cheap enough to use terrible photo editing, or it is trying to draw comparisons to Ghostbusters.  It's a lose-lose situation.

The title Leap Year refers to the Irish tradition that allows women to propose marriage to men on February 29th.  So, I suppose that this movie should have been called February 29th or Leap Year Day.  Fun fact: the actual Leap Year marriage tradition in the English-speaking world isn't necessarily limited to Ireland or that particular day; the whole year is wide open for proposals.  That way, desperate women have a whole year to impose their will upon their unwilling boyfriends.

Anna (Amy Adams) is super successful and is enjoying a high class Boston lifestyle, with fancy clothes, rich friends, and a cardiologist boyfriend, Jeremy (Adam Scott).  It doesn't matter that her job has less redeeming social value than a crack dealer, her friends are bitter and shallow, or that her boyfriend is self-centered and shows off heart surgery pictures during dinner.  You're supposed to like Anna and sympathize with her problem.  What problem, you ask?  Well, Jeremy was spotted leaving a fancy jewelry shop, so Anna and her friend (Kaitlin Olson) freak out like those commercials where they say "He went to JARED!"  Well, Jeremy and Anna have a special dinner date planned for the night before he has to leave for Dublin, Ireland for a cardiologist conference; Anna assumes that he will propose, but instead, he gives her really nice diamond earrings.  Bastard.  After he has left for Dublin, Anna reflects on something her father told her (John Lithgow, whose two or three minute performance earned him fourth billing in the credits); in Ireland, women can propose to men on February 29th.  And, as you might have guessed, this film takes place during a Leap Year.  The next Leap Year is in 2012, so I suppose that this movie could be seen as a glimpse into our future.  I'm afraid it's neither a romantic nor comedic future.

Anna decides to fly to Dublin right away, but her flight is diverted to Wales because of poor weather conditions.  No planes are flying, and she has to get to Dublin by tomorrow (more on that later), so she charters a small fishing boat.  I didn't notice her trying to rent a car, though.  The ocean waters are too rough to reach Dublin, so Anna is dropped off in Quaint Irish Town, Ireland, which has only one restaurant, one hotel and one taxi service, all of which are run by Declan (Matthew Goode).  Declan is a little ornery, but who wouldn't be?  Anna comes in, is cranky about her whole Leap Year situation, and basically insults his town, tavern, and hotel within minutes of meeting him.  After some hilarious hijinks (it turns out that Anna --- get this --- is a little clumsy and doesn't respect other people's property!  Guffaw!), Declan agrees to take Anna to Dublin for a fee (his tavern is in financial trouble).  Again, hijinks ensue, and Anna accidentally causes Declan's car to crash into a shallow lake.  It will take a day for the tow truck to get the car out, so Anna decides to find another modes of transportation.  Declan follows because, somehow, that qualifies as taking her to Dublin.  Along the way, the two squabble constantly.  You have never seen such a poorly matched couple..unless you're married!  Bada-BING!  And yet...Declan gets in a fight for Anna and expresses sympathy for the fact that her dad is unreliable.  And Anna, in a moment of true mutual understanding, pukes on Declan's shoes.  It's a romantic comedy, so this odd couple will obviously fall in love, but what will happen when Anna finally gets to Dublin and sees Jeremy again?

I disguise this fact pretty well, I know, but I am not a huge romantic comedy fan.  That doesn't mean that I can't like them, I just tend not to because I find them insulting to my intelligence and incredibly not funny.  In all fairness, Leap Year is not god awful.  Amy Adams is able to pull off naive and bubbly any day of the week, and having her as the main character makes sense for a rom-com.  I wouldn't say that her comedic talents are fantastic, but she does play a good straight woman for others to joke around.  She's a likable actress and, when given the right character, she can be fun to watch.  Matthew Goode has some leading man potential; he's reasonably handsome and has an Irish brogue, which the ladies tend to like.  His emotional scenes are subtle, which is nice (although repeated: close your eyes and sigh...now!).  He doesn't immediately appear to be a romantic good guy, so he can get away with playing a bit of a scoundrel, which is a nice change for this genre.

...And that's all the good I can say about this movie.  The premise is ridiculous.  Let's just ignore the accuracy of the tradition this movie describes.  What we are left with is a female lead that is desperate enough to commit to a trans-Atlantic flight to propose to her man.  If the character was portrayed as strong-willed and independent, that would work.  Anna, unfortunately, defines herself by her possessions; she has so many things, but nothing is really important to her.  She doesn't have much of a backstory because she's a fairly shallow character.  A character that is driven by the desire to possess is not romantic or funny; they are desperate and sad.  Do you want a hint that this is a bad premise?  Both Amy Adams and Matthew Goode have lines where they ridicule the Leap Day tradition.  When you have a stupid idea for a movie, you need to be pretty damn funny to make fun of yourself, otherwise you are just pointing out the flaws in your movie. 

Worse than the stupid premise are the Bostonian characters.  We are clearly meant to connect to Anna, to feel her pain throughout.  When she doesn't get proposed to, the audience is expected to feel sorry for her.  Maybe I'm just a guy, but getting nice jewelry doesn't elicit sympathy from me.  I understand that she was let down, but they made this out to be as bad as if her fiance slept with her twin sister.  Her fiance, Jeremy, is supposed to be annoying (so we can root for Matthew Goode), but he's really obnoxious.  Obnoxious to the point of me not liking Anna for dating him.  Everyone is Boston is shown to be petty, selfish and shallow.  Yes, this makes it important for her to go to Ireland --- I get it--- but it's boring, lazy writing that is without the benefit of charm.  Why should I care about Anna, a shallow, somewhat ditzy, desperate woman with nothing of value except a charming smile?  Leap Year doesn't ever give you a reason.

I don't even want to bother with the Irish characters.  It turns out that most of them have been trapped in a limerick for a few decades and are just now getting out and about.  On the bright side, there were no leprechauns.  Although Warwick Davis could have added a much needed twist to this story...hmm...I smell sequel!  And what was with the time frame in this movie?  Anna has to get to Dublin today when she's in the airport, but she spends one night a Declan's inn, one night at a bed and breakfast, and hangs out at a wedding for an entire day.  Oh, and it's still in time for Leap Year Day.  If she's this uptight, Anna is a stone cold bitch.  I don't think that's what the writers mean to convey; I think they just assumed that the audience's frontal lobe would have turned to tapioca halfway through the film and they could get away with minor problems like time being an important plot device for this movie.

In a word: ugh.  I'll give credit where it's due to the two leads (despite Adams' terrible character), but it's nowhere near enough to make this watchable.  Director Anand Tucker deserves some credit for their chemistry (and lack thereof), but he undoubtedly should get the majority of the blame for the horrible supporting roles and predictable story.  Then again, I'm a guy, so take this with a grain of well-argued salt.