Pages

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Review: mother!

MOTHER! 
(DRAMA/HORROR-THRILLER)
Directed by Darren Aronofsky
Screenplay by Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer, Brian Gleeson, Domhnall Gleeson, Kristen Wiig, Stephen McHattie, Jovan Adepo, Amanda Chiu, Patricia Summersett, Eric Davis, Raphael Grosz-Harvey, Emily Hampshire
Rated R for strong disturbing violent content, some sexuality, nudity and language.
121 minutes
Verdict: It's easy enough to engage with Darren Aronofsky's idiosyncratic fever dream buzzing with thought-provoking ideas and bolstered Jennifer Lawrence's presence, but its surreal, allegorical style is unlikely to satisfy audiences at your local mall's multiplex.
YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN MOTHER! IF YOU LIKED:
BLACK SWAN  (2010)
THE FOUNTAIN  (2006)
NOCTURNAL ANIMALS  (2016)
ROSEMARY'S BABY  (1968)
DONNIE DARKO  (2001)



Minor spoilers for MOTHER! follow:
Apparently, audiences who saw MOTHER! on opening night really, seriously hated it.  According to CinemaScore, the Las Vegas-based marketing research firm which surveys the general audiences attending the opening nights of movies and interprets the average audience response by a traditional letter grade (A+ being the most positive and F being the most negative), MOTHER! received an F.  That doesn't necessarily mean the movie is bad, or that most people who see the movie will dislike it, but the opening night audience is typically filled with the people most invested in the movie based on its marketing, and the worse the CinemaScore, the less likely there is to be sustained interest, because word-of-mouth is likely to be bad.  Usually, a really bad CinemaScore has to do with a movie being marketed as something completely different from what it really is, such as 2012 dark allegorical crime drama KILLING THEM SOFTLY, which The Weinstein Company misleadingly advertised as an off-kilter crime comedy.  When the audiences in the mood for a comedy starring Brad Pitt showed up on opening night and were treated to a bleak and very violent, stylish thriller about the Great Recession, they gave it an F.  Now, on the one hand, it entirely makes sense that mainstream audiences didn't like MOTHER!, but anyone who saw the previews, which were vague, grainy and hallucinogenic, or the teaser poster showing a painting of Jennifer Lawrence's character holding her literal heart in her hand with a bloody hole in her chest, which I think gets across the idea of the movie about as well as Paramount's marketing team could do.
Written and directed by Darren Aronofsky, who is no stranger to controversy or misunderstandings as the creative mind behind NOAH, BLACK SWAN, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM and THE WRESTLER, MOTHER! is similar in some ways to Tom Ford's 2016 psychological drama NOCTURNAL ANIMALS, which I really hated.  Both are cruel, aggressive movies, but at least MOTHER! has a heart to it (admittedly, a heart that it then rips from its chest and proceeds to stomp on it and set on fire) and engaged me on an emotional level.  Still, it's the kind of movie that would probably bring more and become clearer on another viewing, but it's not a movie you really want to see again right after you see it the first time.  It doesn't distance itself from the audience in the way that NOCTURNAL ANIMALS or, I'd argue, some of David Lynch's thrillers do, but it's tough to understand the business sense behind this movie.  It feels like entirely a filmmaker's film, and we get to look in on the pure artistic vision of it all, like peeking into a poet's private journal, not actually intended for readers' eyes, except that this private journal cost $30 million to make and would hopefully make that money back.  What it offers the audience though, is, well, rough stuff.
It isn't easy to explain what exactly the movie is about, and supposing you were to see it, it's intended to be seen with minimal prior information about the plot.  It does star Jennifer Lawrence, who, as one of the top Hollywood stars around is the excuse to spend $30 million on something that's practically unsellable otherwise.  Lawrence plays an unnamed woman who lives a tranquil existence in solitude with her husband (Javier Bardem), a poet, but his creative struggles put a strain on their relationship which subsequently becomes worse as their old and isolated house is intruded upon by a confusing series of obnoxious and inexplicable 'guests' who the poet welcomes in, but who quickly begin to tear away at the woman's sanity.
Very little in MOTHER! is meant to be taken literally, and it's a highly visceral experience heavily layered with allegorical elements that Aronofsky once again draws from no less than the Bible.  Like many religious texts and religions themselves, MOTHER! reflects the greatest moments of human warmth, like a new mother feeding her child, and the darkest human depravity, like that child being torn apart and devoured by an aggressive mob.  It's many stories in one, but the experience is sometimes so intense and distressing, it's not always easy to come up with.  It's been several days since I saw it, and it's been buzzing around in my head, and as everything becomes clearer, it's all the more frustrating that it wasn't obvious before.  In addition to the Bible and mankind's relationship to their perceived creator, it's also about mankind's relationship to creation (a denser and much more surreal version of themes explored in NOAH), motherhood and Mother Earth, creative people and their relationships, and probably more.  On the one hand, you could stand back and brush it all off as reading into a film that's just a lot of nonsense, but Aronofsky draws you in with superficial layers that are readily understandable, but that layer melts away to reveal more.
The performances are top-notch, particularly Lawrence, whose character acts as multiple allegories as well as the audience surrogate as the camera frequently follows her perspective, her relationship to her surroundings, her relationship to her body, and the increasing hopelessness of her situation.  She engenders tremendous sympathy, even empathy, and if she weren't already an Academy Award-winning actress one of the highest-paid stars in Hollywood, this would absolutely be a star-making turn.
MOTHER! is a horror movie, and certainly horrific things happen in it, but it's not the kind of horror movie that today's audiences expect.  Even while it's a widely-agreed classic of the genre, if you showed ROSEMARY'S BABY to today's generation of horror fans, they'd probably be bored by it and not even realize it's a horror movie.  MOTHER! is a horror movie in a similar vein though, more aggressive and amped up, but paranoia-driven, domestic and bizarre.  It's not surprising that many people dislike it, but it's not boring and there's a whole lot to talk about.  The more distance I get from it, the more willing I am to see it again in hopes of drawing more from it, but as exciting and engaging as it is, it's weirdly unpleasant.
                                                                                                                                                                  Images via Paramount

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

The Rest of 2017

Summer has come and gone, leaving a few surprises, a few disappointments, and honestly, it wasn't all that remarkable a summer for movies.  Let's just say nothing quite knocked me off my rocker.  PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES was a huge disappointment, especially because some critics said it was good when they saw it early at Cinema-Con and then suddenly had nothing but bad things to say about it when it hit theaters (thanks a lot jerks, it was terrible), and most of the superhero movies were good but not quite great, mostly because they were bloated (WONDER WOMAN, SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING and GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY).  While SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING and WONDER WOMAN definitely had their great moments without actually being great movies (now watch, in a few years, I'm probably going to be talking about how great they are), the big winners from the summer in my book are DUNKIRK (Nolan keeping it lean but with all the spectacle), BABY DRIVER (another clever Edgar Wright thrill ride) and WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES (not actually a lot of war in it, but so, so good).  Looking to the fall and winter, there are more than a few weirdly high profile movies coming our way in addition to the usual awards and family fare, most notably among them, a Star Wars movie (the third Star Wars movie released in as many Decembers) and a Justice League movie (probably a mangled mess, but could be an interesting mess as long as it isn't three goddamn hours), and on the more awards-centric side of things, there are films coming from both Steven Spielberg and Guillermo del Toro.  So, uh, here's my nine most anticipated for the rest of the year.  It was going to be ten, but then we found out that BLADE RUNNER 2049 is 150 minutes, and while I'm still interested to see what Denis Villeneuve brings to his newest film, I'm sorry, but no, it doesn't make the list.  150 minutes?  Blech.


Coming September 15th
MOTHER! 
(HORROR/THRILLER) 
Directed by Darren Aronofsky
Screenplay by Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer, Kristen Wiig, Domhnall Gleeson, Brian Gleeson, Jovan Adepo, Stephen McHattie
Rated R for strong disturbing violent content, some sexuality, nudity and language.
115 minutes
Synopsis: A young woman's tranquil life with her husband at their remote country home is challenged by a mysterious and uninvited couple who arrive to lodge with them.
There's a slight possibility that MOTHER! is the kind of movie that will just piss people off in the end, including myself, but that's a risk with a Darren Aronofsky film.  Personally, I think it's a worthwhile risk.  Aronofsky's most uplifting film so far and by far was NOAH, and that pissed a lot of people off (I thought it was wonderful; imperfect, but wonderful), and he's made a lot of really beautiful but deeply sad films like BLACK SWAN, THE WRESTLER and REQUIEM FOR A DREAM (some people really love THE FOUNTAIN, but that's a movie that's interesting without being particularly engaging), but MOTHER! looks more aggressive.  Jennifer Lawrence is reliable and this promises to be an actor's showcase for her, and she's playing opposite 20-years older Javier Bardem as half of a romantic couple, which is...interesting.  They've kept the basic plot largely under wraps, and I wonder if it's sort of a WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? or ROSEMARY'S BABY sort of thing, but my curiosity is piqued.  Plus, Jennifer Lawrence...woof.


Coming September 22
KINGSMAN: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE
(ACTION-COMEDY) 
Directed by Matthew Vaughn
Screenplay by Jane Goldman & Matthew Vaughn
Based on The Secret Service comic by Mark Millar & Dave Gibbons
Rated R for sequences of strong violence, drug content, language throughout and some sexual material.
135 minutes
Synopsis: When the Kingsman headquarters are destroyed and the world is held hostage, their journey leads them to the discovery of an allied spy organization in the United States called Statesman, dating back to the day they were both founded.  In a new adventure that tests their agents' strength and wits to the limit, these two elite secret organizations band together to defeat a ruthless common enemy, in order to save the world.
More than a little rough in some spots and occasionally off-putting, but surprisingly entertaining, the first KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE was a lot of fun, and with director Matthew Vaughn returning with his regular creative collaborator Jane Goldman, THE GOLDEN CIRCLE returns to the kinetic, progressively absurd if occasionally problematic world of the Kingman with a promising  and fresh new culture clash twist that introduces the United States' Kingsman equivalent, the Statesman, with Channing Tatum and Jeff Bridges as cowboy-style secret agents, in an English-American culture clash from a distinctly European but heavily stylized perspective.  If nothing else, it's atypically fun, frothy and action-packed fare for September, and Vaughn and Goldman usually know what they're doing.



Coming September 29
AMERICAN MADE 
(ACTION-COMEDY/THRILLER) 
Directed by Doug Liman
Screenplay by Gary Spinelli 
Starring: Tom Cruise, Sarah Wright, Domhnall Gleeson, Jayma Mays, Jesse Plemons, Lola Kirke, Lara Grice, Frank Licari, Alex Quarles, Jay Jablonski, Jed Rees, Caleb Landry Jones
Rated R for language throughout and some sexuality/nudity.
117 minutes
Synopsis: The true story of Barry Seal, a commercial airline pilot who is recruited by the CIA in the 1970s and '80s to fly increasingly perilous and legally questionable missions running drugs and weapons between warlords and cartels from South America.
Doug Liman's second directorial feature of the year (following the low-budget war thriller THE WALL, released with little notice back in May) reunites him with his EDGE OF TOMORROW star Tom Cruise in a truth-based story about an American pilot for TWA who gets a taste for luxury and dangerous living as an undercover informant and smuggler for the CIA and various South American governments and cartels whilst also being investigated by the DEA and attaining a $1 million price on his head.  Cruise stars as the pilot, Barry Seal, a role that could give him the opportunity to stretch his acting legs more than he has been recently (THE MUMMY, what the hell?), and Liman, who's usually a bit more hit than miss, appears to be drawing from THE WOLF OF WALL STREET and other Scorsese films for his approach.  Although it doesn't open in theaters nationwide until September 29, it has been released in many other international markets and been reviewed by critics who have had a largely positive opinion so far.



Coming November 3
THOR: RAGNAROK 
(ACTION-ADVENTURE/FANTASY) 
Directed by Taika Waititi
Screenplay by Eric Pearson
Story by Craig Kyle & Christopher Yost and Eric Pearson
Based on characters created by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Jeff Goldblum, Idris Elba, Mark Ruffalo, Karl Urban, Tessa Thompson, Anthony Hopkins, Benedict Cumberbatch, Taika Waititi, Rachel House
Not Yet Rated
Synopsis: Thor is imprisoned as a gladiator on the other side of the universe and finds himself in a race against time to get back to Asgard to stop Ragnarok, the destruction of his homeworld and the end of Asgardian civilization, at the hands of an all-powerful new threat, the ruthless Hela.
Despite the first two Thor films being a couple of the weakest installments in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (even while it's not totally terrible, THOR: THE DARK WORLD just might be the worst in the franchise so far, and if not, it's close), THOR: RAGNAROK is probably my most anticipated movie for the rest of the year, at least from what things are looking like right now.  Eccentric Flight of the Conchords director Taika Waititi (also director of the hilarious mockumentary WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS and the funny, more varied HUNT FOR THE WILDERPEOPLE) has been let loose on Thor's third "stand-alone" film, and if the previews are any indication (to be fair, SUICIDE SQUAD had great trailers but sucked butts), he's brought his colorful, kinetic and irreverent style in full force.  The Hulk is along for the ride in what appears to be a significantly character-expanding role, and Cate Blanchett looks fantastic as the big-bad Hela, who will hopefully carry on into later films and is rumored to be an unrequited love interest for the Avengers villain, Thanos.  CREED actress Tessa Thompson is also joining in as a "hard-drinking" Asgardian warrior who may become a new love interest with Thor (Natalie Portman having apparently fallen out with the folks at Marvel), which sounds amazing.  I find myself lately more wanting movies that are just eccentric and weird as balls but familiar in the fundamentals (you know, like how MAD MAX: FURY ROAD is all-out insanity on its uppermost layers, but the plot is fairly traditional), and, I'm hoping, THOR: RAGNAROK looks like it might be exactly what I'm looking for.



Coming November 22
COCO 
(ANIMATION/FANTASY-ADVENTURE) 
Directed by Lee Unkrich
Co-directed by Adrian Molina
Screenplay by Matthew Aldrich and Adrian Molina
Story by Lee Unkrich
Featuring the Voices of: Anthony Gonzalez, Gael Garcia Bernal, Benjamin Bratt, Renee Victor, Edward James Olmos, Jaime Camil, Sofia Espinosa, Luis Valdez, Lombardo Boyar, Alanna Ubach, Selene Luna, Alfonso Arau, Gabriel Iglesias, Cheech Marin
Not Yet Rated
Synopsis: Despite his family's baffling generations-old ban on music, Miguel dreams of becoming an accomplished musician like his idol, Ernesto de la Cruz.  Desperate to prove his talent, Miguel finds himself in the stunning and colorful Land of the Dead following a mysterious chain of events.  Along the way, he meets charming trickster Hector, and together, they set off on an extraordinary journey to unlock the real story behind Miguel's family history.
Pixar's not what they used to be, but every once in a while, they still come up with something that can stand along side their 1995-2010 modern classics, INSIDE OUT, for example, and COCO could be one of those.  It's director Lee Unkrich's long-awaited follow-up to TOY STORY 3 (the last of the studio's epic 15-year winning streak), and Jorge Gutierrez's Guillermo del Toro-produced THE BOOK OF LIFE didn't turn out to be a Dia de los Muertos classic, so that slot is still open.  COCO resembles something of a blend between my personal favorite Pixar film, RATATOUILLE (despite his family's disapproval, the main character aspires to be a great musician and idolizes a celebrity musician from television), and SPIRITED AWAY in the story of a character trapped in fantastical foreign realm where they have a coming of age, and the visual panache of the studio has never faltered, appearing in full force here.  Most of Pixar's most recent stumbles have involved the passing of the torch from their original generation of creative minds to new ones, but Unkrich is the proven goods.


Coming November 22
MOLLY'S GAME 
(DRAMA) 
Directed by Aaron Sorkin
Screenplay by Aaron Sorkin
Based on Molly's Game: From Hollywood's Elite to Wall Street's Billionaire Boys Club, My High-Stakes Adventure in the World of Underground Poker by Molly Bloom
Starring: Jessica Chastain, Idris Elba, Kevin Costner, Brian d'Arcy James, Chris O'Dowd, Michael Cera, J.C. MacKenzie, Bill Camp, Graham Greene, Jeremy Strong, Samantha Isler
Not Yet Rated
Synopsis: The story of Molly Bloom, a beautiful, young, Olympic-class skier who ran the world's most exclusive high-stakes poker game for a decade before being arrested in the middle of the night by 17 FBI agents wielding automatic weapons.  Her players included Hollywood royalty, sports stars, business titans and finally, unbeknownst to her, the Russian mob.  Her only known ally was her criminal defense lawyer Charlie Jaffey, who learned that there was much more to Molly than the tabloids led us to believe.
Ever since THE SOCIAL NETWORK, I'll try just about anything written by Aaron Sorkin, and MOLLY'S GAME has an additional point of interest in that he's also the director.  It's unclear whether that's a good thing or not, but the script will probably be sharp as can be, and you can't make a totally bad movie with Jessica Chastain in the lead.


Coming December 8 (Limited Release)
THE SHAPE OF WATER 
(DRAMA/FANTASY) 
Directed by Guillermo del Toro
Screenplay by Guillermo del Toro & Vanessa Taylor
Story by Guillermo del Toro
Starring: Sally Hawkins, Michael Shannon, Octavia Spencer, Richard Jenkins, Doug Jones, Michael Stuhlbarg, Lauren Lee Smith, Nick Searcy, David Hewlitt
Rated R for sexual content, graphic nudity, violence and language.
120 minutes
Synopsis: An otherworldly fairy tale, set against the backdrop of Cold War America circa 1962, in which lonely Elisa, the mute janitor in a hidden high-security government laboratory finds her life changed when she and a co-worker discover and befriend a top-secret amphibious creature experiment subject.
Guillermo del Toro is one of my favorite filmmakers.  His films have an incredible grace, romance and eclectic, esoteric love for the Gothic, the weird and wonderful, and the man is an undeniable master of monsters.  If you've seen his two Hellboy movies though, THE SHAPE OF WATER looks weirdly like an awards-friendly origin story of the amphibious "fish-man" Abe Sapien, who was played by Doug Jones in those films, and Jones plays a similar-looking creature here.  If Abe Sapien weren't original to the Hellboy comics and had instead been a creation of del Toro's from one of his famous creative journals, it might make sense that he'd just be reusing one of his creature ideas over again in a different context, but as it is, I'm not sure what to make of the similarity.  Particularly interesting about this film though is the idea of a del Toro film set in the Cold War, and it looks shamelessly weird, branching out into something that's almost an erotic romance between a human woman and an amphibious man with gills.  Whatever it is, it's Guillermo del Toro, and that counts for a lot.


Coming December 15
STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI 
(ACTION-ADVENTURE/FANTASY) 
Directed by Rian Johnson
Screenplay by Rian Johnson
Based on characters created by George Lucas
Starring: Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Oscar Isaac, Adam Driver, Peter Mayhew, Domhnall Gleeson, Andy Serkis, Lupita Nyong'o, Benicio del Toro, Laura Dern, Gwendoline Christie, Kelly Marie Tran
Not Yet Rated
Synopsis: Having taken her first steps into a larger world in STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS, Rey continues her epic journey with Finn, Poe and Luke Skywalker in the next chapter of the saga.
So, I mean, it's Star Wars, so of course it's one of the most anticipated movies of the year, although, personally, the excitement is not uninhibited.  It's the third year in a row with a Star Wars movie, and the trend doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon, but the new iteration of Lucasfilm is off to a strangely bumpy is thoroughly competent start.  I'm sure it's a controversial opinion in some circles, but while George Lucas's prequels were weighed down in bad dialogue, clumsily-drawn characters, misguided casting, wooden acting and an overwhelming abundance of blue-screen environments, the stories were ambitious, insightful and full of sincere emotions, and those two sides were swapped in THE FORCE AWAKENS, giving us good dialogue, solid characters, great casting, good acting and a lot more in the way of practical effects and on-location filming, but the story was an uninspired retread of the original STAR WARS and most of its emotional impact didn't expand past simple nostalgia.  Don't get me wrong, it's a really fun movie once you get past the hangups and just ride with it, and the characters and casting of the main heroes goes a long way, but the only reason it landed on so many critics best movies lists of 2015 is because the hype was still in full effect when they went to print.  Then, ROGUE ONE went through reshoots and wound up being weirdly dull until the last 15 minutes when it became such an adrenaline rush for about 15 minutes that I about messed my pants, and now the brilliant Phil Lord and Chris Miller have gotten fired from the upcoming "Young Han Solo" movie and been replaced by the dreadfully safe choice of Ron Howard, and the new direction of the Star Wars franchise is becoming increasingly frustrating.  That said, Rian Johnson is a competent and clever storyteller, and maybe now that the foundations have been reset by J.J. Abrams, maybe Kathleen Kennedy and Disney have given him a little more creative leash.  It's going to be good, I'm fairly certain, but I'd really, really like it to be more than that.  I mean, come on, guys, it's Star Wars!


Coming December 22 (Limited Release)
THE POST 
(DRAMA) 
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Screenplay by Liz Hannah and Josh Singer
Starring: Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Alison Brie, Carrie Coon, David Cross, Bruce Greenwood, Tracy Letts, Bob Odenkirk, Sarah Paulson, Jesse Plemons, Matthew Rhys, Michael Stuhlbarg, Bradley Whitford, Zach Woods, Pat Healy
Not Yet Rated
Synopsis: A cover-up that spanned four U.S. Presidents pushed the country's first female newspaper publisher and a hard-driving editor to join an unprecedented battle between journalist and government in publishing the Pentagon Papers.  Inspired by true events.
Before his next big-budget action blockbuster, READY PLAYER ONE, crashes into theaters next March, master filmmaker Steven Spielberg has found time to throw together one of his stripped-down awards dramas, and besides the fact that it's a Spielberg film and demands a trip to the cinema, THE POST (only just recently changed from its original title, The Papers) is relevant as hell right now.  It's the story of how the "Pentagon Papers" were leaked to the press in 1971, exposing the hidden truths behind the history of the United States' involvement in the Vietnam War under the administrations of Richard M. Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy and Dwight D. Eisenhower, including lies to the public and Congress.  "Miss Oscar" herself, Meryl Streep, stars as the first woman newspaper publisher, Kay Graham at The Washington Post, with repeat Speilberg collaborator, Tom Hanks as the paper's editor Ben Bradlee, both using the power of the press to keep the corruption of a world power in check.  It's prime material with an all-star cast, directed by Steven-freaking-Spielberg, one of the greatest filmmakers ever, and he's still churning them out.






Thursday, September 7, 2017

Review: IT (2017)

IT 
(HORROR/FANTASY) 

Directed by Andy Muschietti
Screenplay by Chase Palmer & Cary Fukunaga, and Gary Dauberman
Based on the novel by Stephen King
Starring: Jaeden Lieberher, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Sophia Lillis, Finn Wolfhard, Chosen Jacobs, Jack Dylan Grae, Wyatt Oleff, Bill Skarsgard, Nicholas Hamilton, Jake Sim, Logan Thompson, Owen Teague, Jackson Robert Scott, Stephen Bogaert, Stuart Hughes
Rated R for violence/horror, bloody images, and for language.
135 minutes
Verdict: IT has a very good look and will no doubt be very popular, but it never lives up to the hype, nor is it a particularly good or scary movie in its own right.

Walking through a video rental store and seeing the VHS cassette sleeve of the 1990 two-part TV miniseries It, starring Tim Curry as the sinister, clawed clown poking out through the corner, ranks fairly high in the collective memory of the Millennial generation's childhood chills (as far as unsettling video store clown-sightings go, SHAKES THE CLOWN was close behind IT, personally), and like the Baby Boomers, we Millennials have an all too apparent hard-on for our childhood memories.  I suppose that makes sense.  It's a lot nicer to say our big childhood fear was Tim Curry in clown makeup and not getting blown into oblivion by terrorists once 9/11 happened (the Baby Boomers thought the 1950s were a paradise because it was before the Vietnam War, Watergate, the JFK assassination and all the civil unrest; Millennials think the 1990s were a paradise because they were before 9/11), and the hype is now crazy hot for the new and shiny IT, partly because we're nostalgic to an obnoxious fault and partly because it's easier to cope with the evil clown in the movie than it is to deal with the evil clown in the Oval Office (lol, jk, he's not "evil", but you know, dang, topical...).  As far as horror goes, clowns are kitschy and feel more ironic than genuinely scary, furthermore, the one played by Bill Skarsgard in this film looks too much like a Victorian Juggalo, but the hype is high, people are saying great things, and I was hoping for a pleasant surprise.  Unfortunately, the new iteration of IT is a lot like a gory version of THE GOONIES, which I realize might sound like a sound recommendation to some folks, but no
I've never read the book (although I did watch the miniseries while binging horror movies in college, and it was boring, except for Tim Curry, who was a lot of fun in his frustratingly few scenes as the clown), but I suspect this is a pretty faithful adaptation except for the time in which it's set (the part of the book which this covers is set in the 1950s, while the movie is set in the 1980s, allowing them to milk all those '80s pop culture references that are so hot now thanks to Stranger Things).  Beginning in 1988, in the small town of Derry, Maine, a little boy chases a runaway paper boat down the street before it falls into a storm drain, right into the hands of a clown strangely standing there named "Pennywise" (Bill Skarsgard), and the boy never returns home.  A year later, the missing boy's older preteen brother Bill (Jaeden Lieberher) is convinced that his little brother, whose body was never found, must have washed down the town's sewer pipes, so he persuades his group of eccentric friends, dubbed "The Losers' Club", to help him investigate.  Along the way, the Losers incorporate a few new members who've had similar encounters with "It" or Pennywise the Clown, as It sometimes manifests along with other apparitions of It's victim's greatest fears, including Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor), whose interest in local history reveals a pattern of It's attacks going back decades, and Beverly (Sophia Lillis), a bullied and slandered girl who quickly catches the eyes of the formerly all-boy Losers.
There's quite a few cliched and/or contrived kids to juggle in the Losers' Club; Bill, Ben and Beverly (whoa, Bs) emerge as the closest to a main trio, but then there's also Richie (Finn Wolfhard), the obnoxious loudmouth with oversized glasses, Stanley (Wyatt Oleff), the Jewish kid practicing the Torah for his upcoming bar mitzvah, Eddie (Jack Dylan Grazer), the short hypochondriac, and Mike (Chosen Jacobs), who's reluctantly learning the family business in the slaughterhouse.  It's at least two kids too many, and all of them have their own storylines about the adults in their lives who oppress, abuse and terrorize them.  Plus, there's a whole b-plot with the out-and-out sociopath bully with a mullet, Henry Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton), the kind of recurring Stephen King bully character who entirely lacks any realistic sense of consequences.  It's a lot of characters and plot, bloating the movie to two hours and fifteen minutes, and it's only the first half of the source material.  There seems to be some illusion that the Losers' Club is an impossibly endearing crowd, but they're all very contrived and not a one of them feels like an authentic kid.  There's an idea that if a you show kids swearing and acting rough that automatically feels real, but the kids of IT always stink of self-important attempts to be funny or honest, while rarely being either.  Bill has a stutter and wispy hair, Beverly is simultaneous bullied and abused but also outgoing with manic pixie dream girl levels of confidence, stripping down to show up the Losers cliff-diving before they've even met, and for all its supposedly raw depiction of adolescence, the briefs the boys are wearing in the swimming scene look like they were just barely bought at Wal-Mart five minutes before shooting.  I don't know, that just really stood out to me.
As to the clown, Skarsgard (probably best known previously from Hemlock Grove, and appearances in ALLEGIANT and ATOMIC BLOND) is fine, playing with no shortage of enthusiasm, even when the look of Pennywise is overdone and the teeth are absurd.  Neither he nor the movie as a whole is uniquely scary though, even compared to what's been shown in the previews, and use of cheap tricks like the use of a sudden loud beat to create a jump scare when his eyes come into view, even before there's any clear indication of his true menace is disappointing.  Admittedly, if you come across a clown sitting behind a sewer grate, maybe don't trust that clown, but the little kid talking to him doesn't know any better, and it's obnoxious that the movie feels the need to go right for the jump instead of a more confidently quiet chill.  Going full in with the R rating, it's also sometimes unnecessarily gory in a way that comes off as unintentionally funny (particularly an early scene involving the loss of a limb), when subtlety would have gone a lot further.  There are a few nice moments and spooky imagery though, and the investigations of horrors in the town's history add some points of interest.  Overall, the movie has a very strong, crisp and polished look, being shot by South Korean cinematographer Chung-hoon Chung, whose other work includes multiple Chan-wook Park films, including the iconic look of the original OLDBOY.  The look and sound of the movie is all very fine, standing out among the often faster and looser approach of cheaper contemporary horror films, but child personalities and screenwriting fall way short.  It was never likely to live up to the hype, but it burn brightly enough in the moment for most of those who are looking forward to it, even if it falls out of memory as soon as the next hot thing comes along.
                                                                                                                                                         Images via Warner Brothers

Saturday, September 2, 2017

Review: LOGAN LUCKY


LOGAN LUCKY
★★★
Directed by Steven Soderbergh
Screenplay by Rebecca Blunt
Starring: Channing Tatum, Adam Driver, Daniel Craig, Riley Keough, Seth MacFarlane, Katie Holmes, Katherine Waterston, Brian Gleeson, Jack Quaid, Sebastian Stan, Hilary Swank, Dwight Yoakam, Farrah Mackenzie
Rated PG-13 for language and some crude comments.
119 minutes
Verdict: Gifted with a colorful, talented cast and a goofy sense of humor, LOGAN LUCKY is more fun than flawed.
YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN LOGAN LUCKY IF YOU LIKED:
OCEAN'S ELEVEN  (2001)
MAGIC MIKE  (2012)
MASTERMINDS  (2016) 
BABY DRIVER  (2017)
HELL OR HIGH WATER  (2016) 

Steven Soderbergh, who has returned after a short-lived intended retirement from directing feature films after the one-two punch of SIDE EFFECTS and BEHIND THE CANDELABRA in 2013, is widely considered one of the great filmmakers working from the past couple decades to the present, although I admit that I've never been able to ascertain a distinct style in his films the way I can with a Spielberg, Scorsese, Fincher or the films of any other director working on a similar level.  Maybe others see a distinct directorial stamp, but honestly, I don't.  He's not what I would consider a "journeyman" director (sort of a filmmaker-for-hire, someone who will get the job done but without a strong artistic through-line or auteurism; a journeyman's career is typically steered by the kind of films they make, while an auteur steers their career with the kinds of films they make, if that makes any sense), because he has more creative control and builds his films up, but his filmography is prolific and widely varied, and the unifying "themes" are sturdiness, quality, well-balanced, and I like most of them, but don't really love most of them.  LOGAN LUCKY is not a departure from that, and it's a lot of fun.
Channing Tatum (teaming up with director Soderbergh for a fourth round, following HAYWIRE, MAGIC MIKE and SIDE EFFECTS) stars as Jimmy Logan, a divorced father and blue collar worker in West Virginia, who gets laid off his construction job at the Charlotte Motor Speedway, and after suffering one indignity too many, he recruits his combat veteran brother Clyde (Adam Driver, best known as Kylo Ren from STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS), and their sister, Mellie (Riley Keough, from MAD MAX: FURY ROAD) in a plan that seems downright decent compared to voting an orange/thin-skinned vulgarian into office: they rob the Charlotte Motor Speedway.  During his recently terminated work resetting the speedway's foundation, Jimmy learned about the pneumatic tubes the speedway uses to transport its money into a vault, and with the help of a seasoned vault-blaster, Joe Bang (Daniel Craig), they plan to break open the tubes and siphon out all the cash at the Coca-Cola 600 NASCAR race.  Trouble is, Joe Bang is currently in prison, so they also have to find a way to break him out, do the job, and get him back into the prison before anyone notices that he's gone.
An obvious comparison point for LOGAN LUCKY is Soderbergh's Ocean's trilogy, beginning with 2001's OCEAN'S ELEVEN, but smashed up with the quirky redneckisms and utter lack of stylishness of Jared Hess's underrated 2016 hillbilly heist comedy MASTERMINDS.  If you've seen MASTERMINDS (it's on Netflix US, folks, get on it), it's like that, but less ridiculous and more intelligent.  Daniel Craig, who, in his most famous role as James Bond is the epitome of English class, hams it up here as an outrageous hillbilly hell-raiser, carefully staying just on the right side of funny/annoying, and Adam Driver (who himself is a veteran of the U.S. Marines), in contrast, is hilariously understated and droll as the quietly cantankerous Clyde Logan, who attributes his last minute loss of a hand as he was ready to return from service in Iraq to a family curse.  Like the Ocean's films, LOGAN LUCKY is star-studded and wonderfully cast in major and minor roles, like Katherine Waterston (star of FANTASTIC BEASTS AND WHERE TO FIND THEM and ALIEN: COVENANT) as a kindly nurse who Jimmy knew in school and now works in a mobile free clinic, Sebastian Stan (the Winter Soldier, but without his mop) as a pretentious health-obsessed race car driver, Katie Holmes as Jimmy's ex-wife, as well as Hilary Swank and Jim O'Heir (Jerry/Garry/Larry Gergich from Parks & Recreation), among others.  Brian Gleeson and Jack Quaid, who star as Joe Bang's brothers Sam and Fish, run a little closer to the goofier side, as does Seth MacFarlane, in a weirdly unimportant but more extended than expected role as an obnoxious and self-important British businessman who manages one of the racing teams and insults the Logan brothers, but otherwise, the cast is very good all around.  
As with most heist movies, there are confusions that arise and twists, turns and revelations that clarify them, and the matter of whether it ultimately all makes sense or not is debatable in some cases, but the overall movie is fun and funny enough that whether it makes sense or not usually doesn't matter while watching.
                                                                                                                                                              Images via Bleeker Street

Review: WIND RIVER


WIND RIVER 

(CRIME-DRAMA/MYSTERY-THRILLER)
Directed by Taylor Sheridan
Screenplay by Taylor Sheridan
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Elizabeth Olsen, Graham Greene, Gil Birmingham, Jon Bernthal, Julia Jones, Kelsey Chow, Martin Sensmeier, Tyler Laracca, Gerald Tokala Clifford, James Jordan, Eric Lange, Ian Bohen, Hugh Dillon, Matthew Del Negro, Teo Briones, Tantoo Cardinal, Apesanahkwat
Rated R for strong violence, a rape, disturbing images, and language.
107 minutes
Verdict: Grim and atmospheric, with a lot on its mind but little to say, WIND RIVER is a gripping crime-thriller from a first-time director.
YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN WIND RIVER IF YOU LIKED:
HELL OR HIGH WATER  (2016)
SICARIO  (2015)
FARGO  (1996)
SMOKE SIGNALS  (1998)
WINTER'S BONE  (2010)

WIND RIVER is described as the third part of a loose trilogy of films written by Taylor Sheridan, a "Frontier Trilogy" comprised of the 2015 drug war thriller SICARIO, directed by Denis Villeneuve, the 2016 cops-and-robbers story HELL OR HIGH WATER, directed by David Mackenzie, and now WIND RIVER, directed by Sheridan himself.  It isn't exactly much of a trilogy, obviously not in terms of narrative, but also not all that much thematically.  They're all neo-westerns (that applies more to WIND RIVER and HELL OR HIGH WATER than SICARIO) and they all deal with relevant social, political and economic issues of modern life in the rural Southwestern United States, but some filmmakers just have recurring themes and films in the same genre without it having to be a trilogy or series or whatever, and these films are about as connected as that.  The idea that Sheridan has expressed though, is of showing how much and how little the western frontier has changed.  The lawmen and bandits have traded in their ponies for trucks, and the concepts of civilization and law are tenuous at best, and the harshness of the land is a cruel reality.
In WIND RIVER, Jeremy Renner stars as Cory Lambert, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agent who works in and around the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming by killing predatory animals like coyotes and mountain lions that pose a threat to local livestock (the movie makes no moral commentary on this type of work), and one morning while tracking a lioness and her cubs on the reservation, he discovers the frozen corpse of a young Native American woman who was beaten and raped before running out barefoot into snow and below-zero temperatures where she died.  Tribal Police Chief Ben (Graham Greene) calls it in to the FBI, and a driven but inexperienced special agent, Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen), arrives to investigate but with little inside knowledge of the community or terrain, so she recruits Lambert, and despite being surrounded by uncooperative locals and weather, they begin to peel away the layers of dark secrets to reveal the bitter truth.
Renner's Lambert is a curious contradiction, both advising the victim's father (played by Gil Birmingham, who appeared as Jeff Bridges' Texas Ranger partner in HELL OR HIGH WATER) to not hide himself away from or internalize the grief while steeling up his own like a traditional western strong-man quietly burdened by his guilt and taking the case more personally than he lets on.  Jane mirrors Emily Blunt's SICARIO character as a somewhat naïve but also more good person in the midst of a world that refuses to be governed by law or decency.  It's strange to have this story come so heavily from the perspective of two white characters, even while Birmingham and Greene pull a lot of weight in their screentime, but it's not a case of the movie whitewashing an Native American story in the manner of something like DANCES WITH WOLVES (which, to be fair, is more misguided than outright wrongheaded).  WIND RIVER blurs the lines between tradition of Cowboys and Indians, where Lambert, the "cowboy", is loosely tied to the tribe by marriage, having married an Arapaho woman, and even though they have since divorced, he's trying to be a good father to their young son and associate him to his mother's culture, even after she has left the reservation for good.  He's a familiar presence, but an outsider in important respects. 
Like HELL OR HIGH WATER, WIND RIVER raises questions without getting to direct about things, and rarely with answers, and it doesn't feel like a specific metaphor or commentary.  It's a raw story about modern western frontier, and that brings up questions on its own.  While bringing something more interesting to the table than HELL OR HIGH WATER, Sheridan is clearly not yet as accomplished a director as those who have directed his previous screenplays, and occasionally it feels like a beat has been missed; whether intentionally or not, the effect can be confusing.  It doesn't have the aggressive power of SICARIO, but the material has a lot of strength to it, and the acting is great all around, adding up to a solid and richly atmospheric piece.
                                                                                                                                              Images via The Weinstein Company


Friday, July 21, 2017

Review: DUNKIRK

DUNKIRK 
(WAR/THRILLER) 
★★★★
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Screenplay by Christopher Nolan
Starring: Fionn Whitehead, Jack Lowden, Tom Hardy, Harry Styles, Mark Rylance, Tom Glynn-Carney, Kenneth Branagh, Barry Keoghan, James D'Arcy, Aneurin Barnard, Cillian Murphy
Rated PG-13 for intense war experience and some language.
106 minutes
Verdict: Christopher Nolan's best movie since INCEPTION strips away the political nuances of the war genre for an experience that is intensely bracing, visceral and remarkable. 
YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN DUNKIRK IF YOU LIKED:
THE DARK KNIGHT  (2008)
INCEPTION  (2010)
THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS  (1966)
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN  (1998)
DOWNFALL  (2004)
With the advantage of living a mostly rural 21st century American experience far from the realities of the wars here in the past and the wars very much in the present in other parts of the world like Syria, the very real concept of war is personally perplexing.  A couple weeks ago, I was in a museum looking at a few skulls and other bones dating back to medieval Scandinavia with evidence of devastating sword wounds, and it seemed so strange to think that these were the very authentic remains of human beings who were as real and living as I ever was, who breathed, thought, and felt things, and part of that experience included another very real human being cleaving their head or driving a sword through their leg.  Why?  That was so far back, and that kind of thing has happened and still happens on a far larger scale to this day.  Were these people considered significant beyond the average personal sphere of influence?  Did anyone care strongly about their pain and peril beyond themselves and maybe a few family members?  Maybe when death is so present and so random, the fear of death is numbed.  Maybe when it's so common, it doesn't matter as much emotionally.  But what compels so many people agree or just feel obligated on both sides that a war, small or large, is mounted with such surety?  In my day to day business, the choices that I face and the responsibilities that present themselves make a lot more sense than killing an "enemy", but they're also so inconsequential, and yet they matter to me personally.  What would matter to me personally about ending the life of a complete stranger, a stranger who is essentially the same as me except for a difference in home and creed?  The only reason that could possible matter is that the stranger wants to kill me, and even then, I couldn't be sure that was enough reason to compel me to act in self-defense that would kill him or her.  I'd hope to have enough of a sense of self-preservation, but whether as a matter of nerves, courage, self-preservation or personal hatred, the permanence of ending that other person's life would be a tremendous weight.  The reason he or she would want to kill me must come from a similar sense of obligation or self-preservation, and why should either side want to fight anyway if it was truly known that the fighting was unnecessary?  What does any of it matter?  War seems so pointless when you really dig down into the roots of it, where someone's pursuit of power from one or both sides is reckless enough to drag so many others into a conflict over big, broad ideas of freedom, pride and a way of life, and even in the case of World War II, probably our least morally ambiguous major war (and even there, we have horrible examples of atrocities committed in desperation by the "moral side" like the bombings of Dresden and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both of which destroyed the lives of so many civilians who had minimal personal motivation or investment about the wars waged by their nation's leaders and armies), the millions of lives lost, civilian or not, were lost for only a tiny fraction of the overall participants who were truly responsible for the fighting.  War is baffling, stupid and horrible, but when the negotiations have been negated and the soldiers have been forced to either face the bullets of the enemy or the bullets of their own nation's firing squad for desertion or cowardice, and the possible salvation from death or unrighteous subjugation, there may be no choice left to either flee or fight, and even if you flee, eventually you still have to fight.
Christopher Nolan's latest film, which he's written, directed and produced, tells the story of the Dunkirk evacuation in June 1940, a year and half before the entry of the United States in World War II, when Allied troops were defeated by Nazi Germany in the Battle of France, and hundreds of thousands of British and French soldiers were cut off and surrounded only 39 to 87 miles from their native England with death on all sides.  A triptych, the movie is intercut between three separate threads that drop things right into the middle of the event; the first is "The Mole", where Tommy (Fionn Whitehead), Alex (Harry Styles, of One Direction fame) and Gibson (Aneurnin Barnard) are low-priority army privates struggling to get off the beach and onto one of the evacuation crafts, but the boats are constantly subjected to attack by planes overhead or submarines underneath.  The scenes of boat decks packed tight with soldiers who have nowhere to go but crouch down in terror as bombs are dropped on them are particularly terrifying, and the sound in the IMAX theater rattles through the seats like an earthquake that really puts you in the action, but not an escapism sort of action; it's a bracing experience.  The second thread is "The Sea", where Mr. Dawson (Mark Rylance, best known as the titular character of Steven Spielberg's THE BFG and for his Oscar-winning turn as Rudolf Abel in Spielberg's BRIDGE OF SPIES) pilots his own personal boat, the Moonstone, into the war zone to assist in the evacuation in his own small way (as many smaller personal and commercial vessels did in the historical evacuation) along with son Peter (Tom Glynn-Carney) and Peter's friend George (Barry Keoghan), and along the way they pick up a shell-shocked officer (Cillian Murphy) who's the only survivor of a U-Boat attack.  Thirdly is "The Air", where Spitfire pilots of the Royal Air Force Farrier (Tom Hardy) and Collins (Jack Lowden) pursue and engage with the German Luftwaffe planes that are dropping their bombs on every craft attempting to evacuate soldiers from the beach.
The characters of DUNKIRK are secondary to the in-the-moment experience, and their dialogue is kept to a minimum, while a great deal of it is indiscernible anyway (particularly Hardy's, whose lower face is usually covered by a flight mask), but most of the particulars in what they're saying doesn't matter as much as what you're seeing.  I wasn't a big fan of Nolan's last two movies, INTERSTELLAR and THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, movies which strove for big emotions and big ideas, but emotions, at least the emotions Nolan was dealing with in those movies, are not his strong suit.  He thrives in spectacle, scale and tension, which is all cranked up to an 11 in DUNKIRK, and the effect of working so well in those areas that are so pertinent to this particular story is unexpected visceral emotion.  The desperation, admiration and relief are all very potent throughout, and the movie opens so strongly and so intensely, it's practically exhausting near the halfway point, but he deftly eases the tension without ever relieving the threat, so he can ratchet up yet again for another quick burst ahead of the largely uplifting but emotionally mixed conclusion.  It also certainly helps that after a run of bloated two-and-a-half to three-hour long epics, Nolan brings DUNKIRK in at less than two hours.  It sucked me in from beginning to end and wore me out, but it felt like really going through something powerful.  My only particular reservation is that in order to do practically any kind of movie with this kind of budget, even the ultra-marketable Nolan has to bring a story of World War II in with a marketable PG-13 rating, and while the results of violence in most of Nolan's movies often seem weirdly sterile regardless of the rating, it seems weirder in the case of this kind of movie that the violence is so visibly bloodless.  It isn't the kind of movie that would make sense to have SAVING PRIVATE RYAN levels of gore, but having more of the horrors of war on the periphery of things would obviously make sense.  Either way, the tension is so potent and the threat of death is present that the depiction of war is still largely effective.
Obviously, most of us don't have a personal way to understand how real or not the depiction of war in any movie is, thank goodness, and even those of us who think we have a pretty good understanding of war and sacrifice don't really unless we've actually lived it.  I imagine no movie can really impress upon us the sense of terror and loss that real, actual war is to those who have been in one, and even then, there's no universal experience of war.  Maybe in some alternate universe or some alternate course of historical events there's a movie of the German perspective on this "glorious" victory, of how many abstract "others" of France and England tried to fight good German values of national pride and strength, and how Germany's brave young men prevailed.  Maybe there's a movie about a great German soldier who had more confirmed kills than any other sniper in German history, then sort of dealt with PTSD before being killed offscreen by a fellow German veteran with PTSD, thus completely ignoring the purported issue the movie is supposedly addressing, but the movie made a crap-load of money anyway and an assclown becomes president.  It doesn't matter.  DUNKIRK is a movie that isn't about the moral complexities of history and war.  It isn't about sides.  It's about survival.  It's an aggressive visceral experience about the in-the-moment immediacy of a turning point in England and the world's history, an Alamo moment of World War II that became a rallying cry.  It's bracing, and it's incredible.
                                                                                                                                                         Images via Warner Brothers

Friday, July 14, 2017

Review: WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES

WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES 
(SCI-FI/ACTION-THRILLER) 
1/2
Directed by Matt Reeves
Screenplay by Mark Bomback & Matt Reeves
Starring: Andy Serkis, Woody Harrelson, Steve Zahn, Karin Konoval, Amiah Miller, Terry Notary, Ty Olsson, Michael Adamthwaite, Gabriel Chavarria, Judy Greer, Sara Canning, Devyn Dalton, Max Lloyd-Jones, Aleks Paunovic, Alessandro Juliani, Chad Rook
Rated PG-13 for sequences of sci-fi violence and action, thematic elements, and some disturbing images.
140 minutes
Verdict: The best installment of the rebooted series is emotionally devastating, suitably thought-provoking and features stunning action.
YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES IF YOU LIKED:
DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES  (2014)
RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES  (2011) 
THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE  (2013)
THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI  (1957)
MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD  (2003)

The Planet of the Apes series is that other franchise.  It's an improbable candidate for multi-hundred-million dollar budgets or the blockbuster grosses needed to sustain those costs, but DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES pulled over $700 million in 2014 against an approximately $200 million budget.  They're marketed sort of like action-fantasy blockbusters, but they're more in the area of brooding, philosophical science fiction, like Star Trek without the optimism.  They aren't crowd-pleasing, but when they work, it's one of the most thought-provoking and ambitious film franchises around.  It's been around longer than Star Wars, and in some cases paved the way for Lucas and Spielberg with its imaginative high concepts, sophisticated fantasies and sequel storytelling, but even when they've succeeded with blockbuster profits, most of them are not blockbuster movies in style or essence.  They're often thrilling, but they aren't the kind of movies you'd describe as a "thrill ride."  They have wide enough appeal that Fox has kept making them for half a century as of next year, but they aren't quite in the same category of wide appeal as the likes of most major film franchises.  They're right on the cusp of that, big enough to demand big budgets, but also a bold option that flies in the face of conventional franchise filmmaking as it has existed in all the series' 49 years, taking on the human propensity for conflict, darkness, oppression, destruction and hope.  They're not all good, from the limply misshapen BATTLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES to the thoroughly misguided mayhem of Tim Burton's 2001 "re-imagining," but on occasion, they're tremendous, and WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES is such an occasion.
RISE... was a movie that significantly exceeded expectations, coming 10 years after the much-loathed Burton failed reboot and without the budget to fully render its CGI ape characters to a sufficient realism, but also with a story and characters that elevated the rebooted franchise to a lofty standard.  I was personally was so excited for DAWN... that I wasn't prepared for what it turned out to be and caught me off guard.  DAWN... had an awesome poster of Caesar mounted atop a horse and wielding a machine gun, but it all turned out to be a bait-and-switch with a thoughtful and carefully crafted story about a struggle to prevent conflict and a war that comes about in spite.  I think I gave DAWN... four stars after seeing it a second time and trying to wrap my head around it, trying to reconcile what it was with my unfair expectations.  In retrospect, I would definitely give it a lower rating, maybe three stars.  It was an interesting and unexpected story, one that you wouldn't expect to get told and in such detail, but in the end, it felt strangely and ironically mitigated.  DAWN... benefits, however, from seeing WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES.
As with DAWN..., writer/director Matt Reeves and co-screenwriter Mark Bomback subvert expectations and pass over most of the titular war, opening the story of WAR... two years later during which the war between Caesar's apes and the remnants of an American military has been raging.  Caesar (Andy Serkis, continuing another career-defining performance) leads his clan from a hidden base in the mountainous woodlands, but the human military called Alpha-Omega is closing in on them.  The movie opens with a stunning, electrifying battle between their forces, with long aerial shots showing the bloody chaos in wide view while Michael Giacchino's score wails ominously.  It's thrilling, but also frightening, with the adrenaline rush of combat but also the horror while humans are skewered by spears and flaming apes are hurled in fiery explosions.  Alpha-Omega is made up of human forces but also includes low-ranking apes which they dub "donkeys" (either in reference to their 'beast of burden' role or 'Donkey Kong', if not both, but it isn't made clear), those that followed Caesar's hate-filled rival Koba to war in the previous film and defected to the human army for protection or other self-serving purposes after losing faith in Caesar.  After winning the battle, Caesar sets his prisoners free as a sign of good faith to the human leader in hopes of ending the war, but later that night, the apes are ambushed and Caesar's family is murdered by Alpha-Omega's merciless leader, Colonel McCullough (Woody Harrelson, channeling more than a little of Marlon Brando's Colonel Kurtz from APOCALYPSE NOW).  Caesar sends his clan to relocate to a faraway safe location that has been scouted out, but having now been pushed over the edge himself, he resolves to extract payback from the humans, specifically the Colonel, and seeks out Alpha-Omega's base.  Accompanied by his oldest allies, Maurice (an orangutan, played by Karin Konoval), Rocket (a fellow chimpanzee, played by Terry Notary) and Luca (a gorilla, played by Michael Adamthwaite), Caesar embarks on a journey that begins the reveal the inevitable fate of the apes and humans and who will claim control of the planet.  Along the way they are joined by Nova (Amiah Miller), a sympathetic human war orphan, and Bad Ape (Steve Zahn), a former zoo chimpanzee who learned to speak independently of Caesar's tribe when the virus that killed most of the human and enhanced simian intelligence.  When they find the Alpha-Omega camp, Caesar finds the humans have been imprisoning apes, including his own clan who were on their way to a new home when they were captured, and forcing them to work, so Caesar must once again assert his role as leader and savior of the apes to free them from their servitude.
It seems strange to place so much of the plot of a movie called WAR OF THE PLANET OF THE APES within a prison escape story, but it's an echo of the ape enclosure and lab escape plots of RISE..., with which this movie forms a trilogy.  RISE... also briefly referenced an astronaut mission that suggested the series would eventually swing around to the plot of the 1968 original in which Charlton Heston discovered a planet ruled by an ape civilization, but for the time being, that appears to be little more than an Easter egg one-off.  While the series could still continue if WAR... is successful enough, the trilogy centered around Andy Serkis's Caesar character is remarkable in any case and handsomely fulfilled by its third chapter, which may very well be its best.  Within the prison escape story are moments of vicious, stunning brutality (certainly for a big budget summer movie) contrasted with emotionally stirring moments of grace, and while Reeves typically keeps things grounded, he occasionally injects a sense of scale comparable to THE DARK KNIGHT in the grim parable of human folly.  In fact, in some ways, WAR... is doing the same things as Christopher Nolan attempted in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES but with significantly greater success.
The characters may be apes, but the Planet of the Apes movies have always been about humanity, and not necessarily about parts of humanity that are pleasant to deal with, but made more palatable through the warped lens of a topsy-turvy world order.  The metaphors of WAR... are not as broad as those of the 1968 original or even its more immediate predecessors, but the ugliness and ferociousness of war, fear and displacement are presented in a real and unsettling way that mirrors the real world.  Men are building a wall in futility and desperation while a similarly desperate demagogue watches from overhead; they are desperate to maintain that which makes them human, and they're willing to do terrible things to do so, things terrible enough that they may have already lost the sense of humanity they're trying to preserve.  The apes reflect another side of humanity, also susceptible to hate and fear, empathy and apathy, but it's empathy that will save them.  It's a story without easy answers and with devastating, bittersweet consequences.  It's not really an action movie.  There's action, and some of it is stunning (that opening battle sequence, though), but it's overshadowed by the tragic drama of it all.  The dynamic between Harrelson's Colonel and Serkis's Caesar is terrific, the two of them intertwined in a doomed collision course, and newcomer Amiah Miller is wonderful as the mute little girl who represents something pure and hopeful in humanity even as they face destruction from nature and of their own design.
There are a few little things that could be better.  It's never boring, but it could be a little tighter, and for as many emotional gut-punches as it has already, a little more development of Caesar's family in either this installment or DAWN... would make his sense of loss hit harder.  As it is, you kind of just accept that the murder of his family is obviously a tremendous loss, but you don't feel it very strongly.  Bad Ape isn't a bad character, but it isn't clear why he's particularly necessary (Reeves has suggested that if the series continues beyond WAR... it will focus on Bad Ape, but the reasoning behind that is not apparent).  These are mostly nitpicks; it's a fantastic movie, one that remains engaging from start to finish, full of beauty and brutality, and finally leaves you with a lot to think about.
                                                                                                                                                        Images via 20th Century Fox