War for the Planet of the Apes.

Review #2209: War for the Planet of the Apes.

Cast: 

Andy Serkis (Caesar), Woody Harrelson (The Colonel), Steve Zahn (Bad Ape), Karin Konoval (Maurice), Amiah Miller (Nova), Terry Notary (Rocket), Ty Olsson (Red Donkey), Michael Adamthwaite (Luca), Toby Kebbell (Koba), Gabriel Chavarria (Preacher), Judy Greer (Cornelia), Sara Canning (Lake), Devyn Dalton (Cornelius), and Aleks Paunovic (Winter) Directed by Matt Reeves (#1038 - Cloverfield, #1814 - The Batman, and #1888 - Dawn of the Planet of the Apes)

Review: 

"I wanted to push us into the realm of the mythic. I felt like this was the thing that was going to create the legend of what Caesar would be to future generations of apes. That if he was going to be a seminal figure in their history, this had to be a Biblical epic – the final test that he must pass to have this mythic ascension into the pantheon of apes."

Sometimes you really have to respect the tenacity of a film series, particularly one as distinct as Planet of the Apes, which has managed to go forward and back again with a trilogy of films that served as reboots to those offbeat sequels that had arisen after the original 1968 film (imagine making any more sequels after the first sequel had the hero of the first one blow up the whole world). The script was written by Reeves (the director of the previous reboot film in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) and Mark Bomback, who decided to make a story that in their eyes would have the character of Caesar "cement his status as a seminal figure in ape history" that saw them watch plenty of films from the old Apes film (with War, the ninth overall film in the series taking a cue or so from Battle for the Planet of the Apes [1973]). As before, the effects for the film were done by Weta Digital when it came to the apes that saw motion-capture and CGI key-frame animation that has a friendly mix of performers in suits (Serkis, Konoval, and Notary are the only ones to appear as apes in each of the three films). It felt particularly timely to watch this film with the impending release of the standalone sequel Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes in 2024 (Reeves isn't the director, but who knows what Wes Ball will bring to the series) set many years after War. 

Basically, one is watching the culmination of a person as a sort of a mythic figure on the lines that would make a biblical filmmaker proud (at one point, a character even mentions the belief of fighting a "holy war") to go along with a scope that is highly enjoyable to close out what has basically been a string of distinct ensemble films with one dominant presence in Serkis being in each one of them. It is a tremendous evolutionary process to see play out in this series that never shows a loose failing when it comes to trying to perpetuate familiar names into wanting to see play out for another go-around. The ideas of redemption (or vengeance) or a new step in the process of mankind can be found pretty clearly with this film in such an entertaining manner that plays out the nature of where "co-existence" can culminate in the face of reality. Serkis is tremendous once again as Caesar because he has managed to seal the destiny of a character with all of the traits in a mythic force of nature with displays of empathy and guilt to go with worthwhile physicality that provides further proof in the case of worthwhile performances that can be found in the art of capture. He is giving this the effort one would see from a Moses-type of character that is fascinating in ways that went past the expectations one might have had from going past people in suits onto having dots on their face. Seeing the rest around him is a pilgrimage worth watching the journey, particularly with Konoval in that all-encompassing devotion (as the cool orangutan) to show just where things could lead when apes do in fact roam the Earth at large with varying differences potentially arising, as is the case with Zahn and his worthy shaky affliction as the newcomer (note the coat). Harrelson apparently believes that he was "a little daunted" when it came to talking about films that he felt "rigid" performance-wise. It is interesting to disagree with him here, because there is something quite entertaining in his stiff intimidation that goes greatly in playing a mirror to Serkis when it comes to reacting to potential trouble to the structure around their leadership (consider that one had to face killing one of their own species right as the war starts and the other killed their sick son as a means of protection and then see who is haunted most). It is tremendously haunting in a manner that doesn't require a big climax for both him and Serkis to show the futility that arises from such determined stubbornness that is both necessary to lead and also a path to self-destruction (simply put, one has to be a little nuts to lead something such as say, the presidency but not too nuts). It is a useful film in the eyes of looking at what it takes to get to the idea of freedom that has plenty of time for imagery (such as with Miller and her eyes to convey "Nova") within the snow and eventual result, particularly with how it ends up when it comes to sacrifice and securing one's name. In general, the movie has a bleak but all-around worthy execution to it that accomplishes the sell of making a myth worth watching play out on screen with effective visuals and performances to back it up for entertainment that makes it easily among the best of the Apes films.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

Review #1888: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

Cast: 

Andy Serkis (Caesar), Jason Clarke (Malcolm), Gary Oldman (Dreyfus), Keri Russell (Ellie), Toby Kebbell (Koba), Kodi Smit-McPhee (Alexander), Kirk Acevedo (Carver), Nick Thurston (Blue Eyes), Terry Notary (Rocket), Karin Konoval (Maurice), Judy Greer (Cornelia), Jon Eyez (Foster), and Enrique Murciano (Kemp) Directed by Matt Reeves (#1038 - Cloverfield and #1814 - The Batman)

Review: 

"I think that what I thought was this emotionality and being in the apes kind of inner lives, that's a reason to do this.  Like because you know the ending.  And so now the question is how do we get from here to there?"

I'm sure you remember Ruper Wyatt's Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011), the first reboot movie involving Planet of the Apes since the last time someone tried to do a new Planet of the Apes ten years prior. With the use of visual effects and performance capture by Weta Digital rather than prosthetics, it certainly made quite the impression in trying to make a new path inspired by Pierre Boulle's 1963 novel Planet of the Apes. Honestly, while I remember Rise being fine, I think I could only tell you that Andy Serkis was the best part to remember, if only because his motion capture performance (and occasional voice) really made the film distinct in not just being a mundane reboot/makeup show (of course, Serkis had considerable experience with capture in the previous years, so that helps). Wyatt did not return for this film, instead being replaced by Matt Reeves, director of films such as Cloverfield (2008) and Let Me In (2010), and the only cast members to return are Serkis, Konoval, and Notary (you may notice those are all performers for apes, and this is the case with the subsequent 2017 sequel). The film was written by Mark Bomback, Rick Jaffa, and Amanda Silver (the latter two wrote Rise and also serve as producers on this film), with Bomback being brought in to do re-writes, as Reeves was not big on the original treatment (post apocalyptic San Francisco...with humans and apes pushing up power lines), favoring fir a story with Caesar at the forefront that spends a good chunk of its first quarter with him before eventually segueing into the "surprise" of human life (since remember that the humans suffered an airborne flu that spread worldwide in the c-sorry, Simian flu).

So yes, there are elements of previous Ape films (such as Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973), for example), but there is something here that was sorely needed from the shallow or mild foundations seen in the last two features: energy. It has a pacing to it in its presentation of the similarities and differences that come with human and ape life (where you can see some American Sign Language utilized with certain quirks done), one that has an edge in handling the material with a useful main presence with plenty of credibility and presentation to go around. With a more balanced film of actors with and not with motion-capture, Serkis leads the ensemble with commanding presence, one that handles the dilemma present in both apes and humans in the battle of how one treats others (hint: co-existence is easy to say but hard to administer). One looks past the fact that Serkis (and others playing apes) had to act with a bunch of dots around his face and instead sees the talent shown by him in the art of showing dominance alongside conflict. Serkis has managed to evolve the character with his performance that mimics the evolution of the apes in the most fitting of ways, which makes the overall result all the more interesting. The rest keep up okay. Clarke makes a reasonable counterpart to the divide, well-meaning in trust when it is earned in ways that operate in similar fashion to the performance by James Franco in the earlier film (with regards to Caesar) without being a copy, and Russell and Smit-McPhee make okay companions to the human element (well, one is here for folks like the big orange primate, not kids and step parents trying to make friends). Oldman has only a select number of things to really do as a sort of caretaker, since Serkis has the show, but he does prove a useful adversary for what is needed in the long run, which also applies to Kebbell when he is paired against Serkis in terms of pain and aggression. As a whole, it shows plenty of perspective on its inevitable road to ruin. As a movie depicting the brink of war and a demoralized world, it's a pretty solid adventure. It runs through its 130 minutes with careful ambition to make involving drama for a useful epic. It makes most of an effort to stand apart from the number of sci-fi dystopias involving the usual suspects while inviting the question of what could happen next with Ceasar and beyond.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Batman.

Review #1814: The Batman.

Cast: 

Robert Pattinson (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Zoë Kravitz (Selina Kyle / Catwoman), Paul Dano (Edward Nashton / Riddler), Jeffrey Wright (Lieutenant James Gordon), John Turturro (Carmine Falcone), Peter Sarsgaard (Gil Colson), Andy Serkis (Alfred Pennyworth), Colin Farrell (Oswald "Oz" Cobblepot / Penguin), Jayme Lawson (Bella Reál), Gil Perez-Abraham (Officer Martinez), Peter McDonald (Officer William Kenzie), Alex Ferns (Commissioner Pete Savage), Con O'Neill (Chief Mackenzie Bock), Rupert Penry-Jones (Mayor Don Mitchell Jr) Directed by Matt Reeves (#1038 - Cloverfield)

Review: 

“I’ve always felt that the Batman story was a very special story. He’s not really a superhero. He’s someone who’s driven by the pain of his past. He’s trying to find some way to make sense of his life. It’s a very psychological story. This is the character I relate to most.”

I understand there were folks who doubted that Robert Pattinson could be the character of Batman because of some old movies from the mid 2000s or something. Well, one wonders just how ridiculous that sounds when compared to the minority of folks who decried at the casting of Michael Keaton for the title role in 1989 because of some old movies from the mid 1980s. But we have moved on from films that were influenced by comic books like The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns to films that are influenced by comic books such as Batman: Year One (1987), The Long Halloween (1996-97), and "Ego" (I read two of those stories quite a few years ago, incidentally). But you likely know of those comic books if you are interested in seeing another Batman film. After all, there have now been nine actors to have portrayed the character in film (live action and animated) since 1966. They all have had distinct perspectives when it comes to depicting the character often called the "Caped Crusader", and one can certainly find something to appreciate from each and every director that was behind it, whether that was Leslie H. Martinson, Tim Burton, or Christopher Nolan. You may remember that it has been a couple of years since the last Batman film in live-action - ten years, in fact. I'm sure you know that Ben Affleck appeared as the character in three films (one cameo), and he intended to direct and write a standalone film which apparently was described as "almost James Bond-ian" slate for filming in 2017. However, by that year, Affleck would step away from the director's chair and later would step away from starring in the film (of course, five years ago the DC Extended Universe was vastly different from now); incidentally, there are plans of a Batgirl film in 2022 that has its own cast in mind for the key roles. Reeves would be tapped to direct in 2017 with his own script, with an initial target for June of 2021 for release (we all know how that worked out). Reeves and Peter Craig received credit for the script, which had some un-credited work from Mattson Tomlin. Reeves is best known for directing both Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) and War for the Planet of the Apes (2017).

Honestly, comparing what is the best Batman is a curious thing, because I'm sure most folks haven't seen every Batman-related piece of media (comics, TV, film), but I will maintain that my favorite generally falls between either the Animated Series or the 1966 television series (the Nolan films with their grounded take narrowly edge out the gothic Burton films). Regardless of one's favorite, I'm sure you can find something to like here within the great myth of Batman. One can add Reeves to the list of capable directors behind a Batman movie. In fact, this film might actually rank in the top section of Batman films, one that creates plenty of atmosphere within its comic book trappings and noir ambitions that makes a distinct narrative that turns upon vengeance and hope to deliver a relatable piece of entertainment with bleak and ambitious aim that works quite well for the current age without becoming too absorbed. Pattinson does a splendid job as Batman, one still fairly green in terms of being the "World's Greatest Detective" that is basked in desperation. He makes a great imperfect interpretation of the role because of the fact that he just isn't who he thinks he is. Instead of a Batman movie with the usual trimmings and a considerably more memorable villain, it is more balanced this time around. In other words: he has the layers required to drive the film. Kravitz and her graceful charm work well when paired with Pattinson and their palpable chemistry that drive the film at times with great interest. Dano does just fine for a role that I wish I could agree with more, playful in terror. No, I don't mean I yearn for a villain that is agreeable. But it is a strange quality to wonder why one would think "Riddler" and "Zodiac Killer" in the same sentence, because the Riddler just seems more of a compulsive puzzler man rather than a serial killer (Reeves had the serial killer aspect early in the script). I just don't find the character to be anything other than just "fine" (him and his terrifying 500 followers, I kid, I kid), and it is probably not the easiest thing to say that the most memorable Riddler portrayed in film is still Frank Gorshin after half a century. At least one could be curious to see if Dano would ever appear in further features, but I just hope that any further films find something useful to cover within reflecting the title hero, such as maybe Mr. Freeze or the Mad Hatter (i.e. not just the Joker, because that character is overplayed). Wright and Serkis both prove well in their moments spent playing against Pattinson in the familiar roles that engage well without running into comparisons of the past. Farrell does quite fine with a role half-covered in the shadows that shows the seeds of ruthlessness that could be apparent in further times without becoming desperate. Turturro creeps through the film with the right touch of oozy decadence. The last thing I want to mention is the music by Michael Giacchino, who weaves a capable film score with a title theme that has managed to stick in my head a few days later (of course Reeves could also get credit for his use of "Something in the Way", because who doesn't want a fitting song from Nirvana in a Batman film?).

Honestly, I figured the run-time would not be too much of a problem. 176 minutes is just about right for the kind of sprawling curiosity that Reeves has for depicting the duality of seeking justice without becoming a bloated mess (besides, going "it could have been edited down" is not exactly a valid response). The film does have noir aspirations, but it also finds time for dazzling action sequences alongside tinges of horror that generally do well without becoming off-kilter. It manages to capture most of what has proved interesting to say about the character of Batman within a story of seeing both sides of the coin in exacting justice with certain force. It leaves one curious for what can occur further within this type of storytelling in film without begging deeply for it. It isn't perfect, but it doesn't need to be when it comes to the task of showing the character of Batman in a way that seems fresh and relevant, which it does quite well.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: As noted before, it is Wings (1966), the Soviet classic.

The Adventures of Tintin.

Review #1560: The Adventures of Tintin.

Cast: 

Jamie Bell (Tintin), Andy Serkis (Captain Archibald Haddock / Sir Francis Haddock), Daniel Craig (Ivan Ivanovitch Sakharine / Red Rackham), Nick Frost and Simon Pegg (Thomson and Thompson), Toby Jones (Aristides Silk), Daniel Mays (Allan), Mackenzie Crook (Tom), Gad Elmaleh (Omar ben Salaad), and Enn Reitel (Nestor) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, #1520 - Saving Private Ryan, and #1528 - A.I. Artificial Intelligence)

Review: 
Every aspect of Hergé's great talent are part of my approach: Hergé's humour of course, and the body language, which is so important. There's no plan to change that. We religiously respect his art, even for the supporting characters."

The only person that Hergé, author of the comic book series The Adventures of Tintin, felt could do his series justice was Steven Spielberg. The Belgian writer was commissioned to write a story for Le Petit Vingtième, a youth supplement to the newspaper Le Vingtième Siècle, with the first installment of what became known as Tintin in the Land of the Soviets being published on January 10, 1929, and it continued its serialization for several months alongside further serialization in countries such as France. It moved to the newspaper Le Soir in 1940 due to occupation of the country in World War II before eventually having its own magazine (published by Le Lombard), which went from 1946 to 1993. He would ultimately write 23 volumes of The Adventures of Tintin before his death in 1983, with his stories characterized by the author's extensive research done involving the locale where the stories would be set alongside the main character's well-rounded Boy Scout type of character. The way that Spielberg ties into all of this is because of (what else) a review someone did on Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), in which it was compared to Tintin in its story (which led to him tasking himself to finding a bunch of the books, where he was dazzled by the art). Although he did not have the chance to formally meet the author in person (as he died the week a meeting was planned), there was an arrangement made between Spielberg and Hergé's widow made after a meeting to make a film on Tintin. There had been quite a few adaptations of Tintin on screen, such as three animated features (1947, 1969, 1972) and live-action films (1961, 1964) alongside a pair of television series and even documentaries and stage-shows. The development for a satisfactory script would take considerable time to develop, and it was only the entrance of the 21st century that he considered the idea of doing it with computer animation. It was approaching Peter Jackson and Weta Digital about trying to make a CGI Snowy that led to suggesting the use of motion capture to adapt the series to film. Ultimately, Spielberg would direct and co-produce the film with Peter Jackson and Kathleen Kennedy, while Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright, and Joe Cornish would write the screenplay, which drew upon a few of the works (such as The Secret of the Unicorn, which is used as a subtitle for the film in some places) with a few distinct differences (such as the villain, for example).

It would seem it was worth the wait to make an adventure come to life in dazzling animation. It achieves a picturesque style of animation well-suited for adventure with warm atmosphere and capable enough leads to follow through with great finish for a bright and vibrant time for 107 minutes. It generates just enough interest and charm in its subject matter that makes one asking for more that works for numerous audiences without verging into anything too fanciful or too strange with its range of animation. One could probably imagine an adventure like this in live action, sure, but there is just something different about the detail that comes through here with what is shown (perhaps particularly if one saw it in 3D on release), and the humor generally does a fine job in reflecting that. Bell works well in what is needed in persistent curiosity and good nature needed without seeming inauthentic in do-gooder weirdness. In other words, he fits right in a story of a young man, his (CGI-created) dog, and a beleaguered sea captain going on adventures you could see again and again. Serkis pulls himself well with charm and coarse dryness that when around with Bell makes for a worthy double act that rides along with growing confidence. Craig proves a worthy adversary to finish out the main trio, making an eloquent presence in what is needed for what is required in terms of caper adventure with a stuffy presence for the past and present. Frost and Pegg do just as well in parts with a bumbling duo that contributes a key hearty laugh involving a bit of slapstick with Jones that make useful comic relief suited for this particular duo. It should prove worthy enough for a look because of what it achieves in enjoyment for adventure with the source material that makes for useful caper entertainment that leaves one interested in the imagination for what could go from there or for one to look upon the pages it borrowed from in the first place. As a first venture into animation, I would say Steven Spielberg did a pretty good achievement in that regard.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

King Kong (2005).

Review #1540: King Kong.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts (Ann Darrow), Jack Black (Carl Denham), Adrien Brody (Jack Driscoll), Thomas Kretschmann (Captain Englehorn), Colin Hanks (Preston), Jamie Bell (Jimmy), with Andy Serkis (Motion capture of Kong / Lumpy), Fred Tatasciore (Vocal sound of Kong), Evan Parke (Benjamin "Ben" Hayes), Kyle Chandler (Bruce Baxter), John Sumner (Herb), Lobo Chan (Choy), and Craig Hall (Mike) Directed by Peter Jackson (#1486 - Bad Taste and #1507 - Heavenly Creatures)

Review: 

"No film has captivated my imagination more than King Kong (1933). I'm making movies today because I saw this film when I was 9 years old. It has been my sustained dream to reinterpret this classic story for a new age."

I don't know if you needed to hear another description of King Kong (1933), but most probably know it as a great classic, one that has tremendous stature as an adventure in its revolutionary effects for the time (done in stop-motion and miniatures by Willis O'Brien and his crew) that can still hold its own in entertainment after over 80 years since its release. Granted, not every aspect of the film has exactly aged gracefully (with the occasional wooden actor or so), but it definitely stands true in the ace of films that came in subsequent years involving its titular gorilla. Its sequel (Son of Kong, released the same year!) was a rush job that did not capture the magic of what made things special from before. King Kong vs. Godzilla (1962), while fairly decent in entertainment, is a hodgepodge of ideas that benefits its latter monster in every which way (particularly with its effects) as a Toho film (I haven't see their other production in King Kong Escapes, which is a co-production with Rankin/Bass of all things). The 1976 remake of the film was described by me as a "jumbled flow of effects and 70's style filmmaking that can be hit or miss", which translates to just not being good enough (Jackson described it as a disappointment as a kid and later called it "kind of kitsch"). I suppose it only makes sense that if someone wanted to make another King Kong film, it would have to be something really intriguing for a big effects director to make on a big budget and big scope. Jackson called the 1933 film his favorite, and he had been offered the chance to do a remake by Universal Pictures that would've been released in 1998, but worries by the studio over the upcoming releases of Godzilla (1998) and Mighty Joe Young (1998) led to them stalling by 1997, with Jackson going on to do work on adapting The Lord of the Rings to film. The success of those films led to Universal approaching Jackson to do the film he wanted, with a budget that would reach over $200 million by the time it was released, with Jackson co-writing the effort with Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens.

Why don't I first start with the stuff easiest to highlight. I do applaud the idea of keeping the film in the 1930s, mostly because we are talking about a film needing a reason to go to a strange island to do a movie and find a big gorilla - it would seem a bit clunky to do that in 2005 as opposed to 1933, I assert. There is great care done here to make a worthy period piece in the costumes and feel that I appreciate more than if it was just a monster film lost in itself, particularly since it fooled me a bit with its digital effect enough to make not make fun of it as a bluescreen-fest. Kong himself is a tremendous accomplishment, as they have captured a great effect that towers well over everything present. The advent of these effects and having gorilla footage to study means that Serkis accomplishes wonders in a motion capture body suit that goes with Tatasciore in vocals to make a useful curiosity. Watts handles the challenge of spending a majority of time with Kong with resilience and charm that make for an interesting 1-2 act that makes a special bond with Kong that doesn't seem forced or ridiculous. Black (weird wig and all) is generally enjoyable, seeming to have a grasp on the manner of Orson Welles with some of the drive and compelling spirit of a carnival barker that doesn't seem too much of a cheesy bit. Of the others, I would say probably Chandler has it best, mostly because he seems to be having fun playing a ham without doing a wink to the audience. 

Ultimately, it seems Jackson wanted to have his cake and eat it too in every minuet detail, considering the run-time of 187 minutes. It becomes a case of excess overriding an epic that can only go so far for enjoyment before bashing you over the head with what is believed to be needed in a remake. It seems more prescient in keeping a mix of wooden acting with fair acting than it does in making a period piece I actually want to see play all the way out for three hours (which can be extended 20 minutes longer in an extended cut if you are into that). The easiest thing to get out of the way immediately is one shining fact: Nobody, and I repeat, nobody, needs a whole thing about the backgrounds of the ship crew going to Skull Island, because very little people will actually care about it. The performances for these folks are...okay, but do I need a scene of someone discussing reading Heart of Darkness? How about details of someone being a World War I veteran? Cannon fodder-I mean creature fodder doesn't need this much time, because I am here to watch a gorilla and some creatures along with some sort of affinity between gorilla and woman, thank you very much. Of course the true offender in all of this is Brody, who easily hands in a bland performance without even having to reach the gorilla, and it is so baffling to see him present in a film that begs for some sort of charisma or interest from him when trying to act with Watts. By the time the film trudges onto the island and delivers some creatures to us, one is just begging to not have to hear from most of these folks ever again. One can appreciate the nuance of seeing vine action between creatures that we know aren't really real as opposed to having to pretend to care about a conversation about bravery or the dealings of the ship - Somehow, I remember Kong: Skull Island handling all of this significantly better twelve years later. If I don't think about the fluid quality of acting and see Kong, it works out only to the point of making an average film because of its obvious length. I almost wonder what would happen if you made a film just set on the island with no buildup on the ship and go from there (I shudder to think about a line-for-line remake of the 1933 film, although this takes lines from that film). But at least the climax back to New York works itself out in being interesting and capturing the spirit of tragedy when it comes to gorilla-on-plane action, wonderful in its execution that gives Watts and Serkis their moment to do what is needed (and keeping Brody chucked to the short-shrift where he belongs) before that repeated line to close out this film as was done before comes up. On the whole, I liked most of what I saw in the parts that matter to make a film worthy enough for a recommendation, even if its test of scope and patience may prove frustrating for others. Jackson wanted his tribute to the original mean something, and when compared to films that came following from that model, I'd say he made a commendable effort worth some credit in innovation. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

Review #1027: Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

Cast: 
Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Carrie Fisher (General Leia Organa), Adam Driver (Kylo Ren), Daisy Ridley (Rey), John Boyega (Finn), Oscar Isaac (Poe Dameron), Andy Serkis (Supreme Leader Snoke), Lupita Nyong'o (Maz Kanata), Domhnall Gleeson (General Hux), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Gwendoline Christie (Captain Phasma), Kelly Marie Tran (Rose Tico), Laura Dern (Vice Admiral Amilyn Holdo), Frank Oz (Yoda), and Benicio del Toro (DJ) Directed by Rian Johnson.

Review: 
Yes, I know it's been a few days since The Last Jedi premiered in theaters. But in any case, this is the 49th film in the Theater Saga, in which I watched a movie while it was in theaters, so let me just say that it was nice to see this movie in theaters with a big crowd. I apologize if this review feels a bit long, but I hope that it is worth it for you viewers, even if it is over the usual 300-500 word count that I try to hold to myself to.

It's hard to believe that it has been two years since The Force Awakens (#769), which I described as one "not bogged down by weight or its own characters...a movie that utilizes elements from the original trilogy with elements of its own to make a new mesh that works pretty well for itself." Obviously I still stand by those statements, although I can certainly find why some wouldn't find it as good as I thought it was. I have no doubt that I will be recapping what I thought of this film when it comes times for Episode IX two years down the line, but I don't know how I'll feel about this film after a matter of time passes by. In any case, The Last Jedi is a decent movie for my tastes, although I will say that it is a movie that inspires praise along with detractors, for better or for worse. Whether it lives up to the hype of following up the previous film or not, I did enjoy myself enough, but I can't say that it was better than the last one, or even as good as any of the original trilogy. It definitely is a movie that doesn't try to play itself safe, but it is also a movie that can't always hold all of its plot threads together, despite a 152-minute run-time. I don't mean to be too shallow but let me talk about the visuals for one moment. The movie does have a tremendous look when it comes to the action sequences and the landscapes and sets that it shows throughout the film, such as Ahch-To, the planet that Luke and Rey are on for most of the film, or the planet where the final climax takes place, with accompanying red hues. On a most basic level, this is good entertainment that will satisfying someone looking for some well-done space action. But in a franchise that now has eight primary movies (and a spin-off film, with another coming next year), the bar for satisfaction is not entirely too high. That doesn't mean that Star Wars movies need to just be big spectacles or heavy with plotlines, it just means that the best ones are the movies that find a middle ground. I'm not so sure that this one finds that ground perfectly, but I do think that it makes itself work with what it has just enough.

The performances are fairly entertaining, with the biggest stand out being Hamill, Ridley, and Driver. They are the main group that drives the movie forward, and they certainly have their own respective qualities that make them easily watchable. Even after over 30 years, Hamill manages to leap right into his role without any sort of staleness or taking the role into anything too radical, for what the writing requires anyway. Driver does a fine job in making his role seem more full-fledged, showing vulnerability and conflict that resonates well with the film, especially when with others. Ridley does a good job in showing this character with a bit more depth and tension, and it is easy to go along with her character in her actions, for the most part. Fisher (in her final film role) does a fine graceful job in the time that she has on screen, although I wished that there would've been a bit more with her, but I digress. The drama that engages the main trio is pretty good, and it certainly feels more gripping than the other plotlines, for better or for worse. The rest of the cast do a fine job, but I think the script doesn't help them all too much. One subplot involves Boyega, Issac, Tran, and del Toro, and they all do decent in their performances, but as a whole that plot-line does feel a bit strange. Serkis proves to be somewhat decent as Snoke (this time in physical form), but it leaves you wishing for a bit more. Nyong'o has one scene appearance, and I guess it is satisfactory, although I suppose there could've been more from her role. Gleeson does fine in his role, with a bit of ruthlessness along with a bit of ambition. Christie is fine in the sequence that she is in, although I can't say she was any better than she was in the last film. Tran does okay with what she is given, but I didn't really find myself really caring about her part in the plotline. It is nice to see Dern and del Toro, and they do decently in the roles they are given, even if they don't have too much screen-time. It's hard to explain the story quibbles without spoiling it, but I will just say that the motivations of certain characters do seem to rely a bit on of an idiot plot. Sure, the movie does have a decent payoff, but the way that certain characters seem to do things out of nowhere does detract (and distract) a bit from the enjoyment.

Ultimately, this is a movie that can be a bit of a mess. It has a story that tries to cover numerous bases, whether about the Force, the plot-line with the First Order and the Resistance, or something deeper, and while I can't say that it works all the time, there is enough enjoyment and entertainment to make a movie that is worth watching at least once. For a Star Wars fan like me, I found it to be satisfying enough for my tastes. Is it perfect? Obviously not, but it doesn't need to be. Am I anticipating the next one? Sure, but I'll try not to keep my excitement to a reasonable level.

Lastly, may the force be with you.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Because I can't find a way to put a sentence about the Porgs in the review, I'll just say that they were okay. Obviously, they were created to make for merchandise, but they are at least somewhat amusing without being too distracting. 

Review edited in 2025 for formatting.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

Review #769: Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

Cast
Harrison Ford (Han Solo), Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Carrie Fisher (General Organa), Adam Driver (Kylo Ren), Daisy Ridley (Rey), John Boyega (Finn), Oscar Isaac (Poe Dameron), Lupita Nyong'o (Maz Kanata), Andy Serkis (Supreme Leader Snoke), Domhnall Gleeson (General Hux), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Max von Sydow (Lor San Tekka), Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca), Gwendoline Christie (Captain Phasma), Kenny Baker (R2-D2), and Tim Rose (Admiral Ackbar) Directed by J. J. Abrams (#009 - Star Trek, #150 - Super 8, and #665 - Star Trek Into Darkness)

Review
As I went to my local theater for the 17th time (over the course of this show) to see my first Star Wars movie in a theater, I wondered how it would go. I wondered it because though I adored the original trilogy, the prequel trilogy was not quite up to the charm and fun of the originals. But I realized that I didn't need a perfect movie to be happy, I just needed what I need in any film: A good experience. The anticipation of waiting for a movie to start is a good sign, especially being there an hour early and having a house that looks 80-85% crowded. Naturally, there was a bit of hollering when the movie started up, and even I felt a bit giddy.

And the movie was good, too. Like I said, I wanted a good experience, and I sure got one. I enjoyed every minute of it because it was a movie not bogged down by weight or its own characters, rather it was a movie that utilizes elements from the original trilogy with elements of its own to make a new mesh that works pretty well for itself. Instead of waiting for the old cast to get into the picture, you're instead invested into the new characters because they actually are pretty compelling. Interestingly, my favorite from this movie was BB-8, the new droid who really is so adorable and really fun to watch. Ridley and Boyega are interesting to watch, because they aren't rehashes of the past (per se), they are something Star Wars needed: new blood, to carry the torch on. But of course, Ford is fun to watch again, especially with Leia. (I can share one quote: "When have you ever been helpful? And don't say the Death Star." It makes sense in context to the banter) There's no point in saying anything about the plot, because you really should see it for yourself. The effects look really well because they don't seem too artificial because you actually care about the effects this time around. The movie works because you actually care about where it will go next (after all, Episode VIII and IX will be around the corner soon enough) and care about these characters. It has a good share of humor and fun, laced with finely tuned action and around the same charm you'd expect from a Star Wars film. Will you like it as much I liked it? I don't know. But I'd recommend seeing it.

Believe the hype. And may the force be with you.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Review #615: Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Cast
James Franco (Will Rodman), Freida Pinto (Caroline Aranha), Andy Serkis (Caesar), John Lithgow (Charles Rodma), Brian Cox (John Landon), Tom Felton (Dodge Landon), David Oyelowo (Steven Jacobs), Tyler Labine (Robert Franklin), and Karin Konoval (Maurice) Directed by Rupert Wyatt.

Review
I admit, maybe I should've watched and reviewed this movie earlier in the year, or even earlier, but mistakes happen, so here's my chance to rectify that. So how's the movie? You know who makes the movie better than just good? Andy Serkis as Caesar. It is just more than performance capture, it's watching Serkis just disappear into the role, you forget about the fact that it's a person's movements being captured and later being turned into looking like an ape. It's fun to watch Serkis act in a sense without speaking, though he does have lines near the end, which genuinely surprised me, especially his last three: "Caesar is home", which is really touching to me for some reason. Maybe it's because his plot line closes smoothly, and the movie works best when focused on the apes. That's not to say the human cast is bad, but Serkis steals the show. Franco does fine admittedly, and his scenes with Serkis work well. Pinto is okay, but she doesn't really get much screen time to do anything, even Lithgow has stuff to do (though my praise of Lithgow is 90% due to his performance and 10% because you don't see Lithgow much anymore, unless you capture a Third Rock from the Sun rerun or watch Shrek), but at least the cast is enjoyable at times. The effects are good, it's fun to watch the apes when they march on the Golden Gate Bridge. The story is alright, I suppose, the movie is entertaining enough, and the end scene is brilliant and just makes you want more, like a sequel, which came out yesterday. This is a movie that while not as good as the original Planet of the Apes, is at least a good origin story.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Flushed Away.

Review #166: Flushed Away.

Cast
Hugh Jackman (Roddy St. James), Kate Winslet (Rita Malone), Ian McKellen (The Toad), Jean Reno (Le Frog), Bill Nighy (Whitey), Andy Serkis (Spike), and Shane Richie (Sid) Directed by David Bowers and Sam Fell.

Review
I began this week with stop motion animation and we end with...computer generated animation. However the animation is meant to look like the traditional clay like figures, which it does. Jackman, Winslet, and McKellen are excellent in their roles (Jackman proving he can do more then just be Wolverine or...Van Helsing). The story is decent, with some good gags that are entertaining enough. This ends Dreamworks Animation Week. Overall, it was a decent week, but how does Dreamworks compare to Pixar, or...Disney? Dreamworks can do good films as I've heard from others, and it can do average to meh as well. But the point is that Dreamworks has good and the meh inside them, and that's all that matters. Thank you for reading this week. This ends Part VII.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.