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.

Stuart Little.

Review #1946: Stuart Little.

Cast: 

Michael J. Fox (Stuart Little), Geena Davis (Mrs. Eleanor Little), Hugh Laurie (Mr. Frederick Little), Jonathan Lipnicki (George Little), Nathan Lane (Snowbell), Chazz Palminteri (Smokey), Steve Zahn (Monty), Jim Doughan (Lucky / Officer Allen), David Alan Grier (Red), Bruno Kirby (Mr. Stout), Jennifer Tilly (Mrs. Stout), Stan Freberg (Race Announcer), Jeffrey Jones (Uncle Crenshaw), Connie Ray (Aunt Tina), Allyce Beasley (Aunt Beatrice), Brian Doyle-Murray (Cousin Edgar), Estelle Getty (Grandma Estelle), Harold Gould (Grandpa Spencer), Patrick Thomas O'Brien (Uncle Stretch), Julia Sweeney (Mrs. Keeper), Dabney Coleman (Dr. Beechwood), Miles Marsico (Anton), and Jon Polito (Officer Sherman) Directed by Rob Minkoff (#073 - The Lion King, #746 - The Haunted Mansion, #1125 - Mr. Peabody & Sherman)

Review: 

Sure, movies for children are a dime a dozen, but life is (probably) not too short to enjoy light fare every now and then. It also probably helps if you have familiar names as director or as the stars. This was the first solo directorial effort by Rob Minkoff, who had co-directed The Lion King (1994) with Roger Allers, which had culminated a decade of work at Walt Disney Productions (having studied at the California Institute of Arts that resulted in an internship). The film is based on the 1945 children's novel of the same name by E. B. White, who is also known for his subsequent 1952 novel Charlotte's Web, which has had numerous film adaptations. The screenplay was written by M. Night Shyamalan and Greg Brooker (the latter wrote this and did re-writes for She's All That while honing a script for what became The Sixth Sense - all three films were released in 1999). White had been inspired by a dream he had while riding in a railway sleeping car about a tiny boy who acted like a rat. The advent of digital effects with Sony Pictures Imageworks, along with visual effects by various people alongside supervision by John Dysktra, made the possibility of the film possible that wouldn't been the case before 1999.

It is a movie about earnest people adopting a mouse that talks, you know. The level of enjoyment you get from the film may very well depend on how seriously you take the film, honestly. It seems about as whimsical as one might expect from a children's film adaptation without becoming an explosion of weirdo cuteness. This happens mostly because it tries to play a bit of adventure with a pint-sized lead that gets to deal with the danger of being left without a family along with the danger of cats thinking about lunch. Fox had plenty of voice experience with films such as the Homeward Bound features (1993, 1996), so it isn't too surprising to see him here as the lead voice, which he handles with warm charisma. Sure, the role might be packed with schmaltz, but Fox handles it amiably to where we appreciate seeing him carrying things around. Laurie and Davis make for earnest parental figures that don't oversell the level of enthusiasm needed to make this seem warm enough to take seriously on an "okay, sure" level (i.e., being parents to a child and a mouse adoptee at least seems fine). Lipnicki is at least what you would expect from a kid actor (so yes, the kid from Jerry Maguire is fine). There is absolutely nothing surprising in seeing Lane here, which inspires a few chuckles as the foil to Fox that is followed by attempts at kid-friendly heavies played by folks like Palminteri, which is neat. There is a wide variety of name actors that pop in from Dabney Coleman to Jon Polito that come and go just as quickly with one-bit lines that work fine for folks already comfortable with what they are watching. You get to see a boat race along with what passes for a "car chase" to go with a story path that you would probably foresee coming midway through. It's a family movie that doesn't dawdle too much or go overboard in bits with animals. The film inspired a sequel three years later, which retained Minkoff and a handful of actors from the first film. As a whole, it is a cheery little movie that has enough decent notes that it hits within semi-adventure and a few chuckles that does exactly what you would expect without strain or irritation.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

You've Got Mail.

Review #1020: You've Got Mail.

Cast: 
Tom Hanks (Joe "NY152" Fox), Meg Ryan (Kathleen "Shopgirl" Kelly), Parker Posey (Patricia Eden), Jean Stapleton (Birdie Conrad), Greg Kinnear (Frank Navasky), Steve Zahn (George Pappas), Heather Burns (Christina Plutzker), Dave Chappelle (Kevin Jackson), Dabney Coleman (Nelson Fox), and John Randolph (Schuyler Fox) Directed by Nora Ephron (#554 - Sleepless in Seattle)

Review: 
Remember Sleepless in Seattle (1993)? I watched and reviewed the film three years ago, and while I will admit that Hanks and Ryan had a fine enough chemistry with each other, I found it to be fairly okay but not something I'd probably watch again, with a love story that certainly seemed to take inspiration from older films, such as An Affair to Remember (1957). As for this film, the inspiration this time around is the 1937 play Parfumerie by Miklós László, which had already served as the basis for The Shop Around the Corner (1940). Fittingly, the bookstore featured in this film is named after the older film. In any case, this is a movie basked in its time, or more specifically romance on AOL, a thing that I vaguely remember my dad sometime in my childhood (and yes, that noise during the connection and disconnection sequence is still stuck in my head). Ultimately, this is a mediocre movie, although the performances in it are pretty tolerable. Hanks and Ryan are fairly likable, and it is interesting to see their dynamic evolve over the film's run-time, managing to never really drag the film to any sort of ridiculous level (in a movie about online romance, anyway). They help the movie feel charming without soaking itself in sentimentality. The film starts with the two characters involved with other people, and while you know that they are eventually going to not end up happy with those people, the movie doesn't make anyone out to be selfish or needlessly annoying. Posey and Kinnear provide some amusement, and while I'd say they don't have much to their characters, they aren't entirely caricatures. The film goes through the cliches you might expect, but at least there isn't some sort of adversary or big message that the film wants to push other than one of romance, so there's something for you. The rest of the cast is pretty acceptable, contributing to some light fun, with my favorites being Stapleton and Chappelle. For a movie that is light on substance, it is a movie that is inviting for anyone in the mood for a rom-com. Like with Sleepless in Seattle, I can't really see myself watching this film ever again, but I can at least appreciate this film and its romance aspect a bit better than the other film, for what it's worth. It may feel a bit gimmicky, but the basic plot structure still works enough to carve out some sort of winner. This is a predictable film, but it's also comforting for people in the right mood or mindset, and I suppose at the end of the day that means something.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.