KINGDOM OF THE PLANET OF THE APES Review

In what is essentially the fourth new beginning in the Planet of the Apes franchise and the tenth film overall, Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes has the difficult task of not only following-up the critically acclaimed and well-liked Caesar trilogy but establishing a new cast of characters for audiences to care about and maybe more critically - to root for. The fascinating thing about this franchise in particular is that it has no one anchor, no single selling point, but more it relies on each films ideas and themes to be the main attraction. These are blockbusters built on allegory, delivering spectacle to fulfill the experiential aspect of movie-going, but largely crafted for the purposes of the conversations that will take place afterward. In director Wes Ball's (the Maze Runner trilogy) re-boot each of these factors are in place to meet the aforementioned requirements of both entertainment value and parable-like storytelling, but much like with the previous two Matt Reeves films (my hot take regarding the Caesar trilogy is that Rupert Wyatt's film is actually the best of them) these frameworks for what these films intend to do and be end up mostly being only that: a structure. In Kingdom specifically, the themes themselves are such repeats of ideas and concepts this franchise has touched upon before that it almost feels the series is becoming that of which it is analyzing a la the cyclical nature of society - the triumphs and failures destined to collide with the systems put in place to try and form some type of order no matter the dominant species.

THE CAPTIVE Review

Atom Egoyan must have either been really inspired or really upset with how director Denis Villeneuve's Prisoners turned out last year as he has, in that year, produced a familiar feeling film that not only steeps certain motivations of its counterpart in its DNA, but takes elements of that film altogether and reconstructs them in a way that almost says this is what Egoyan would have done had he been given Aaron Guzikowski's screenplay. Of course, Egoyan could have been working on this script with David Fraser long before Prisoners arrived in theaters and thus made him all the more unenthusiastic given the social status of his film would always be on a certain back-burner given the timing of its culmination. Ryan Reynolds gets the Hugh Jackman role (hold your comments) though his character doesn't have as much of a narrative drive and Rosario Dawson takes the Jake Gyllenhaal job without the nervous ticks or personal issues that re-enforce the investment in the job. Instead, these are all more middle of the road character executions set in the middle of extreme circumstances that are dealt with way too cooly. This and the fact Villeneuve's film is expertly shot and beautifully eery outweigh what The Captive strives to be, yet there is still a certain amount of unavoidable emotional involvement when it comes to content such as this. Beyond the obvious mystery elements (which are conveyed more through narrative order than withholding information here) The Captive is very much a film about repercussions and realizations than it is abduction or child abuse in this digital day and age. The film, right out of the gate, with its creepy antagonist in a thinned-out Kevin Durand would have you believe this is going to be all about the hunt for this monster and the intelligence with which he outsmarts his adversaries, but the overall impression the film gives is not one of a battle between good and evil, but the battles going on within ones self and the fight to either push certain qualities out or attempting to find ways to go on while constantly dealing with these emotions.

DEVIL'S KNOT Review

There has been so much made of the trial that Devil's Knot dramatizes that the film itself almost seems irrelevant at this point. If you've seen any of the three Paradise Lost documentaries or for a more complete look at the eighteen years after what happens in Devil's Knot, last years excellent documentary West of Memphis, than you already know everything there is to know about this trial with ample amounts of theories and extraneous evidence to boot, but while West of Memphis encapsulated this entire ordeal from beginning to present when it turned from a trial about the murder of three little boys to a witch hunt for three other boys and the eventual plight to free them from the prison cells that constantly reminded them of the actions they were wrongfully accused of, Devil's Knot is simply looking to see what made everything go so wrong from the inception of this incident and more importantly, give a voice to the often forgotten victims and their families. The film is very open to interpretation in terms of what avenue you prefer to travel when it comes to this well-publicized case, but it certainly lays inclinations to what the current state of the case would best indicate. With such a sprawling story, a large cast of characters and multiple perspectives from which you could approach this it always seemed the choice to go with a documentary as far as chronicling the events of this case was the most efficient thing to do, but with Mara Leveritt's 2002 crime book of the same name proving an interesting and well-read piece of source material it was unavoidable that at some point a narrative feature might be attempted that pulled from the well that has seemed to officially run dry. The interesting question here is whether or not the film might be more highly looked upon were there not so many other films surrounding this same set of events because this film, on the most basic of principles, is still engaging due to the horrible circumstances under which these murders happened and the horribly botched job that the police did with the investigation that, when paired with the fine, but admittedly passive performance of actors at the caliber of Colin Firth and Reese Witherspoon, you are bound to find a few things making it worth a look.

NOAH Review

If there is one thing I've always admired and enjoyed about director Darren Aronofsky's films it is the ambition with which he constructs them and the innovation with which he operates within these worlds he builds. With Noah, the much talked about adaptation of the Bible story, Aronofsky has crafted what is essentially a mythological epic where our familiarity with the story and characters only serve as the intrigue to why we might be interested in what more is going on in this version. There has been much discussion over the content and the liberties Aronofsky has taken with the story from the book of Genesis, but if anything has been added or changed it seems to only serve the purpose of filling in the gaps of the story that the Bible didn't find necessary to go into detail about. To say that Aronofsky and his frequent collaborator Ari Handel have come up with some interesting theories and ideas within their script is a bit of an understatement. The bad news concerning this is that these sparks of creativity, where the story is allowed to diverge from the beaten path, begin to wear thin after the first hour or so. That isn't to say that the final hour and twenty minutes or so is any less interesting or drags as much of the inherent drama from within the family unit comes into play in these later stages, but it is the aura of those early scenes that stay with you as you leave the theater and the inherent attitudes of the characters that draw us in and make us question their sanity as much as we do our own faith, for better or worse. Noah is one of those films where I expected to walk in feeling one way and walk out with a new perspective on the difference between literal interpretation and what more accurately seem to be these metaphorical stories with implied lessons that influence over seventy percent of the worlds population. My world wasn't changed, my eyes weren't necessarily opened to a new way of thinking as I exited the screening, but what I did have was a sense of that still fresh ambition within Aronofsky. It is clear from the opening moments of the film that the director is still very much in tune with who he is and what kinds of films he wants to make and with as divisive a subject matter as this it is nothing short of rewarding to see that singular voice still come through.

First Trailers for Darren Aronofsky’s NOAH

There has been much talk concerning director Darren Aronofsky's desire to adapt the tale of Noah and his ark for the big screen ever since that desire was made public. Aronofsky is a director who likes to push the limit and is always willing to look for an interesting perspective on subjects and a style to go along with that perspective that will influence how he captures the story on film. I have always been a big supporter of his 2006 passion project, The Fountain, and have enjoyed his work since as well as prior. With the ability to secure a massive budget and backing of a studio like Paramount Aronofsky is now operating on his biggest scale yet and if there is a story that might justify this excursion into big budget studio films for a more arthouse director, it would be a Bible story in which everyone will have plenty to say. Paramount is no doubt hoping this mentality means it will put up Passion of the Christ-like numbers though we've already heard reports that the director and Paramount are at odds over the final cut of the film after a few test screenings didn't come away with the most shining of results. All I care about though is that the final cut we see on-screen is the one Aronofsky originally had in mind when he began this project. The director knows what he is doing and the trailer implies he has a very specific way of channeling the aspects of God and how he communicated with Noah in a way that make this event feel all the more plausible. The visuals here are absolutely stunning and there is a grand scale to the film that a story like this justifies but going even further, Aronofsky has gathered a cast that will more than do their part to elevate the human aspects of this story we've all heard many times before and in doing so will no doubt deliver a complete film that packs plenty of its own surprises. Russel Crowe plays the titular Noah and is joined by the likes of Emma Watson, Jennifer Connelly, Logan Lerman, Ray Winstone, Douglas Booth, Kevin Durand, Martin Csokas, Mark Margolis, and Anthony Hopkins. Noah opens on March 28, 2014.

FRUITVALE STATION Review

Fruitvale Station is a difficult movie to deal with. It is a very moving picture that doesn't attempt to manipulate its audience or contrary to what you may believe going in, have an agenda more than telling the basic story of what happened on those fateful early hours of New Years Day 2009. Since its premiere at this years Cannes Film Festival there has been nothing but positive buzz swirling around the film and typically I'm speculative of these films that seem to garner unanimous praise based simply on the idea that if I look too much into the critical reception I will expect too much from the film rather than being able to take it in for what it is and what it was meant to be. I mention this because despite the fact I tried to avoid chatter around the film it is pretty impossible if you follow any film site, but also because none of that hindered my viewing experience. There is something very pure about the journey this film takes you on despite its content highlighting the downfalls and tragedy of a young black man in suburban America. Director Ryan Coogler makes his feature film debut with this simplistic, no frills approach to a story that needs nothing extra to make it as emotionally charged as the simple facts of the story leave us feeling. I go to the movies to see interesting stories, meet interesting characters and if I'm lucky become emotionally invested in the conflicts these characters come into contact with. We root for our protagonists and we hope they can conquer the challenges the antagonists present them with whether that be a supernatural force, an opposing government, or something more personal like a mental illness. What makes Fruitvale Station the exception to the rule is not that it is "based on a true story" but that it doesn't follow the conventional arc of a movie in that we know what we're getting, we know there is no happy ending, and that even though we can't escape the heartbreak of the events this movie sheds light on there is a profound meaning to come from the way Koogler and his cast convey a story that might never be known to those outside the community it's documenting. There are no excuses for how wrong things ended for Oscar Grant, but if its any testament to his legacy this film will serve to both make people aware and inspire others looking to make a change.

COSMOPOLIS Review

There is likely not enough pages in the world that could ever wrap themselves around the multiple ideas and theories that are tossed out in David Cronenberg's latest Cosmopolis. The film is based on a 2003 novel by Don DeLillo that wasn't all that well received itself but clearly sparked some kind of intrigue in the director as he's developed the story into an hour and forty-five minute feature film full of thoughts but lacking a main idea. Like its main character played by the surprisingly commanding Robert Pattinson the film believes itself to be smarter than everyone else. This plan of keeping the basic plot so simple that the overall story can seemingly go anywhere seems to backfire on the director and everyone involved as the film generally doesn't consist of much at all and it feels like it. There are those slickly made films every now and then that are so simple they are fascinating in their execution but Cosmopolis can't slip under the radar no matter how many big words it tries to throw at its audience. As I walked out of the theater I was still puzzled as to what I'd just experienced and couldn't really comprehend if any of it really meant anything to me, if any of it left an impression on me. Sure, there were certain pieces of dialogue, theories even that I found interesting and would liked to have seen explored further, but when it all comes down to that final (and only) tension filled scene we realize that nothing has built to this point. Not even the self discovery of Pattinson's asset manager Eric Packer can rescue the film from its dialogue and metaphoric heavy messages. There is something to the film that is strangely engaging, I'll give it that, but not enough to warrant the idea of translating these words to the screen.

Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson) and his security guard
Torval (Kevin Durand) wait for the limo.

In essence the film can be summed up in one sentence. Packer, a 28 year-old asset manager in the not too distant future rides in his stretch limo across New York City for a haircut. That is the basis for what inspires several interactions throughout his trip that include discussions about his business, his status and the state of that power he holds over the Wall Street arena. The film is so precisely directed that we cannot help but to marvel at the genuine care that seems to have been taken to manufacture such a world, but unfortunately that is the only thing about this world that feels the least bit genuine. Pattinson, despite his bread and butter franchise is at least trying to break the mold and avoid falling into the trappings of mainstream studio films. Bucking the system by doing obscure and limit-pushing material such as this, but his character for all the danger and excess he likes to indulge in speaks in a monotone voice and conveys little emotion for us to understand his goals much less him as a human being. We watch and discover more and more about the character but become less enthralled with him. He is a kind of golden boy in the finance industry and is betting his company's future against the value of the yen as he fights the traffic of a pop stars funeral, a presidential visit, and an ongoing riot that seems strangely similar to an exaggerated Occupy Wall Street movement. In the process of getting to the barber he speaks with young, smart associates who always seem one step ahead of the average human being in their conversation guessing what their boss is thinking of them, how he is judging them. Packer will exit the vehicle occasionally mainly to eat with his new bride who seems to exist in a world completely opposite his own.

Benno Levin (Paul Giamatti) faces off against Packer
in the final act of Cosmopolis.

Whether it be that our lead character is talking to his mistress/art dealer (Juliette Binoche), his chief of theory as played by the always captivating Samantha Morton or another of his female associates where an intense conversation takes place as Packer gets his rectum examined. As all of these strange goings-on occur though, as we see the slew of people come in and out of the limo we begin to naturally catch on to the idea this is not simply about money for our complicated character but is more about constructing the image, the philosophy of a man who truly is more than the same person we all are at the base level. Packer is trying to be more than a man, he is attempting to represent a certain set of ideas that don't really have representation but are instead hidden from the world because of their shameful truths. He seeks out sexual satisfaction with different partners despite the disconnected marriage he shares with equally wealthy Elise (Sarah Gadon). He is looking to destroy the past to build a new future not only for himself but for this lost generation that have grown up believing their is an American dream they can someday achieve. It is fine enough ideas, and the dialogue is sharply written as it is seemingly translated directly from DeLillo's book but as it is the movie tells more than it shows and in that I can't fully understand the justification for why one would want to watch this film rather than simply read the book. The ideas would likely stick better with the reader than the viewer. Even with the almost Kubrickian style that Cronenberg implies to capture the visuals and direct, emotionless delivery of the dialogue we cannot become fully invested in Pattison's odyssey.

Eric Packer's new wife Elise (Sarah Gadon) is just as
wealthy if not as adventurous as her new husband.

What does stick from the countless conversations held in Cosmopolis is this idea of how we or our world has come to be how it is in its most current form. That idea that Packer is always challenging himself to overcome and to ultimately figure out. How should he know what to do with his future, how does he become the human being he so badly wants to be without knowing if he can rely on what fuels any persons knowledge: their experiences. That theory becomes as close to the main idea of the film as we get. That is fine except for the fact that the film itself is cold and for all the deep and intelligent conversations that are being had it feels empty. In the final act of the film Packer meets a disgruntled past employee (Paul Giamatti) where the limits of who Packer is and what he wants out of this life are put to the test. It is both the most entertaining and intriguing part of the film which could be for many reasons but what it ultimately proves is that a film doesn't have to be so self-serious and restrained to the point it can undoubtedly be considered art but can be as thought provoking as it is interesting and fun to watch. The tension is built perfectly as Pattinson and Giamatti dance around the films best conversations and topics. They are the ones that stick with the audience and not just because they are the last ones we hear in the film. I have never really responded to Cronenberg's work the way some do and I find it hard to see what has garnered him such a fine reputation as a filmmaker. There is an abstraction here that I simply don't understand in terms of filmmaking but I do consider myself more intelligent than to simply buy into rich, powerful, good looking people spouting philosophy at me and for those reasons expecting me to believe every word of it without question. If that is what Cronenberg is doing than there are plenty of logical questions that need to be addressed in his film. Did the guy really need a haircut in the first place? Let's start there.

    
    

COSMOPOLIS Review

There is likely not enough pages in the world that could ever wrap themselves around the multiple ideas and theories that are tossed out in David Cronenberg's latest Cosmopolis. The film is based on a 2003 novel by Don DeLillo that wasn't all that well received itself but clearly sparked some kind of intrigue in the director as he's developed the story into an hour and forty-five minute feature film full of thoughts but lacking a main idea. Like its main character played by the surprisingly commanding Robert Pattinson the film believes itself to be smarter than everyone else. This plan of keeping the basic plot so simple that the overall story can seemingly go anywhere seems to backfire on the director and everyone involved as the film generally doesn't consist of much at all and it feels like it. There are those slickly made films every now and then that are so simple they are fascinating in their execution but Cosmopolis can't slip under the radar no matter how many big words it tries to throw at its audience. As I walked out of the theater I was still puzzled as to what I'd just experienced and couldn't really comprehend if any of it really meant anything to me, if any of it left an impression on me. Sure, there were certain pieces of dialogue, theories even that I found interesting and would liked to have seen explored further, but when it all comes down to that final (and only) tension filled scene we realize that nothing has built to this point. Not even the self discovery of Pattinson's asset manager Eric Packer can rescue the film from its dialogue and metaphoric heavy messages. There is something to the film that is strangely engaging, I'll give it that, but not enough to warrant the idea of translating these words to the screen.