Rise of the Planet of the Apes

A reasonably packed house for this screening at Mint Kobe OS Cinemas. I had been pretty excited about seeing this for a few months and I wasn't disappointed. I'd watch it again tomorrow and I can't say that about too many other films.

The human actors are all fine (perhaps with the exception of James Franco - he's OK, just miscast, I reckon) but the strength of the film lies with the apes. It actually seems like a breakthrough in motion capture performing, it's certainly the most realistic I've seen to date. Andy Serkis as Caeser gives a more nuanced, heartfelt performance than anything Tom Cruise, for example, has ever tried. There's a scene where assorted apes walk past Caeser and he looks into their eyes to check 'something' (I don't want to step into spoiler territory) and it's just a brilliantly realised moment.

In fact, this film is full of really exciting, satisfying set pieces. Without giving too much away, I'm thinking of young Caeser swinging through Franco's house, leaves falling in a street, nearly every scene in the primate sanctuary and, most impressively, the bridge sequence. I'm getting a bit ape-like now just remembering these scenes (some people may not be too surprised to learn that I've been refining my ape walk since yesterday).

Coming after the original five films - Planet of the Apes in 1968, then Beneath, Escape, Conquest (on which this film is loosely based) and Battle following in quick succession - plus a slightly camp, run-of-the-mill remake of Planet in 2001, you might think there was nowhere to go with the franchise. But the new technology coupled with a fairly smart script and taut direction makes this a stand-out. Roll on Ape Dominance or Ape Supremacy or whatever the next one will be called. Hmmm, why stop there? Is it too late to digitally replace Cruise for Mission: Ape-possible 4?

[Oh, I almost forgot. There are a few neat little nods to the original Planet of the Apes, one of which is central to the story. They're just the right side of self-referential and they don't look out of place.]

Not to be missed.

The Thomas Crown Affair

First review in a while. It's been a few months since I've been to the cinema, but I happened to notice this little nugget tucked away in the 10am showing of Toho's '50 great films' season.

The theatre was more packed than I thought it would be but I reckon this is due to Steve McQueen's staying power. He's in great form and Faye Dunaway is a sparky, saucy foil for him. The famous sexy chess scene is a stand-out. This film came out around the peak of McQueen's popularity, following The Cincinatti Kid, Nevada Smith and The Sand Pebbles and just before Bullitt. It didn't seem to do so well at the box office but it shows McQueen at his coolest (even Dunaway says he's "like ice" at one stage).

The film itself is not brilliant. It's a little floppy in the middle and some of the characters seem superfluous. It really is held up by the two leads, and while they're great, there's a bit too much dilly-dallying. One reason for this may be McQueen's suspected requirement to have some toys to play with in the story. He gets in a dune buggy, a glider, a Rolls Royce and even has time for a game of polo! If he wasn't my favourite actor, I'd say this smacks of self-indulgence.

The Thomas Crown Affair was also one of the most well-known films to use the split screen filming technique, which breaks up the frame to show simultaneous action in smaller frames within the main screen. It looks pretty good, if a little dated now but I guess it would have spun out some folk back in 1968.

Some final points:

• The music is a bit over-blown at times, but the song did win an Oscar.
• Dunaway likes to get around bra-less (see Bonnie and Clyde for more evidence).
• McQueen would have done more excellent work if he'd lived beyond the age of fifty.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2

I was going to try to talk about this final Potter film as a stand-alone flick but I think that's nigh on impossible, as it's not only a 'second act' but also number 8 in a series (avoid use of word franchise here - ugly fucking word reserved for shite like Transformers, Pirates, etc).

From the top, I quite liked it but not as much as I thought I would. Maybe I had built it up too much (or allowed the hysteria to do that for me). It was pretty action-packed and the performances of the three leads were solid and much improved from the earlier outings. I just couldn't help but think it would have been better if the two Deathly Hallows films had been shortened and made into one 3 and a half hour barnstorming epic. Too loyal to the books maybe, too interested in milking more cash from punters' pockets?

Readers of the books may disagree but I thought the ending on the bridge was a fine point to roll the credits. Did we really need to see the neatly wrapped up, heart-warming guff that followed?

For what it's worth, here are my top 5 (cinematic) Potter characters:

5. Mad-Eye Moody

4. Hagrid

3. Hermione

2. Snape

1. Voldemort

A Bout Portant

Watched a really exciting French thriller today called A Bout Portant (Point Blank). It's a bit formulaic but it doesn't let you take a breath and it's over in an hour and 20 minutes. Bang. Watch it.

Spoilberg

I just watched A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) for the first time and was on the negative side of ambivalent by the end. It starts well enough and sets up a promising outcome but the second half plays out like a solemn episode of Futurama . And it was boring. And that's the crux of the problem - Spielberg and boredom.

I've had a glance over his body of work (as director) and I can safely say only Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark were any good. Some of the others may have had their moments (Close Encounters, Duel, Minority Report) but they don't deliver the complete package. I think Spielberg's attempts to make 'worthy' films (Schindler's List, The Color Purple, Amistad, Munich) have led him to cut back on the excitement levels in these and even in his 'entertainments'.

He's a very talented technician but he doesn't hold a candle to creative film-makers like Christopher Nolan, the Coens or even Scorsese, just to mention a few.

Any thoughts?

Half-yearly report

So, as it's June 30th, I thought I'd jot down the 10 best films I've seen this year. These include repeat viewings (and even one I saw at the very end of Dec 2010). Some are new, some are old but all are quality.

1. Barton Fink
2. No Country for Old Men
3. Tell No One
4. The King's Speech
5. Broadcast News
6. Educating Rita
7. 12 Monkeys
8. Animal Kingdom
9. Army of Crime
10. Good Will Hunting


And just for balance, the crappest films I've seen so far this year are (worst first):

1. Battle Los Angeles
2. The Expendables
3. London Boulevard
4. Transporter 3
5. The History Boys
6. Stone
7. The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader
8. Carry On Up the Khyber
9. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
10. The Book of Eli

X-Men: First Class

We saw this at HAT 109 on Sunday the 19th. I make this the 5th in the series (I hesitate to call it a 'franchise' - that sounds kind of ugly and capitalistic to me - I'll reserve that moniker for films I don't like), if you include Wolverine as part of that series. In my opinion, this prequel sits about 2nd best, after the first one (X-Men) and just above the second one (X-2).

I reckon they got the right director, Matthew Vaughn (Kick-Ass, Layer Cake) and Bryan Singer was on board as a producer too. The cast was patchy, from great (McAvoy, Fassbender) to serviceable (Byrne, Platt) to poor (Bacon, Jones - who is this dull Barbie?).

The pace of the film was an asset, it really rattled along in parts, especially the initial meeting sequence of Xavier and Lehnsherr. I really like the 3 way antagonism these films explore - humans v good mutants v bad mutants - and X-Men: First Class shows the origins of this. I think it's one of the reasons that sets it apart from other comic book adaptations that rely on a more black and white polarity.

There's also a classic 3 word retort that made me laugh quite a lot - you'll understand when you see it. As it's something of a spoiler, I won't elaborate here.

Worth watching.

The Adjustment Bureau

June 1st. Cheap tickets day at HAT 109. I was hopeful about this film, but also a little wary. As it turned out, both preconceptions were met. I liked parts of it a lot and hated parts in equal measure.

Positives first. Matt Damon is a really likeable figure on screen (off it as well, so I hear) and his acting is improving with age, rather like Di Caprio. His partnership with Emily Blunt works very well here - she's great too. The story is based on a Phillip K. Dick novella, and it has a certain nutty charm, reminiscent of an old episode of The Twilight Zone TV show. Some of the set-pieces come off (a couple of chase scenes on foot in particular) but the theme of the film is where the worms come out.

Right off the bat, let me say I can't stand religious propaganda in films. Religion, as a plot point, a theme or even an incidental garnish to a story are all fine with me, but I can't abide the sly stuff (and this is mostly perpetrated by Hollywood). The Adjustment Bureau has it riddled throughout. The ultimate conceit that "The Chairman" has the lives of everyone on earth planned out and these plans must be adhered to is bad enough, but the wet fish ending, as well as being naff, actually contradicts this.

The writers also need to bone up on some history. There's a scene where the typically wooden Terence Stamp soliloquises about when and why 'The Chairman" and his Angelic Hordes abandoned the humans throughout time and when they returned. It should make anybody with an inkling of history utter a quiet "what the fuckles?"

Incidentally; Terence Stamp, David Hemmings, Malcolm McDowell. These three often get mixed up in my mind, though I'm now starting to think Stamp is the lesser of the trio.

P.S. For proper angels, look no further than.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbzUfV3_JIA

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

We saw this on May 22 at the 109 cinemas in HAT Kobe. The HAT apparently stands for Happy Active Town, an area east of central Kobe that was rebuilt after the Hanshin earthquake of 1995. Why am I writing all this? Probably because it's a tad more interesting than the film we saw there.

I guess this Pirates movie shows that even if you throw actors the calibre of Depp, Rush, McShane and Cruz together, you still can't guarantee goals. It was a fairly flaccid affair (though a little better than numbers 2 and 3) and Depp is required to tent-pole the whole thing but he's not THAT good. It seems the franchise doesn't have the legs.

Bombastic and dispiriting.

P.S. A few days later I watched a 'small' German film called The Edge of Heaven and it stayed with me a lot longer than this Pirates film did.

True Grit

We saw this on March 30 at the Toho Cinema complex in Nishinomiya (I think it was free as I'd built up 6 movies on the point card). As I recall, there was a long queue and I was a bit concerned our theatre would be full. Luckily, the clueless majority were evidently lining up for something called Tangled. Or some shite Japanese anime or baseball flick.

As is usual with the Coen's films, True Grit looked great (shot by Roger Deakins again) and the dialogue fairly sparkled. The casting was typically spot on and they really have a sense of atmosphere - which the music (by Carter Burwell again), the costumes and the sets exemplify brilliantly.

But I reckon this film sits around the mid-section of the Coen portfolio, just near Miller's Crossing and The Big Lebowski. Not quite up to the standards set by Barton Fink, No Country for Old Men and Raising Arizona but not as low as The Hudsucker Proxy or Burn After Reading.

The King's Speech

I think I'll jot down a few thoughts on films I see at the cinema throughout the year. Here we go.

I saw The King's Speech at the Windsor Theatre in Nedlands (?) on Jan 3 on a rare trip back to Aus. I went with my wife, Liam and Satomi on a pretty warm afternoon. The cinema was full of oldies, possibly attracted to the regal theme, maybe to the discount prices, so getting a couple of choc bombs took a bit longer than planned.

I must admit, I had high hopes for this film and I wasn't disappointed. It's well written, tightly-paced and nicely underplayed by the leads. The scene where Logue (Geoffry Rush) calls Perth crowds 'enthusiastic' went down understandably well. Firth is very good, Rush also, and the rest of the cast chip in with solid support, especially Michael Gambon as King George V, domineering father of VI.

I thought the best scene was where Mrs. Logue comes home to find the King and Queen in her house. Helena Bonham Carter plays this really well as the two men hide in the adjoining room. I realise this is an obvious, slightly hackneyed set-up but it works here.

The only slight gripe I had was the Timothy Spall cameo as Churchill, which I thought was caricatured and out of keeping with the rest of the film. But I'm being a bit harsh. This is a very well made film all in all.

Toodle pip!

Cannes

This looks tasty. Some of the films in competition for the Palme d'Or include the latest efforts from Aki Kaurismaki, Lars Von Trier, Pedro Almodovar and Takashi Miike. There's even an Aussie film in the running!

http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/inCompetition.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/may/08/cannes-2011-top-10-preview

Cannes runs from May 11 to 22. A great antidote to the Hollywood blockbusters. Finding somewhere to see them in Japan will be the tricky part.

Shite on celluloid

Recently, I've had the displeasure to watch a couple of warmed up turds trying to pass themselves off as films and this got me thinking about my least favourite movies. So here's a short list of crap (just a top two at the moment - the rest in no particular order).

1. Grease - I have to thank my sister for years (?) of torture via the VHS tape of this abomination.

2. Moulin Rouge - Two minutes in and my finger was hovering over the stop button. Didn't get any better.

• Ghost - Soppy, quasi-religious tripe with annoyingly poor actors.
• The Hotel New Hampshire - I vaguely remember this as a boring mess.
• Wolf Creek - No redeeming features (except maybe the landscape for masochistic tourists) and just nasty.
• The Expendables - Colour-by-numbers plot, shit acting (of course) and an ugly sense of nostalgia.
• Battlefield Earth - Not sure if this counts as I could only get halfway through.
• Babylon A.D. - Derivative crap with a wooden lead and a cliched ending.

I can't really think of many more, as I guess I try to let the bad ones slip from my mind. In fact, most films I see are below average but the aforementioned really stood out as putrid examples.

Anybody disagree or care to help jog my memory of other turkeys?

Bravo Toho

This is worth a peep.

http://asa10.eiga.com/2011/series2/

Last year, Toho Cinemas here in Japan showed some classic films on their smaller screens and they're doing it again in 2011. I only got a chance to see one last year (12 Angry Men) but I'll be trying to fill my boots this year.

Some of the gems they'll be showing are: The Magnificent Seven, Sunset Boulevard, The Thomas Crown Affair, Alien, The Graduate, Taxi Driver, Shane, The French Connection and The Hustler. They even have a few non-English language films but that's me buggered as they don't show English subbies.

Enjoy them if you can - they only show one a week, at 10am.

The Green Dream

I've noticed that The Green Lantern is upon us soon. As that's the name of my favourite comic book hero and my favourite Muttonbirds song, I'm hoping it will also be my favourite comic book film adaptation. High hopes, I guess.

The trailer looks formulaic, which should be expected, and the villain is that fey prat from An Education. Ryan Reynolds (who looks a bit like a mate of mine called Rewi) is probably OK for the part. He did well in a box underground for 80-odd minutes in Buried, but I reckon many could have played that role.

The trailer also seems choc full of CGI, which is starting to wear thin but I guess without it, The Green Lantern would look pretty crappy. I imagine a Super Hero movie without CGI would be something like a Sweded film from Be Kind, Rewind or a ride at Pissweak World (from The Late Show). Nice.


UPDATE (Oct 2011):

Saw this the other night. Hmmm. Not as bad as some have suggested but it just seemed very.....empty. Shoddily plotted with bodgy dialogue ("Why are you wearing this stupid suit? You're a pilot. And a damn good one!") and perfunctory aliens, good and bad.

Not really sure if the theme of 'will over fear' is slyly critiquing the post-9/11, post financial crisis (western) world or is actually supporting the Hollywood hawks (the evil Parallax alien could well be a cardboard Bin Laden or some other 'scary, militant Islamist'). I'd guess the latter.

So not as objectionable as the Spiderman films but not as good as X-Men or Iron Man and not even as much fun as Fantastic Four.