Drive

After my frankly embarrassing September output. I vow to you, imaginary fans, that October will be a much fuller month. Got new films, some odd but hopefully interesting choices and an another entire franchise to review for starters. Hold on to your butts, it's going to get paragraphic up in this bitch.

Drive (2011)

After causing a bit of a stir at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year and picking up the Best Director award for Nicolas Winding Refn, Drive fell off my radar for a bit. Now it's back dead centre, pinging away like a bad simile alarm would if tasked with analysing this very paragraph.

"If I drive for you, you give me a time and a place. I give you a five-minute window, anything happens in that five minutes and I'm yours no matter what. I don't sit in while you're running it down; I don't carry a gun... I drive."

It's very difficult to describe the plot of Drive without making it sound like a bad Jason Statham vehicle (although that's kind of the point), but I'll do my best. Ryan Gosling plays a man referred to only as "Driver",  a stuntman by day who makes extra money on the side by moonlighting as a getaway driver for hire. Driver lives a rather solitary life, with only his mentor and veteran mechanic Shannon (Bryan Cranston) to really confide in. All of this changes when Driver meets neighbour Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her son Benicio (Kaden Leos) and finds them involved in some bad stuff and in need of protection. The film is purposefully playing around with action conventions and it ends up like an arthouse version of something like The Transporter. It works extremely well. Gosling is a fucking revelation as the lead, lending a semi-autistic edge to the tight-lipped hero. I love the fact Bryan Cranston makes an appearance and having not seen the reportedly excellent Breaking Bad, found it a genuine thrill to see Malcolm's dad, Hal, from Malcolm in the Middle play a scummy but still wholly likeable character. Carey Mulligan gives a really effective turn as Irene, having now got the whole palpable innocence and vulnerability thing down to a weaponised state. The surprise for me was Albert Brooks, normally known for his comedy roles and, more recently, his voice work in animations ranging from The Simpsons to Finding Nemo, playing a real nasty bastard in this. He steals many of the scenes he's in and is a genuinely charismatic villain. Also Ron Perlman. Just Ron Perlman. Nothing more needs to be said.

From the off, you can tell that both Drive and Refn are children of the 1980's. From the hot pink Vice City fonted credits to the hero's naff silver and gold scorpion jacket, Drive wants you to recall some of the dumb but fun films of the decade that style forgot. The first half of the the film is intentionally reminiscent of these cinematic curios and lulls you into a false sense of parody-cushioned security before whipping the rug out from under you and stomping your face in. Something about the synth soundtrack complete with nail-on-the-head lyrics and the burgeoning cheesy, but actually rather touching, relationship between Driver and Irene just makes you completely unprepared for the truly shocking violence contained in the latter part of the film. My snorts of derision at the sun-drenched romantic scenes soon caught in the back of my throat as I winced at some of the surprising and gorier moments. This strange but effective mix is typified in the soon-to-be infamous elevator scene. Crucially, the film doesn't linger on the horrific stuff. Much like my style of lovemaking, it's quick and brutal.

It's a rarity that the lead character is this compelling. After initially coming off as a bit of a douche what with his silly jacket and toothpick in the corner of his mouth, Driver turns out to be a fully fleshed-out sympathetic character. He's kind-hearted, but also undeniably a bit of a psychopath. He rarely says more than a couple of sentences to people unless he's talking about cartoons with Benicio or threatening strip-joint owners with a hammer. The strip club scene in particular has stuck with me and not for reasons of boobage. It's the vacant, seen-it-all-before look the strippers have on their faces whilst all of the interrogation was going on that gets me. Quite chilling.

"My partner is a belligerent asshole with his back up against a wall, and now, so am I."

I thought Drive was amazing. It's a punch to the face with a fist made of ice. It's not an arthouse pastiche of ridiculous action films nor is it a action film made to appeal to the edu-crowd. Drive is its own strange powerful beast and my film of the year (so far).

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Very late to this one, but will tippity-tap my thoughts down anyway with all my characteristic exclusion of cinematic analysis and worthy point making very much intact. So, let's look at Tinker! Tailor! Soldier! Spy!: the 3D multi-million dollar musical currently taking the box office by storm.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (hereby referred to as TTSS for simplicity's sake) is one of those films you just know is going to be of a certain calibre. It's got an impressive cast list, boasting the some of the best thespians Britain has to offer and is based on the well-known and super respectable John Le Carré novel about grimy Cold War dealings, betrayal and intrigue. It's sort of like The Expendables for readers of The Daily Telegraph.

"We have a rotten apple, Jim."

The film is set in the middle of Cold War-era Britain. After a supposed covert mission goes awry, British intelligence head honcho Control (John Hurt) and his right-hand man, George Smiley (Gary Oldman) are sacked. However, when rumblings of a Soviet mole start becoming louder, the higher-ups bring back Smiley to track down the traitor in his old organisation where no-one can be trusted and everyone is a suspect. The plot demands full audience attention. This isn't one of those films you can nip out for a quick piss and come back having not missed anything important. Whilst it takes a while to get going, the film is tense and compelling for the most part. There are many twists and turns, but it all ultimately settles down to a satisfying conclusion. The cast are the main strength here, mixing seasoned veterans such as Oldman and Hurt with younger, almost household name actors such as Tom Hardy and Benedict Cumberbatch. The cast is superb without exception. Even the secondary players such as Kathy Burke and Roger "Trigger" Lloyd-Pack leave a lasting impression in their limited screen time. Oldman turns in a reserved performance, very rarely raising his voice and always seeming detached from his surroundings.

TTSS is initially a tough watch. Whilst everything from the era-accurate details to the aforementioned awesomeness of the acting is dead-on, I found myself not getting in to it for the first 20 minutes or so. The pace is purposefully slow and methodical, but I found myself focusing on the set dressing and cinematography more than I was on who the characters were. Now this could be the attention-reducing effects of all those mindless blockbusters and violent video games finally catching up with me, but I couldn't really grasp who was doing what and why. One could argue this was the point, but I'm not convinced. Once the film picks up the pace, certain character elements start to fall into place and I got a better sense of the characters. Once this happened, things understandably got more interesting and thankfully this self-styled "Cold War thriller" started to actually thrill.

There were a couple of plot highlights for me, but I'd rather not spoil them as the film's got that whole "web of intrigue" thing goin' on. I will say I especially enjoyed Tom Hardy's performance as Ricki Tarr and I thought Mark Strong was fantastic as Jim Prideaux. Cough, cough birdonfire cough.

"For twenty-five years we've been the only thing standing between Moscow and the Third World War!"

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a strange one. I ended up really enjoying it, but I had one or two niggles with it that a lot of the gushing reviews (note to self: "gushing reviews" would make a great name for an adult movie review site) didn't mention. The film crams in a hell of a lot of plot into its 127 minutes and as such, the film can feel like a dense, impenetrable mass. Having no prior knowledge of the characters, I found it hard to follow in places, something which was not helped by the massive cast of recognisable faces and the multiple flashbacks for each character. Mood is something the film does extremely well, with director Tomas Alfredson giving us a bleak and grim take on '70s Britain. In summary, it's a fantastically well-made film, with some top drawer performances and some great moody cinematography. All the glowing reviews had me expecting this film to truly blow me away, but I walked away merely entertained. I get the feeling I'll need to see it again to really make up my mind about it. As a knee-jerk reaction though, it'll have to be this for now:

Fright Night

This blog could (and has) been accused of many things. Extra-terrestrial bias is the latest in the worryingly long list of problems people have with my scrawlings. Looking back, my August output does read like the chapter headings in a filthy conspiracy theorist's equally filthy notebook, so here's some vampire shite instead. Also, it's The Popcorn Bucket's third anniversary. Hooray for that and indeed, me.

Fright Night (2011)

Straight off the bat, let me just say a couple of things that may or may not change your opinion on the rest of my review. Firstly, I haven't seen the original 1985 film. From what I can gather with minimal Internet research, it's a fairly schlocky light horror/comedy film with the exact premise this one has. Personally, I only know it from the fact that the VHS cover used to scare me when I was a kid. Secondly, if you're a newcomer to this hateful little slice of the 'Net, you should know that horror and I don't exactly get on. With most "scary" films, I find my eyes are rolling too much to focus on the fact that Nubile Teen #3 just got her throat ripped out by a bloody fog monster or other somesuch nonsense. Therefore, I tend to approach a film that proudly wears its "'80s horror remake" badge alongside its neon "I'm in 3D Muthafuckers!" one with the same enthusiasm as I would a proffered toenail and pre-cum panini.

"He's not brooding, or lovesick, he's the fucking shark from Jaws."

Teenaged Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) has had a recent reversal of fortune. He's dumped his geek friends, including bespectacled dork Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) and is now going out with a hot, popular girl Amy (Imogen Poots) and enjoying all the perks that come with it. All of this starts to change when Jerry (Colin Farrell) moves into the neighbourhood and Brewster's suspicions start to grow that not only are vampires real, he may be living next door to one. Out of desperation, Charley turns to Vegas occult showman Peter Vincent (David Tennant) to help with this unusual, but frightening turn of events. The film plays the whole "vampire living next door" thing with the tongue-in-cheek irreverence one would expect from such a daft premise. Overall, the story was alright but it had a slightly parodic edge to it which I liked. The cast are fine. Yelchin proves to be a likeable, if not relatable, lead. Poots isn't given much more to do than look pretty and Mintz-Plasse is doing his McLovin routine, which he has down to a fine art. The main talking points though will be Farrell and Tennant. I thought Farrell was great, clearly having fun as the predatory Jerry. I liked Tennant, but just wished he was given better jokes and had done something more than giving a Russell Brand-esque performance where there are no real punchlines outside of swearing.

There are a couple of things that caught me off-guard in this film. Maybe it's because we've all become used to pussy sparkling vampires, but this incarnation has significantly more bite (excuse the pun, I can't think of a better way to describe it). Jerry is a fucking vicious creature and is responsible for most of the unsettling moments. I also liked the fact that the film didn't waste time setting up its own take on the vampire tropes. It assumes you know all the classic preventions and ways of dispatching the bloodsuckers and just gets on with it. I can respect that. The way the film is shot is surprisingly decent too. Way better than one would expect for a horror remake. There's a claustrophobic 360 degree shot in a car that stood out to me, although it loses some points considering it was augmented with CGI. The one in Children of Men was all practical and was much more effective. The film manages to be visually interesting and not hindered by being in 3D, which is an achievement.

So, the million-dollar question: it is scary? Well, not really. There are a few jump scares and the the film makes use of the completely unnecessary "third dimension" by having blood spatter occasionally. This isn't a hardcore pants-shitter, but I was slightly disappointed by the distinct lack of "fright". I was also really put off by the first 15 mins of the film. The dialogue was so fucking contrived and unnatural I felt like getting up from my seat and storming out, slapping any people who seemed to be enjoying it as I passed. Luckily for me and my currently unsullied police record, the film got better. Whilst I wasn't scared by it, I still enjoyed it. Tennant and Farrell certainly make proceedings more entertaining and I felt the film lift when one or both of them were on-screen. The ending is a bit poor and has a perfect example of a Deus ex machina if ever I saw one. Without giving too much away, I liked the grim direction certain things were heading and to have it all magically resolve itself was a let-down.

"Don't do anything I wouldn't do, and... that doesn't leave much. Well... basically, Sushi and mini golf."

So yeah, despite being a horror, a horror remake and being in fuckmothering 3D, Fright Night won me over. It's not bad at all and way better than I was expecting it to be. Most of the issues I had with dialogue and plot were balanced out by the lead performances. It's fun enough, but is hardly going to feature on my list of "Favouritest Films Evaarrrr".

Alien: Resurrection

Here's my review of the last "proper" Alien film. Watching the series back, I was reminded of how much I liked the first two and even found certain things to enjoy in the last two. It's cemented my fandom of the Alien series. Thing is, where do I go after this? There is only pain to come with the AVP films but I'm a completionist, so I may just have to hunt them down anyway. Oh, and also review the Predator films. You can just fucking tell I'm unemployed, can't you?

Alien: Resurrection (1997)

  

From a financial standpoint, the answer is obvious, but from an artistic stance the question "Why?" overpowers anything Alien: Resurrection brings to the party. This film did not need to exist. Fair enough, Alien 3 was a bit of a damp squib to go out on, but still- all the important shit happened. Ripley died. That was it- nothing more needed to be said. It was a downer, but the Alien films have never been all sunshine and rainbows. Was this meant to kick off a whole new bunch of films? If so, how? I suppose it's darkly coincidental Resurrection was actually the death knell for the franchise, but hey, I'm in danger of coming across as a chin-stroking ponce, so let's review this mother!

"Hey, son, I'll give ya my authorization code. It's E-A-T, M-E."

So, it's 200 years after the events of Alien 3 and we rejoin Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) after she recovers from her apparently mild case of death by fucking hot molten lead. However, this Ripley is a clone, made by scientists who show no regard for morals and/or ethics and who have also been breeding and experimenting on the Alien species. A ragtag bunch of sort-of space pirates, including the hulking Johner (Ron Perlman) and the impish Call (Winona Ryder) arrive just in time for the alien experimentation to predictably blow up in everyone's faces. Now it's up to Ripley 8 and the crew to stop the hungry, hungry Aliens from arriving on Earth. The plot's enjoyable until the third act and has a much better story focus than Alien 3. Sigourney Weaver's decent, but her being in it feels like fan service. Having said that, it is interesting to see her not be the out-and-out goodie we've come to know her as and play with an new, morally ambiguous element not present in the previous installments. Ron Perlman is here to gruffly say one-liners and look like he's carved from a particularly pissed-off cliff face, which he does admirably. I'm not sure about Winona Ryder's inclusion. She's perfectly alright and, as the film charmingly puts it, "severely fuckable" but I just don't think there was much need for her unique brand of wide-eyed Disney-esque empathy. This is an Alien film after all. Quick mention of Brad Dourif as Dr. Gediman, if only for the (thankfully) screen separated Alien kiss scene.

Resurrection certainly looks like an Alien film. The film goes back with the classic dark, grimy spaceships and it works. Whilst Alien 3 was a nice departure (at least in regards to setting)  it's good to see Resurrection return to the series hallmarks. Whilst I'm not sure about another Alien redesign and certainly not a fan of the eggs getting a make-over, the Alien effects are the best in the series and still hold up fairly well today. It's great to see them properly in motion, rather than having to rely on quick shots so as not to give away the fact that it's a tall man with thin arms in a rubber suit. The underwater scene is especially impressive in this respect.

Crucially, Resurrection doesn't feel like an Alien film. Part of the reason is Joss Whedon's sub-par script, crowbarring in some of his trademark snarky, snappy dialogue into a series that isn't exactly known for comic relief. I love the guy, but this isn't his best work. The choice of director is an odd one too, with French quirkmaster Jean-Pierre Jeunet taking the helm. Much like Ryder, these talents are great, but not a fit for the Alien mythos, at least in my awesome opinion.

As faggy as this sounds, the Alien films to me have always been about the side-by-side evolution of Ripley and the Aliens. Whereas Ripley's changes were all internal and emotional, the Aliens' were all external and physiological. Having a Ripley clone relearn who she is stops all this dead which is a real shame. There's a flash of the old Ripley when she's naked in that sack thing at the beginning and you can totally see some nip action she stumbles across all her failed clone attempts, but it's not enough. The third act is really quite poor and whilst I get what they tried to do, it's just ridiculous. Without being too spoileriffic- it's the fucking eyes that get me. Just way too silly. Even for a film about slimy, two-mouthed, acid-blooded aliens.

"Ellen Ripley died trying to wipe this species out. For all intents and purposes, she succeeded."

So yeah, Alien: Resurrection. It's OK in the same way Alien 3 was. There are a few good bits/good ideas (I love the scene with the captives held over the eggs, it's bloody creepy) but it's a frustrating experience. It is more entertaining than Alien 3, but doesn't feel as kosher as Fincher's did. It's not terrible, but nowhere near as good as the first two films.

Cowboys & Aliens

Will finish the Alien series soon but I'm finding it tough to summon the willpower to sit through Resurrection. I know what's coming and I ain't in a hurry to get there. Here's a new film to distract me:

Cowboys & Aliens (2011)

Of all the releases this summer, Cowboys & Aliens looked the most likely to be a knockabout fun romp. It's got a ridiculous premise, that ridiculous title, the director of insanely enjoyable Iron Man behind it and it had a good trailer, promising big effects and explosions. I often talk about films getting mixed reviews, but the ratings of Cowboys & Aliens are polar opposites. So what's the definitive answer? I'm not quite arrogant enough to dogmatically tell you, however, I can do what I always do and post my thoughts below like they mean something.

"Whether you end up in Heaven or Hell isn't God's plan, it's your own. You just have to remember what it is."

The year is 1873. We open in the outback where a man, bearing a striking resemblance to Daniel Craig, wakes up with a wounded side, a fancy, futuristic bracelet on his wrist and plot-convenient amnesia. He moseys on into the nearest town, Absolution, which is practically run by grizzled, grouchy sonuvvabitch Woodrow Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford). Soon, the amnesiac discovers his name is Jake Lonergan and he's wanted by local law enforcement. Not only that, but Lonergan starts flashing back to being abducted by "demons" (disproving my initial explanation for his injury, strange, gaudy wristwear and memory loss being that he'd attended a Scouse wedding) .The "demons" attack Absolution and abduct a few of the townsfolk, causing Lonergan, Dolarhyde and most of the surviving townspeople including the mysterious Ella (Olivia Wilde) and town bartender Doc (Sam Rockwell) to saddle up and pursue those alien bastards. The story is solid, but not what I was expecting. The film plays everything with a more serious edge than I anticipated. I thought Daniel Craig was decent- although his 'merican accent kept distracting me. Harrison Ford was also good as Dolarhyde. He was mostly playing himself, but the character is surprisingly unsympathetic. I liked Olivia Wilde and Sam Rockwell too, but this paragraph's gone on for way too long.

To be honest, I think that the film's biggest weakness is the title itself. "Cowboys & Aliens" sounds like a parodic title like Snakes on a Plane or Lesbian Vampire Killers. I realise it's based on a comic book series of the same name, but I think the combination of the title coupled with the trailer is selling the film short. The opening 20 minutes or so could have easily been the start of a modern Western. We have the outsider coming into town, we meet the town preacher and bartender along the way and the outsider sorts out a town problem in the form of Paul Dano and his gang (I was actually a bit disappointed with Paul Dano- I wanted him to be a proper baddie, but he turns into his go-to role of a whiny bitch before too long. It's a good trick, I just wish he wouldn't do it in every film I've seen him in.). Then the aliens show up and the film turns into the odd genre mashup that it is. I actually find the concept to be really interesting. I'm sick of aliens invading modern day Earth, blowing up famous landmarks and the like. Cowboys & Aliens both asks and answers the question "What the shit would happen if aliens invaded the Old West?". At the very least you can give it points for originality.

The film's more character driven than I was expecting. It purposefully takes its time with getting to know the inhabitants of Absolution before the extra-terrestrial shite hits the fan. There were a couple of really feckin' obvious signposted subplots early doors that annoyed me slightly. For instance, if you cannot guess what ultimately happens to the character of Doc, after it has been made abundantly clear that he cannot shoot a rifle accurately, you have not seen a piece of populist entertainment for the past 30 years. I thought the effects were good and thankfully used sparingly. The action was also decent, with a huge battle between alien scout ships and horse mounted cowboys being my personal highlight, although I must say some of the early Craig fistfighting was really enjoyable too. The fighting is a lot more visceral than the 12A certificate might suggest. It's not a kids' movie. If they're not scarred by the violence, they'll be bored by the dialogue-heavy slower scenes.

"Demons took your gold. When you get to Hell, you can ask for it back."

I can see why Cowboys & Aliens is dividing opinion. It plays the ludicrous central idea dead-straight and rather po-faced, which I get the feeling may turn off some people. I really enjoyed it for what it was. I got a real kick out of the clash of the genres, was entertained by the leads and was impressed with the action. It's an odd film, but it features my new favourite thing - a dynamite knife. I simply can't think of a better way to say "fuck you" to an alien invader than stabbing them with a knife that will then blow up. Whilst I half wish the film had just simply been a modern Western starring Craig and Ford, I think that Favreau did a damn good job in taking on a strange property and having the nads to play it serious. It definitely won't be for everyone, but it was for me.

Alien 3

Yup, I'm banging the old retro drum again with Alien 3, disappointingly not called "Alienses!".

Alien 3 (1992)

Where to begin with this one? Whilst loudmouthed fanpeople sweatily debate over which is superior: Scott's original or Cameron's sequel, they generally agree that Alien 3 is where it all went wrong and started a nosedive that the franchise still hasn't managed to pull itself out of (the last film to feature them was the scarily recent and terrifyingly shit Aliens Vs. Predator: Requiem in 2007) So what went wrong? Well, numerous things. They had hired newbie director David Fincher (yes, that one), who was unused to huge studio productions, they started shooting without a completed script and were financially in the red from the very beginning ($7 million had already been spent, with $2 million of that going on sets that were unused) and most importantly, the studio execs were constantly pushing in their cocaine-dusted nostrils in where they weren't wanted, resulting in Fincher walking out before the final edit.

"You're all gonna die. The only question is how you check out. Do you want it on your feet? Or on your fuckin' knees... begging?"

So, after escaping LV-426, Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) crash lands onto prison planet Fiorina 'Fury' 161. Things aren't exactly looking up for Ripley as the inhabitants of Fury 161 are all imprisoned for violence in all its flavours, from the Vanilla of standard physical stuff to the horrific Raspberry Ripple of sexual crimes. Ripley soon meets Doctor Clemens (Charles Dance), seemingly the only sane person on the planet. However, things go from bad to worse as it transpires that Ripley has unwittingly brought an alien hitchhiker with her in her pod, which is now picking off prisoners left, right and centre. I actually don't mind the story too much, although it's nowhere near as decent as the well-plotted previous films. Sigourney Weaver is still impressive as Ripley, although she's not given as much depth as in Aliens. I thought Charles Dance was good and I liked Paul McGann as Golic. Charles S. Dutton is also solid as Dillon. Thing is, all of these characters are severely under-developed and not nearly as memorable as any of the people in Alien or Aliens. Most of them are interchangeable blood balloons, ready to be popped by the all-too-willing slavering alien.

Alien 3 is a frustrating mess. There's a good film in here somewhere and if more care and attention had been given to it, it could have been a gem. I was on board with the decision to scale it back after Cameron's noisy, all-out war on the creatures. Fincher goes back to Scott's original and just has the one beast tear-arsing about and murdering folk. It's a smart move as trying to out-epic Aliens would have been tough and unrewarding. I really like the intro sequence, with the 20th Century Fox fanfare segueing directly into the creepy score and the little flashes of a facehugger crawling around in the escape pod. There are a couple of nice little ideas scattered throughout. There's this incredibly famous bit, our first Alien P.O.V. shot, on both ceiling and floor and this fantastically timed F-Bomb, which always gets a laugh from me. The setting is hellish but awesome and I'm a fan of the slight redesign of the alien- the beast being a different colour and having snarling lips due to its surroundings and its original host.

Most of the time though, the film sucks. I imagine the off-screen killing of Hicks and Newt pissed off a lot of fans. Personal beef aside, they're great characters that deserve a better send-off than this. It's also boring at times, something the previous two never suffered from. There are plot holes galore, ranging from where the alien egg came from in the first place, to what happened to Golic. Golic's one of the only interesting characters and to just leave him on a hospital bed gibbering about the "dragon" is unforgivable (this is fixed in the "Assembly" cut of the film, however) Also, for some odd reason about midway through everyone starts saying "fuck" like it's going out of style. I believe it's after Ripley learns that the facility has no weapons and she says "We're fucked". After this, it's wall-to-wall fucks, which gets unintentionally funny, destroying any tension that was accidentally created. I get that they're stressed and such, but it gets ridiculous.

"You've been in my life so long, I can't remember anything else."

Alien 3 just isn't very good. Too many things don't make sense, it gets plodding and tedious where it should be upping the ante and it just feels like its treading water until its unsatisfying conclusion. It batters you over the head with previously subtle series hallmarks such as motherhood and just ends up making you wish they'd drawn a line under Aliens and walked away. The Assembly cut does make more sense out of this mess, but Christ would have I been angry if I'd seen this in cinemas.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Another new release before I crash headlong into Fincher's Alien 3. As I said in my Aliens review, I'm doing the theatricals, so it's going to be particularly painful. Anyway: Rise of the Planet of the Apes aka How the Earth Done Got Monkey-Fucked.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

I have one query about Rise of the Planet of the Apes : (Hereby referred to as "Rise..." because the title is ridiculously long and awkward. Even the acronym ROTPOTA is rather inelegant and looks like an anagram clue in a crappy newspaper i.e. 36. Underwhelming nu-metal band (7)) is this one of the only films to be a feature-length spoiler? Fair enough, the twist ending of the original Planet of the Apes is so well known they felt comfortable enough to put it on the DVD cover, but still! It's like having an entire film dedicated to a carpenter making Charles Foster Kane's sled. Thinking about it, I suppose the Star Wars prequels kind of count, but I'd prefer not to think too hard about them for obvious reasons.

"You're trying to control things that are not meant to be controlled."

Will Rodman (James Franco) is working on a cure for Alzheimer's disease. After some apparently failed tests on chimpanzees, the project is scrapped and the test subjects ordered to be destroyed. Rodman ends up saving a baby chimp named Caesar who starts to display remarkable intelligence as he ages. After attacking a neighbour, Caesar is imprisoned with other apes and starts to see the ugly side of humanity. The story's great, somehow making the "primates taking over Earth" thing not only feel plausible, but even getting you to root for the damned dirty apes. It's a scientific breakthrough gone bad. Think Jurassic Park but from the point of view of the dinosaurs. The human characters in this are quite bland (although that may be the point). James Franco is alright, but he's doing his Harry Osborn acting rather than his Aron Ralston (from 127 Hours). Frieda Pinto is good as Rodman's gal, Caroline, but severely underused. It is nice to see her in something after Slumdog Millionaire though. John Lithgow does a surprising turn as Rodman's Alzheimer's addled father. It's an understated portrayal and not something I'd expect from the main guy in 3rd Rock from the Sun. Good to see Brian Cox doin' his thang too.

The main talking point is obviously Caesar, who is brilliantly realised by a combination of CGI and the awesome mo-cap work of Andy Serkis. The evolution of him from brilliant baby to a fully-grown revolutionary is extremely well-handled. There's a fantastic scene where Rodman and Caroline take Caesar for a forest walk and he's barked at by a dog on a lead. Despondent, he slinks back to the car and after some gentle persuasion from Rodman, he asks using sign language whether he is a pet or not. Little touches like this make you completely forget he is a computer creation. He's Gollum 2.0 and I can't think of much higher praise than that. The CGI is astounding too. Yes, there are a couple of bits where things don't look quite right, but most of it is photo-realistic and utterly convincing.

Rise... is so well executed even potentially dumb scenes end up being great moments. When Caesar is imprisoned, we see him slowly plan and plot a revolution. In a lesser film, it could have been laughable- in this, it contains some of the best bits in the film. A prime example is the scene where prime ape abuser Dodge (Tom Felton) utters one of the most famous Heston lines from the original flick. I normally hate franchise references in reboots/prequels (see J.J. Abrams' Star Trek) but my disappointment turned to cinematic joy soon after (intentionally vague, I think it would take away from the bit if I told you what happened).

The film also ends one of the most impressive action set-pieces I've seen in a while (I said the same about the Super 8 train crash, but this trumps it- I was going to say "I've seen since Super 8", but that sounds like a snarky diss) and is now top of my Best Scenes of 2011 list (so far). It took a while to get there, but apes rose and my jaw dropped. Apes taking on armed police on the Golden Gate Bridge? FUCK YES. Instead of the cumbersome title, they should have called this film Gorilla Vs. Helicopter. They would sell twice as many tickets.

"It's a madhouse!"

Let's face it, Rise of the Planet of the Apes was not needed. However, I'm so glad it exists. It's a fantastic blockbuster and my surprise of the year thus far. I can't really think of any real criticism, although I do wonder if San Francisco really does have such a booming primate population. I loved this film, but I'm a self-confessed blockbuster whore. There's a simple test to see if you're going to get anything out of this film: if you don't even get the least bit excited at the phrase "monkey uprising", then stay away. More ape warfare for the rest of us.