The Batman

Spoilers

Director Matt Reeves promised us a detective Batman in a 90's grunge style noir setting, and cast the master of brooding and angst, Robert Pattinson, as his caped crusader. Well. I'm happy to report that he delivered on his promises. Nary a sliver of sunlight is seen in this movie. Gotham is looming all around, grimy and shining in the rain and harsh night lights. And the movie begins with Pattinson's early years Bruce Wayne delivering a cynical and brooding narration as he chooses which of many, many crimes he should spend his efforts on one Halloween night. The sequence caps off with the pent-up drone of Nirvana, and by then I was hooked and ready for anything.

If I have to turn off the lights in my den to see anything once I'm watching at home, it'll be worth it. This movie is dark and beautiful.

Two years into his crimefighting, this Bruce is still working out his place as a vigilante. He revels in the fact that even the idea or suggestion of his presence will repel even the pettiest of criminals. "They think I am hiding in the shadows," he says in his noir narration. "But I am the shadows." But a sense of futility is creeping in. No matter how much crime he stops, more evil is around the corner. Then—it's The Riddler's turn, played by Paul Dano with eager gusto. Appropriately, Riddler's goals are parallel with Bruce's. He begins to bring to light the corruption and scandal of wealthy and influential Gotham residents, but with the one significant difference from Batman, in that he kills them first. 

He leaves letters and clues for "The Batman" at his crime scenes, which Bruce dutifully follows with help from Gordon, (played with quiet intensity by Jeffery Wright) and Selina Kyle, (Zoe Kravitz, and the film's character highlight.) I loved the sequence where Selina and Bruce team up and infiltrate the club for information—a perfect amalgamation of noir and Batman sensibilities. But elsewhere, scenes that seem to want to mimic the disturbing factor that The Dark Knight did so eerily well played on my nerves here. The writing of Riddler's plan, motivations, and even characterization felt uninspired, as if the acting alone could carry this villain. They spend too much time on him, and the veneer begins to fall.

Besides Kravitz and Dano, (and the actor who claims to be Colin Farrell, which I'm still suspicious of) a general increase of facial emoting wouldn't have gone amiss. People feel things in noir stories, too.

Pattinson is the ideal choice for this iteration, but his performance feels restrained. Stoic Batman is fine, but I hope Bruce Wayne isn't left as a blank slate. They have a good start here. Grungy emo Bruce is different and fun in a dark way that fits the aesthetic, and I know Pattinson can dig into that—if the script and direction allows. Here, the writing keeps him one step behind the Riddler. Even when Riddler allows himself to be arrested, and even when his final plan is implemented, Batman seems there only to react, powerless to stop it. And that bothered me. I wanted Bruce's detective skills to matter to the plot. Or a satisfying moment of revelation where he "solves the case." But there isn't really, and for better or worse, it is done intentionally. 

Through his inability to stop Riddler, Bruce is forced to confront this mirror villain and consider what the difference between them is. Why doesn't Batman kill, if he's the same as Riddler in every other way? So Bruce's moment of revelation turns introspective as he realizes that the point of stopping crime isn't only about the crime itself, but to protect those against whom is the crime is being committed. At the beginning, when Batman beats up the gang of thugs with skeleton paint on their faces, their victim is every bit as afraid of Batman as they are, and Batman does nothing to dissuade his fear. But once he fails to stop Riddler's plan, he realizes it's not over, because there are still innocent people he can help. So he does. And that's what's important, and what makes him the hero rather than the villain.

The style, with bookends of narration and grunge music made me happy, but it still all comes down to character.

So even though I was hoping for a more satisfying mystery plot, and even though I tend to tune out emotionally when superhero movies resort to a city-level event for their final act, I do greatly appreciate this character arc which is beautifully minute. No massive, life-altering realization—just Bruce shifting his focus a little and seeing a ray of hope in the bleak and endless line of evil that's standing before him. I don't think this movie is perfect, but that's why I think I love it.

The Jungle Book (2016) & Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle

Spoilers.

Or: The Jungle Book v Mowgli: Which is Worse? 

They were announced at around the same time, and trying to one-up each other with their casting at the same time, but Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book beat Andy Serkis' Mowgli to release by two years. Still, I've always thought of them as competing movies, and never saw The Jungle Book, so once Mowgli released, I figured it was time to give them both a shot and see which is the winner.

They're both losers. Thanks for reading.

Nah -- I sat through both of them, so I'm gonna review and compare them, and I have a few things to get off my chest so hang tight.

Like questions. For example: Why does this elephant have moss growing on it??? (From Mowgli.)

The Jungle Book = the Disney live action remake. Mowgli = Warner Bros. sold to Netflix.

Cast:

Mowgli: Neel Sethi -- Rohan Chand

Bagheera: Ben Kingsley -- Christian Bale

Baloo: Bill Murray -- Andy Serkis

Shere Khan: Idris Elba -- Benedict Cumberbatch

Kaa: Scarlett Johansson -- Cate Blanchett

King Louie: Christopher Walken -- N/A

Wolf Mother: Lupita Nyong'o -- Naomie Harris

Also in The Jungle Book: Giancarlo Esposito.

Also in Mowgli: Peter Mullan, Tom Hollander, Eddie Marsan, Jack Reynor, Matthew Rhys.

Some casts, am I right? It's an impressive list of names, and beside the two kids, there's not a one I'd hesitate to say is talented. They're all terrible. No okay, fine: the actors in themselves do as well as they could be expected to do. Some, like Murray, Serkis and Walken are woefully miscast, and others just do what they do. The real problem here is that the characters are bad because they have confused characters. And the characters are confused because the writing is confused, BUT -- award one point to Mowgli, because the writing there is much cleaner and more straightforward.

Even though we were already familiar with this one's plot. Sorta. (From The Jungle Book.)

The Jungle Book had the disadvantage of being a remake, saddled with a nostalgia checklist and new things to bring to the table. As a result, things like this happen: King Louie, a character invented by Disney for the animation, who was named after "The King of Swing" Louis Prima, now doesn't sing a jazzy song or dance, but is monstrous and meant to be scary -- but is counterintuitively played by Christopher Walken. Or, they needed Mowgli and Bagheera to be separated so Mowgli can meet Baloo, but it doesn't make sense that Bagheera would leave, so he gets knocked out in a fight with Shere Khan. Or, since Shere Khan's the bad guy he needs to be present from the beginning, so flesh out his threat to kill Mowgli. And he needs a backstory reason to kill Mowgli. And the wolves shouldn't give up Mowgli so easily. And there has to be mini adventures to pad the run time since there's no musical numbers, but no horsing around with military elephants. Elephants have to be taken seriously. Also, forget Mowgli going to the man village in the end. Who'd want that anyway?

(From The Jungle Book.) I mean... WHYY??

Mowgli, without the Disney template, does what it wants so the plot is just about Mowgli trying to be a wolf, but then having to leave because of Shere Khan's threat, living in the man village, and then saving the day from both Shere Khan, and the evil white hunter who's visiting the village to pretend to be nice while he breaks off elephant's tusks, and beheads wolf puppies. Wow, that degraded a little. But overall, it's considerably more streamlined and has a mildly clearer message, I guess. Neither hit the neat and simple plot and arc of the 67' animation though, of Mowgli searching for a home, wanting it to be the jungle, and finding out it's the village after all. Of course not.

(From Mowgli.) He has to complete a race to be an official member of the pack.

Let's talk about Baloo. Easily the best thing about the animation film, and no one really knows what to do with him now. The Jungle Book makes him a lazy bum who has to learn to care for Mowgli and at first only uses him to get honey for him. Most of the film he's careless and dismissive. And I've never seen Bill Murray be so droll and unfunny. I doubt it's his fault, but it was depressing to see. Serkis' version has Baloo work as a trainer for the wolves, so he's around for longer, but even more useless, and UGLY. Why they thought making Baloo ugly was a good idea I will never fathom. But Serkis does at least makes him expressive. I wonder if they used any motion capture for it. (Yes, I've discovered they did.)

(From Mowgli.) Just look at how weirdly ugly he is. This movie gave all its animals humanoid eyes, too.

The animation is an interesting subject, actually. The Jungle Book is two years old and the animation has already dated a bit, but it's still objectively better than Mowgli, I'd say. But what Mowgli lacks in budget and quality it makes up for in style. The creature characters have an extra kick of personality, like an amalgamation of caricatured cartoon and photo-realism. So animals are naturally more expressive, readable and recognizable, BUT, at the cost of them seeming out-of-place whenever humans other than Mowgli are in the same scenes. Mowgli spends a chunk of time alone in the man village, and it's like a completely separate movie -- and jarring when animals show up again. Still I prefer that to the characterless designs that happened in The Jungle Book.

They totally failed Baloo by making him walk on all fours. (From The Jungle Book.)

What else? Well, all my favorite things about the old animation were missing from the live action. Too silly for them probably, but that little movie lived of its snappy jazz tunes and 60's pop culture. I figured if they were gonna remake it they'd have some particular reason, but it really was just the original -- stripped of everything that made it original, fun, and meaningful. Bagheera was always my favorite and I missed him being that lovable grump. Neither film commits anything atrocious against him though, so that's good, I guess. In the remake I liked how Mowgli would drone on and on about nothing like kids do, and the final action sequence was a creative change. And I liked in Serkis' version how he put a little bit of unique style in there. Favreau's capable of style, but I doubt he was allowed.

If the original 67' animation wasn't a factor, the choice of which is better would be much harder -- but it is, and I can't not consider it. I watched it again after these two to cleanse my palate, and was instantly swept up in its nostalgia, enjoying its quirks, and noticing a few new things that went over my head last time (it's been a while). So I wonder, why do a remake at all? The nostalgia was much stronger rewatching the original, the hand-drawn cartoons will hold up much longer than computer animation, which becomes obsolete as improvements in the art are made, and all the memorable details are in the original, because the remake is afraid to push any boundary, yet is required to adhere to a more serious and realistic tone.

(From The Jungle Book.) "Keep two of the songs, but... sing them badly? I guess??" "Okay sure." -- Pitch meeting.

Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle wins automatically from that perspective. Quality-wise it's an arguable fight, but Mowgli has a different plot and new characters; and the familiar characters are utilized differently. It may not be good, but it earns its existence by being something unique. The Jungle Book (2016) is neither unique nor the best version of its story. It definitely had a bigger budget to work with, but for me, that's worthless without a soul, and that it lost along the way. Mowgli bored me after a while, but did seem to possess a soul, however weak a one.

So, The Jungle Book is worse. But the best isn't Mowgli -- the original, 1967 The Jungle Book is the best. I don't care that it wasn't supposed to be in the competition. As the only version of this story I've seen that I'd even consider recommending, it's the clear winner. And though I struggled to get through these two other films, I'm glad I did, since it inspired me to revisit this charming little classic that can still hold its own.

This is where it's at.

The Jungle Book (2016) -- 2 stars.

Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle -- 2 stars.

The Jungle Book (1967) -- 4 stars.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - December

Unexpectedly, I only saw two new movies in November --  Overlord (review) was brisk, splashy, weird and violent, and Buster Scruggs (review) was darkly hilarious, hauntingly memorable, and also kinda violent. Both excellent films. I also saw The Night Eats the World (review) which came out back in July, and it was also excellent; fascinating, and thought-provoking.

Otherwise, November was a bit disappointing on the blockbuster front. I thought for sure I'd see Robin Hood, but after it got universally slammed we figured it'd be more fun to wait until we can stream it and make fun of it without bothering people. And it was almost the same deal with Fantastic Beasts 2. Ralph Breaks the Internet still looks good, and Green Book. I'm actually feeling a need for a solid, big, blockbuster. So good thing December potentially has four of them, right?

But, it's also Oscar season. I'm not very big on Oscar season. Sometimes awards can urge me to watch movies I had no interest in before, but mostly it just annoys me because of how many movies seem to only exist to try to bait awards. Like there's suddenly this bothersome disconnect between art in film and entertainment in film; there are films made to be seen and loved by people, and films made to be rewarded by faceless arbiters, and they only intersect occasionally. And only, it seems, at this time of year.

I don't want to rain on people's parade, I'm just saying this as a kind of disclaimer, because I find that most of the year I'm more interested arty than I am now, because they reek of Oscar-bait, whether they're meant to or not. It automatically lessens my interest, and I'm aware of how biased that is, so I'm putting it out there, so that when I talk cynically about a movie that may not deserve it, you'll know where I'm coming from and can judge for yourself.

Disclaimer/rant/TED talk over. Let's get to the trailers!


Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle
Dec 7th(Netflix); PG-13
Well this one's definitely not gonna be getting awards. Andy Serkis' directorial debut is a new version of The Jungle Book, that, as far as I can tell, doesn't go back to the book for source but still is trying to compete with Jon Favreau's remake, even though it came out two years ago. Serkis does have a good cast -- himself, Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hollander, Naomi Harris, (and more!) and it focuses a bit more on the humans, which is a good idea imo, since it's a live-action movie. Who knows how it's executed. Kinda seems like the plot ventures into a tired "animals vs man" direction. I still haven't seen Favreau's, so maybe I'll get to both of them this month and see who wins the competition!




Mary Queen of Scotts
Dec 7th(limited); R
This one's ideal bait for the Oscars and has been building hype all year. Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie, with support from the likes of Guy Pearce, David Tennant and Jack Lowden. It's a period drama so there's costumes and locations a great need for excellent cinematography, and history so the roles are a meaty challenge. It can even sneak a little modern politics in there! I'd like to see it someday because I'm a fan of the cast, but it's not urgent.




Vox Lux
Dec 7th(limited) R
Looks like Natalie Portman is out for another Oscar. She has one, right? *research* Yes. I'd be crazy to deny that she has skill, and she clearly puts a ton of effort into her roles, but I've always been neutral toward her at best. For complicated reasons but I think the short version is she tries too hard. Everything she does feels forced to me. Anyway that's all to say that this movie looks fine. Actually I wouldn't mind watching it at all, but mostly out of curiosity because I have no idea what the plot is, and the visual look is kinda fascinating.




Ben is Back
Dec 7th(limited) R
Seems like a very solid drama, but watching the trailer was just making me feel dread about the plot. I bet Lucas Hedges and Julia Roberts put in some fine performances, and I bet if I watched it I'd enjoy or at least appreciate it, but, I think (cynically I know) it'll probably just fall through the cracks.




Dumplin'
Dec 7th(Netflix); PG-13
Kay, see, this looks super silly, but because it's going to be on Netflix I'll probably watch it instantly and have a fun time. That's it. That's all I have to say. (Has Netflix become the new and improved Disney Channel??)




Once Upon a Deadpool
Dec 12th; PG-13!
I was fine with the content level of the original version of Deadpool 2, but since this re-edit has added scenes and Fred Savage it might be worth checking out. I guess that's exactly the point, isn't it? Make it PG-13 so kids can see it; make new scenes so everyone else will see it again! But I can't imagine it being better than the original version. Unless the new scenes are downright spectacular to make me not miss what they cut out. For me, rated R for violence in Deadpool is pretty necessary, (I guess we'll find out how necessary!) and the language occasionally helped with the humor. Occasionally.




Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse
Dec 14th; PG
I can't even watch this trailer without grinning. When I first heard about this movie I dismissed it, thinking because it's animated it was for extreme fans, or part of a series or something. Of course, the second I finally saw the trailer my head exploded, and it became one of my most anticipated movies of the year! I can only imagine it knocking my socks off and I can't wait for it to happen -- it looks so beautiful, with the colors the animation style, and there's a real plot, and personal stakes, but it's not all revealed in the trailer so there's intrigue. If it's somehow not good, it's going to break my heart because I've completely forgotten how to be cautious and I have sky-high expectations. Can't wait to see it!




Mortal Engines
Dec 14th; PG-13
Peter Jackson takes on steampunk fantasy, and I wish he'd forgotten about The Hobbit and got to this sooner! It doesn't have me fully confident in its quality, but I am totally confident in that I'll enjoy it no matter what, because this is exactly my deal. I hope it'll reach the heights I imagine it's capable of, but I can't imagine not a having a blast in the theater even with flaws. I'm already a fan of Robert Sheehan and I really like the look of the lead girl Hera Hilmar, and then we have Hugo Weaving as the villain. It looks beautiful and spectacularly designed; it looks like a high-flying classic adventure plot; I can't wait to see it, even if it's made solely for me!




The Mule
Dec 14th(limited); R
Because it's a Clint Eastwood movie should I just trust that it's good and ignore that it seems like there's no way the story ends happily? I mean, it can end not happy and still be good. I don't know how, but I guess Clint Eastwood does. Somehow the idea of Bradley Cooper and Michael Pena being cop partners is very appealing to me though.




Mary Poppins Returns
Dec 19th; PG
Since the original wasn't animated, this Disney classic gets the soft-reboot-in-the-form-of-a-sequel treatment instead. I want to be okay with this movie. I want to enjoy Emily Blunt (she is charm itself) and Lin-Manuel Miranda, and the new songs, and the homage it pays to the original. But the cynic in me doubts that it's homage at all, but perhaps just banking (ha!) off the original. I hope it's not just a rehash and finds justification for it's existence, but unfortunately, the only way to know for sure is to watch it. And I only want to watch it if it is worthy on it's own merit. If Michael has the exact same arc as Mr. Banks in the original (which seems very likely) I may have to get annoyed, no matter how magical Emily Blunt is.




Bird Box
Dec 21st(Netflix); NR
So I'm definitely not the first person to say this, but hear me out: A Quiet Place, but with sight. It's a Netflix release and it's got Sandra Bullock instead of Emily Blunt so I seriously doubt it'll be as good (I do like Bullock sometimes I promise), but hopefully it's not actually as similar as it seems. It's Netflix so chances of my giving it a chance are pretty high, but there's not much interest there at all. I dunno, it's just not intriguing me. Except: why is it called Bird Box?




Aquaman
Dec 21st; PG-13
Who even cares at this point? Either it'll be the worst thing the DCEU puts out, or the best, or somewhere in between. I'm going to see it anyway, so I'll let you know. I've recently become a bit of a fan of Patrick Wilson (the Conjuring movies can take credit, so that's bonus points for James Wan too) so I'm kind of looking forward to him being the bad guy (at least it's not an animated bad guy haha right??) and I think it's funny how much like The Little Mermaid everything seems. Honestly, I seriously doubt it'll be the worst DCEU offering, but I do kinda expect to be disappointed. Also, underwater scenes in movies make me extremely uncomfortable. So. I expect to be uncomfortable.

Bumblebee
Dec 21st; PG-13

Well it's set in the late 80's, so how bad could it actually be? They finally scaled back on a Transformer movie, getting the main focus down to two, and they put some style into the trailer, so hopefully that translates to the movie... and already this has a high chance of being my favorite Transformers film. Still, that's not saying much. I feel like this is one I'll wait for steaming on, unless there's a huge positive response or something. Hailee Steinfeld is good... Bumblebee is the best transformer character... it could very easily be a very decent movie.

Holmes and Watson

Dec 25th; PG-13

Like... it looks real bad. But at the same time, it makes fun of the other modern takes on Sherlock Holmes and I just respect it so much for that. It's probably gonna be terrible. I will continue telling myself this in an effort to keep from getting excited about it. Yeah. It's probably going to be terrible. It just... they do all the obvious jokes! And there's Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly, and Ralph Fiennes is Moriarty! And they say modern things but it's set in the proper time! It's so weird! Ugh. I dunno. It's probably going to be terrible. But here's the thing: if it's good it'll be because it just doesn't care, and that's kinda rare these days.

Destroyer
Dec 25th(limited); R
How come Toby Kebbell has second billing but doesn't even appear in the trailer while Sebastian Stan is everywhere but so far down the cast list that I discovered he was in the movie by recognizing him? Anyway, I watch all movies I can find that have Toby Kebbell in them, and I watch all movie I can find that have Sebastian Stand in them. So I guess this will be a case of two birds with one stone. If the movie's good that'll make three! And I don't know, but it looks like it could be good maybe. Not naturally my cup of tea, but it could be. Nicole Kidman stars and is kinda unrecognizable.

Black Panther

Spoilers!

After a stellar introduction in Civil War, Chadwick Boseman gets his time in the spotlight as T'Challa, the king of the secretive country of Wakanda, and the legendary Black Panther. But his solo outing is a character downgrade from his brief but compelling turn in the Captain America movie.

Maybe I'm just tired of Marvel movies. I mean, I am tired of Marvel movies. But I don't think that's the only problem here.

I guess the Russo Brothers are to blame. They did too good a job giving T'Challa an outstanding arc, and developing him into a king worthy of his throne. And where do you go from there? Well the movie backtracks a bit, deciding that he's not officially king yet, and the way Wakanda works is basically any Wakandan can challenge his kingship. They do battle, and the winner gets to be king. (Yes, Wakanda is meant to be an advanced civilization hundreds of years ahead of the rest of the world, and yes, whoever is physically strongest gets to be king.)

So T'Challa is challenged, and he wins. Alright, he's king. Then suddenly it's a James Bond movie and T'Challa's upbeat and charming sister Shuri (Letitia Wright) is Q, the tech girl. She outfits the confirmed Black Panther, and he goes out with his love interest Nakia (the incredibly gorgeous Lupita Nyong'o) and his bodyguard Okoye (Danai Gurira) to capture Klaue (Andy Serkis) who just popped up on their radar. But Agent Ross (Martin Freeman) is also there and also wants Klaue. After a pretty cool chase scene T'Challa gets him, but instead of blowing the joint with the prize, he hands Klaue over to Ross, and inevitably, he escapes.

Obviously this is from the 007 portion of the film.

Then the real bad guy Erik Killmonger (Michael B. Jordan) starts his play, and the movie transitions into the plot of The Lion King. Erik is a citizen of Wakanda, the son of T'Challa's uncle, who was killed by T'Challa's father when he turned bad and tried to kill Forest Whitaker. They left Erik behind to grow up American, so now he wants revenge and to be king to prevent other children from having to grow up as he did. He's also stronger than T'Challa. So he challenges, T'Challa accepts because that's what's done -- though he knows who he is and what his intentions are -- and he loses the fight, and gets thrown over a cliff to his apparent death.

Everyone's devastated but they can't do anything about it -- Killmonger is now king fair and square, and no one does anything about it because this is an advanced civilization, and the tradition of kingship revered and respected. Nah, forget that. The Queen Mother (Angela Bassett), Nakia, Shuri, and Ross steal a magic flower that gives the Black Panther powers, and take it to the guy who challenged T'Challa at the beginning of the movie, hoping that he will use the power to overthrow their rightful king. But surprise! T'Challa is there! Some fishermen pulled him out of the river, and he's in a coma but alive. They give him the flower, he gets his power back, they go do battle, he defeats Erik, the end.

Thus Erik is decidedly more compelling than T'Challa. So good for him, but I kinda wanted the film's hero to be compelling too, or else why would we care if he wins?

Cool, so -- what's the problem with this? Look at all the choices T'Challa makes. He accepts all challenges to his throne; to save face he doesn't keep Klaue for himself; he's unconscious for the entire portion of his "exile," and then he's saved by other characters. His character isn't changed when he fights Killmonger the second time, but somehow he still beats him. Basically, he's a doormat, and spends the whole movie being upstaged by more interesting characters. He does skirt round the issue of whether Wakanda should share their technology with the rest of the world, and finally decides that they should, but I was never convinced of his belief in the argument against it. So that message comes across, but it doesn't do much for the character.

Now, I don't have anything against a movie plotting itself after The Lion King. I like The Lion King. The problem I have is that the plot plays out in a way that diminishes the lead character instead of highlighting him as it should. I keep thinking that only if we had followed him over that cliff and if he had been forced to survive, empower himself, and return, all on his own volition, then he would have been so much more compelling. Also, other characters blame him for mistakes that are debatably not his fault, but if he ever blames himself for anything, we never get to know. He never has an inner struggle with himself. This method of character development is extremely ineffective and lazy to me.

SIIIIMBAAA. REMEMBER WHO YOU AAARE.

Practically all the other characters are more compelling than T'Challa, which is as amazing as it is sad, but I'm just going to talk about Erik. See, we feel for him because he was abandoned to a hard life, but he did still murder... well, at least one person. And he wasn't a very nice king. But he's sympathetic, so when he's dying and T'Challa has the technology to save him, he declares that he wants to die, and T'Challa lets him. In order for T'Challa to show strength in that scene he would have saved him no matter what he wanted, but he made an understandable choice because it was compassionate and we feel for Erik. But as a result, the scene -- the movie's most powerfully effective -- serves Erik, not T'Challa. Scene by scene, throughout the film, T'Challa always comes out the least developed, least characterized character.

It seems like the worst criticism you can possibly give this movie is that it's an average Marvel movie, but unfortunately, that's what it is. Wakanda is a visually unusual place with a neat culture, and there are some great design elements, but that's just frosting; something with which every Marvel film differs. The cake underneath is still the same Marvel-flavored production-line vanilla. The CGI is passable if you don't look too close. Action sequences are typical with one or two memorable moments each. Black Panther lacks any distinct fighting style, and doesn't even run fast in the entire movie. Again, Civil War set the bar too high with action sequences that required an amount of effort this film wasn't willing to put in.

Fight scenes in water are automatically cool. Better choreography and filming could have made it amazing.

The dialogue is uninspired. Brought back from the dead, all T'Challa can think to say is "Can I have a blanket?" There are a few solid jokes and I especially liked Shuri's sharp, lighthearted bantering attitude. But, there are at least two dramatic/powerful moments that are ruined by inserting mood-killing dumb jokes. Worst was when a rhino licks Okoye's face. That isn't even funny, and it killed the coolness of that moment for her. Whoever decided that that these moments of bathos should be the Marvel standard of hilarious needs to wake up and smell the audience disengaging from the scene. It works as in-the-moment entertainment every time, but keeps any kind of emotion from having staying power beyond five seconds. 

Black Panther has its entertaining times as it strolls along in a predictable direction. It gets its themes across with admirable subtlety, and boasts a memorable and talented cast. It goes through the motions of ups and downs with fight scenes in the correct places, drama in the correct places, jokes in the "correct" places. It's got cool tech that's convenient to the plot, and world-building that does a fantastic job distracting from a surprisingly lackluster style. There's nothing really wrong with it, except that it's not at all exceptional, as it claims to be. It's average. This is exactly what Marvel is now; well-manufactured, generic entertainment.

I really don't hate this film at all. I'm just bored of Marvel's movie-by-committee shenanigans.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm crazy or heartless, when I don't love well-loved movies like this, but then I watch a film that does engage me, and the quality difference is clear. For whoever this movie does work for, I say good on you; relish it. As for me, I'm not disappointed, and I'm not impressed. I was hoping T'Challa's previously established character of quiet, powerful authority and sleek fighting techniques could be recreated for his solo rein, but the result falls short. Just another competently entertaining superhero blockbuster, Black Panther fits in perfectly with its Marvel peers, exploring another new corner of the broad universe; but has left me about as indifferent as a hunk of Vibranium.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi

 Spoilers!

Not surprisingly, this second film in the continuing Star Wars franchise is much more complicated than the first. Mirroring Episode V as most expected and some feared, Episode VIII sees Rey (Daisy Ridley) spend time alone on a deserted planet with a grumpy old Jedi Master (Mark Hamill) learning the ways of the force, while her allies face dire threat from The First Order. Leia (Carrie Fisher), Poe (Oscar Isaac), Finn (John Boyega), newcomer Rose (Kelly Marie Tran), and BB-8 must find a way to save The Resistance from being blown out of the sky as General Hux (Domhnall Gleeson) tracks them through space and they slowly run out of fuel. Meanwhile Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), berated by Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis) and connected to Rey via random Force-style Skype calls is going through an existential crisis. Will he rejoin the Light side? Or will Rey join the Dark?

We can only guess -- pretty accurate guesses actually if we use Ep 5 as a blueprint.

The parallels between this and The Empire Strikes Back are pretty clear, though generalized, and while it all ends up in the place you'd imagine, it often takes the unexpected path in getting there. In fact I'm sure that while this was being written unexpected turns were eagerly sought. Everything we had to think about for the past two years was dealt with in a way that no one would see coming. Like Luke tossing his lightsaber over a cliff after Rey gives it to him. Everyone speculated wildly over who Rey's parents were -- so the reveal is that they were nobody. I have no strong opinions on plot direction, but doing the unexpected so determinedly did create difficulty at times.

Taking a clearer, more straightforward path, for example, might have helped what I thought was the film's biggest trip-up: the middle section. About halfway through the movie I looked up and realized nothing had happened for at least a half-hour. Rey was still on the planet with Luke who was still refusing to train her. Poe was still trying to save the day "the wrong way" and Finn and Rose were wasting time on his mission that wound up being totally and completely moot. Seriously, if they'd stayed on the ship and followed orders the exact same outcome would have happened. I like to see characters fail, but they need to do it in a way that affects the plot.

"This is not going to go the way you think." No, it's just going to get there the most roundabout way possible.

Poe was my favorite character in The Force Awakens so I was excited at the prospect of him doing more this time around. Disappointingly, all he did was almost mess things up and then get taught a lesson like he was a child. He didn't learn anything, he just got told it. On one hand, at least they tried to give him an arc, on the other, I maybe would've preferred if they hadn't. Most of the other characters were lacking in various degrees also, but I had less investment and expectation with them. Rey does a few interesting things, and her and Kylo's dynamic was good. Luke is cooler than he ever was in the Original Trilogy, so that was nice. He makes a great grumpy teacher, and I would've watched a whole movie of him training Rey -- if only he had actually trained her any!

Honestly Kylo Ren is the best. I knew from the moment he first removed his helmet in TFA that he had a long journey ahead of him, and boy, is it rich and satisfying. Everything he does feels natural, and the way it was intended -- and still he goes in unexpected and exciting directions. All the best of the film is centered on him. He's involved in the most compelling drama, and a part of two absolutely wicked fight scenes. Hux looked fantastic with those dark circles under his eyes. He was undermined a bit, but made himself more useful than Finn and Rose did. They were really floundering trying to give Finn something to do, poor guy, and basically wasted him. Snoke in person was underwhelming, but he served his purpose.

I liked his scar. And everything else.

We all expected this to mirror The Empire Strikes Back. I was actually excited at the prospect. I'm not sure if Empire is my favorite Star Wars film, but it's certainly my favorite tonally. It's cold and harsh on Hoth, then grimy on Dagobah, then bright reversed into dark on Bespin, and ends with a duel shot in shadow, one character losing and hand and another captured by the enemy. I guess I should have known these were the elements that wouldn't end up being copied. But Empire is "dark" and I think that was tried here. At its best it gets to be intense, and shot with breath-taking, edgy beauty -- but the dire situations never have the full... dark... force. They pointedly make the good guys fail, but in the end they've still won -- not just narrowly escaped after a defeat.

Very few things that happen have a significant impact on the story. Rey is still good and Kylo is still evil. Luke is dead after contributing a few epic scenes to the narrative. Everyone is in regroup-mode on the Falcon with no significant losses or urgent tasks at hand. Poe and Rey finally said hi to each other, and that made me happier than anything else this movie did. I only wanted to see one thing happen, and that was it. But I digress. No characters were permanently changed, except Kylo. He's the one thing that happened here. Snoke is dead, and I'm wondering where that will lead Kylo next. The Resistance is smaller now, but will probably grow again when their allies come along in the next movie, and their location has changed, but that's not significant either.

Sorry Finn -- you were great before, but pretty insignificant here. Even this fight was insignificant.

The Last Jedi has the classic middle-movie syndrome, where there's too little to do and too much time to do it in, no solid starting place and no solid ending place. Rian Johnson did do a good job making it feel like a complete movie at least, and it sure was beautiful. That one moment when the ship light-speeds through the destroyer... man. He was right for the job for that alone. I also appreciated that he spent less time doing fan-service, and more time trying out new directions. I wish he had been able to commit to one of those directions. It felt like he was pushing the envelope out, but then kept bringing it back in. I would like to say that was because of the constraints of the studio, but I can't know for sure. I know that I like him as a director, and when I noticed his style here it seemed like a good thing. But all his movies so far have had flaws, and this one's no different.

My overall impression of the movie is positive. I half expected the shortcomings, so they didn't much affect my enjoyment, and there are some fantastic moments that will warrant sitting through the slow bits to see again. I imagine it could've got to the same end in a better -- and certainly faster -- way, but it's not a terribly offensive fault. Really, it's a classic fault of franchise films of this type; stories by committee and influence of expectations. This one tries hard to subvert expectations, but can only manage it within details. In the big picture it's still the same; everything's expected, and nothing is new.

The Poe-Poe is coming. Oh no!

There are very few ways to truly fail a Star Wars film. Production is top of the top-notch, cinematography is strikingly gorgeous, the scifi world is rich and detailed, the good vs. evil themes are die-hard classics, and there's no tiring of light-saber battles and space-ship flying, and out-of-this-world adventure. Not the best Star Wars installment, which is expected, nor even the best it could have been, which is unfortunate -- but Star Wars is a low-risk franchise with a strong safety net. The Last Jedi produces a few duds, but it only hurts itself in the process, and in the end balances it out with a few exceptionally solid hits. And isn't that how The Force works?

Upcoming Movie Roundup - July

Well -- June was a fantastic month! Firstly Wonder Woman (review!) came and raised the bar for DC superhero films which was lovely and refreshing. Then I got Logan (review!) on Bluray and it made me forget that I was tired of superhero movies by being a superhero movie that felt nothing like a superhero movie. It became my pick for best film of the year, but then lost the spot again a couple weeks later. To Baby Driver (review!), from which I am still rocking and reeling! It was not only the highlight of June as I predicted, but also the highlight of the year. If anything manages to top it, 2017 will be a seriously impressive movie-year.

After Baby Driver, it feels like the summer can finally get started, but now, July is looking almost skimpy. There's two films that I'm definitely interested in, but not much else worth mentioning. First things first: I gotta get another view of Baby Driver taken care of, and then we'll see if anything can turn my head for a significant amount of time!

What's your favorite film of the year so far? And what's in your movie plans for July? I hope you're all having a great summer!



Spider-Man: Homecoming
July 7th; PG-13
Look out, here comes the Spider-Man! We already know that Tom Holland is perfect for Spidey and Peter Parker from Civil War, so up to a certain point, there's no need to worry. Characterization is all but guaranteed to be spot-on, and that is a huge confidence boost. If this flick is anything like the Spidey scenes from Civil War it'll be better than Civil War! And still, I worry. Mostly about the plot, because that is the part that currently looks ambiguous and possibly a bit too generic. And from this trailer, I worry that Tony Stark has too big a role. I'd really hate for him to distract, and I'd really like it if this movie (being only half-Marvel) could distance itself just a tad from the "MARVEL!" genre, which is growing ever-more tired with every rehashing film release. Early reviews are significantly positive, but if you don't mind, I'm gonna be nervous about this one. There's a lot riding on those narrow shoulders, and I want the kid to do a good job!




A Ghost Story
July 7th(limited); R
So this is pretty weird. A romantic drama about a husband who dies and haunts his grieving and unaware wife as a sheet-ghost. Complete with black holes over the eyes and everything. Did I say "pretty weird"? I meant "very extremely weird and actually very creepy, why is this film a romance and not a horror?" Really, the trailer to me is scarier than most horror film trailers. I don't get it. It's an art house type thing, and supposedly is about love and loss and similar abstract, existential things. I guess it gets points for being creative, but as to convincing me to watch it, I'm less likely to go for it now than I was when I didn't know it existed! Still it's so odd I had to mention it.




War for the Planet of the Apes
July 14th; PG-13
I could say that with where the plot of this movie is, the last movie wasn't really necessary, but that's kinda silly because the whole series is pretty unnecessary -- plus I get a feeling that Dawn will be my favorite installment in the end... such as it is. On a technical level these movies are actually interesting and pretty impressive, but that's it. On a story-telling, entertaining level it's laughable how unaware these movies are of their own ridiculousness. It's camp-central. Yet the movies only get more and more serious as their head gets further and further in the sand. A spark of life or even a tiny hint of joy would do wonders, but the bloated, self-important seriousness is obvious, and not even in the same universe as my cup of tea. I suppose these movie were meant for a person who is not me, and to whoever that might be, I'll leave you to it!




Dunkirk
July 21st; PG-13
I think this is an excellent story for Christopher Nolan to tell; a true story that his style can add cinematic intensity to. After Interstellar it should be nice for him to be held back a bit by reality. This also looks to be an excellent film to play "Spot that British Actor" with! One of my favorite games. Just from the trailer we have Kenneth Branagh, James D'Arcy, Mark Rylance, Cillian Murphy and Tom Hardy. Those I expect will be the easy ones. Also I know Harry Styles is in this, but to be honest I don't know what he looks like enough to recognize him, and I'm thinking maybe I should keep it that way. Anyway, the movie has a lot of hype, it's an interesting story I've never seen before, and there doesn't seem to be much question of whether or not it'll be good. I'm not much worried, and won't be surprised to find myself in a theater in a few weeks watching it! Although, as a girl going to a war movie, maybe I should make myself a t-shirt that says "I'm NOT here for Harry."




Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
July 21st; PG-13
Please tell me -- am I the only one who reads this title as if I'm Nebula from Guardians of the Galaxy? "A City of A THOUSAND PLANETS." It makes it sound super epic. Look, I've said it before, I'll say it in the future, and I'm saying it now -- I'm a sucker for scifi movies. And this movie is definitely a scifi movie. However I must admit that I have no expectation of it actually being a great movie. I'd love to be proved wrong, but for now, it's good enough for me that it's of the genre it is of, plus Dane DeHaan is pretty cool. I very strongly dislike Cara Delevingne though, to put it nicely. But if the movie turns out how I expect, then being irritated by her will be part of the charm. Prediction: visually spectacular; otherwise spectacularly short. If my expectations are correct I will look forward to seeing this -- not in theaters.




The Emoji Movie
July 21st; PG
Haha, just kidding.

Happy July everyone!

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens

The Spoilers are strong with this post.

Helmed by J.J. Abrams and featuring all the expected classics like returning characters and that distinct nostalgic Star Wars feel, while simultaneously brimming with the best our modern day can offer in the way of special effects, thrilling excitement, and epic geekiness, ten years later, the Force has awoken!

Awakened? Awoken. Whatever -- it's awake, and it's awesome.

The plot is very Episode IV: a droid, escaping while it's master is captured, holds important information that both the good (the Resistance) and the bad (the First Order) sides want, and winds up on a desert planet (Jakku this time) where it befriends a native, whose life is about to change forever.

But in this case, two people have their lives changed forever. One is the native, a girl who fends for herself while she waits for her family to come for her, Rey (Daisy Ridley). The other is a stormtrooper, who's out on his first mission when he decides to defect from the First Order. Finn (John Boyega) is just FN-2187 until he helps the Resistance pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) escape the Order, and the good natured rebel gives him a new name -- just before they crash land and are separated. Finn then teams up with Rey and BB-8, and a certain circular ship, to finish the presumed-dead Poe's mission and bring the secret information back to the Resistance. But they meet with more trouble along the way, in the form of an aging Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and lovable, big-walking-carpet, who want the Falcon back, and an intimidating Sith, Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) who wants the information stored in BB-8 -- the last piece of a map that leads to the long-missing last Jedi, Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill).

Tip for the baddies: never overlook the droid. It's probably very important.

Along with Han and Luke, Leia (Carrie Fisher) is also back, and the leader of the Resistance. These returning characters together are the biggest reserve I ever had about this movie. I figured their inclusion would be necessary, and it certainly was, and definitely worth it, but as I fell in love with the new characters, I cared less and less to reminisce with the old ones. Han in particular is very prominent in the plot as his story line is wrapped up. And I like what they did with it; I just didn't like that it meant I'd have to wait for Episode VIII to get to know the new characters more.

The title of hero belongs to our personable stormtrooper, Finn. What I love most about Finn is that since he was brainwashed and sheltered by the Order since childhood, he's very naive, yet in spite of the brainwashing, is a first class gentleman, is super friendly, and has a great sense of humor. And honest -- I adore how honest he is. He always goes to Rey's aid, and even though every time she takes care of the problem before he can help, he still always tries again the next time. It doesn't make him clueless; it makes him a good guy, and great character. In the whole movie he has one, short-lived delusion of selfishness. His naivete along with his high energy makes him hilarious -- certainly the character with the best laugh-lines -- and engaging, but it doesn't take away from the depth of his serious moments. He is the film's tone personified, and he is what ties the movie together, and John Boyega does an outstanding job with it all.

Who knew? A faceless stormtrooper becomes a Star Wars hero!

Rey, however, is the film's main character -- along with being the heroine. It's a close call, but because she is the one destined to be a Jedi (contrary to what the trailers and posters had us believe -- nice one, J.J.), it skews in her favor that way. Really these two together are what makes it all work; almost like they are one character together. What one may be missing the other naturally fills, and they complement each other winningly. Daisy Ridley's Rey is a perfect "strong female" character because she doesn't make a show of the fact that she can take care of herself. In fact, she doesn't make a show of anything she does, and never tells anyone when she just saved their life, or how she escaped, or that she just beat a Sith Lord -- or whatever the case may be. On top of that, she's drop-dead gorgeous, but has a welcoming, down-to-earth quality to her that makes her very relatable. Ridley is a true talent and owns her character with quiet grace and British charm.

"Oh, and do drop your gun!" This girl knows how to Jedi.

I knew from the moment Oscar Isaac was cast that he'd be my favorite character, and I knew from the moment he was revealed to be a pilot that he'd be stuck in a cockpit most of the film. I was right on both counts. Poe Dameron owns the movie's opening, but once he appears later he's more in the background in favor of those previously mentioned, and, yes, spends a considerable amount of time flying an X-wing. Awesomely, of course. Oscar Isaac makes the most of every second though, leaving a great impression, and continuing to amaze me with his spot-on character acting. Every one of his characters is so unique; it's like playing that one character is his specialty. His Poe is an effortlessly cool; a loyal rogue, smart-mouthed, and laughs in the face of danger, but is friendly and easy-going with those he trusts. If he doesn't get even more time in Episode VIII, someone will have made a very wrong decision.

It Star Wars! You gotta have a good trio. Obviously that's what he's meant for, but he got a little left out...

The biggest surprise turned out to be Kylo Ren. This is rather crazy, because he was already everyone's favorite character and the designated coolest character even before anyone had seen the film. His costume, his mask, his voice, and don't forget that controversial lightsaber -- all made him stand out from the very beginning. But the film doesn't rely on that only; they give him tons to chew on, and more built-in depth than the previous three heroes put together simply by making him Han's son. Adam Driver hits a beautifully complicated conflict of thrillingly cool evilness masking an unstable storm of fear and anger. A true Sith. I love that he idolizes Darth Vader, not knowing that he turned to the Light side before dying. (Side note: why didn't Luke tell him?) I loved his temper tantrums, and I like that his neat lightsaber is useful for stabbing people during a clash -- that's just the kind of evil he is.

Andy Serkis is again playing a CGI character, the Supreme Leader of the First Order, Snoke. Who, we were all glad to discover, is not actually a giant. But it still very intimidating and promising. Domhnall Gleeson is third baddie, Hux, a First Order General. His character was fun, and played off with Kylo in some very interesting and entertaining ways. Gwendoline Christie's silver stormtrooper, Captain Phasma got next to nothing to do besides look and talk cool. I was sad the Simon Pegg's character didn't look like him, and neither did Lupita Nyong'o's, but they both still gave good stuff. Recognizable cameos and bit-parts were everywhere, and Thomas Brodie-Sangster wins for being most unexpected.

Star Wars villains really know how to dress!

There were some throwbacks to the original trilogy, but it was done in good taste and with reserve. There wasn't nearly as much as there could have been, nor, in fact, as much as I expected there to be. Believe it or not, this movie seeks to separate itself from the Star Wars we already know, just with maintaining the general principles of the tone. Almost the first thing we knew about The Force Awakens was that J.J. was bringing back the practical effects. In fact, his goal was to bring back that feeling of awe and wonder he had watching the original trilogy as a kid. With that goal in mind, he put effort into creating the film practically, and with detail. And every bit of it worked together into a beautiful success. The wonder and the exhilarating thrill of watching Star Wars -- something I was only barely able to remember when recently re-watching them -- has been restored.

I feel like this story is just now finally beginning to live up to its full potential, but it's not fully there yet. In separating itself from episode six, and breaking off into its own new direction, a lot of time was spent cutting ties, making clean ends, and moving on. They did a great job with it -- it couldn't have been done better, but taking that time for the old meant giving up time from the new, and sometimes the unexplored territory seemed to sit there just out of reach, tempting. When it was being explored it was brilliant. I can hardly wait to see more new creatures and planets, and new additions and developments on the powers of the Force and the way the Jedi and the Sith use them. Everything promises to be fully thought-through and fleshed-out and awesome.

Think about it -- hilt-guards are for protection; these are for attack -- which sounds more Sith?

The script is probably the only thing that could use more improvement. Things like plot or the individual lines that characters say is one of the least important things about Star Wars, and this one was still light years ahead of the campiness of previous films, but there's still room to grow. I don't care that this movie pretty much copies episode four's whole plot outline because it was awesome and worth redoing, and I didn't mind that there were only a handful of fantastic lines, and just a lot of filler besides; but neither do I think that a smart script and a complex and unique plot would at all detract from the fun that was done to such perfection first try. The next director is Rian Johnson, and I hope he brings his signature full armory of smarts and wit and adds it to the full blast of sci-fi geeky delight.

This movie is not perfect. Honestly it couldn't have been even if a perfect movie is a possibility. It had too much baggage and too much responsibility. But it was, I believe, the best it possibly could have been, which, considering the huge amount of hype and the pressure from such a legacy, really is fantastically high praise. Also, I may think it's just shy of a perfect movie, but as far as the movie-loving little kid inside me who guides my movie-enjoyment is concerned, it was perfect, and the best movie ever. Whenever I wasn't so involved and drawn into the world that I wasn't even aware that I was actually sitting in a theater, it was only for brief moments, which I used to revel in my giddy excitement that I was once again watching a Star Wars movie for the very first time.

Overwhelmed, I was. Handle it, I could not.

Filled with absolutely incredible characters portrayed by an amazing cast, and a deep respect for its roots, balanced with an explosive sense of gleefully gripping entertainment, The Force Awakens gets it exactly right. It feels warm and familiar while surprising you with plot twists that make perfect sense, and blowing you away with breathtaking visuals that could only exist with the combination of the world of a long time ago and the movie magic of today. By the fans and for the fans, the iconic saga that is Star Wars reawakens, ushering in a whole new era of thrilling tales of adventure from a galaxy far, far away...

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes of the Intergalactic War of the Total Carnage of the Blood of the Innocent People of the Planet of the Apes. 

As it is less-commonly known.

(Some Spoilers beyond.)

So as a result of the drug that caused the apes to become smart in Rise of the Planet of the Apes of the Beginning of the Events of the War of the Population of the Apes of the Planet of the Apes, being given to humans, there is a global epidemic that wipes out nearly all of humanity. Amongst those left are Jason Clarke, Keri Russell, and Gary Oldman. They need power, and unknowingly trespass on ape land -- Caesar's (Andy Serkis) land -- looking for it. War almost breaks out for the first two acts, and then finally does for real right as soon as the film ends.

Jason Clarke regrets signing something maybe? Or left the stove on?

Okay, right up front I have to say: this movie is just awful. I didn't expect to love it going in, but I did expect to appreciate it. I mean, seriously -- it has an impressive 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, but there's no way that a movie about smart apes warring with post-apocalyptic humans is ever going to be a favorite movie of mine. I expected to tolerate the plot, and appreciate the artistry, but the plot wound up being boring with a super-sized side of irritating, and the CGI varied from just as expected to weirdly cheap.

The animation budget seemed to be spent on just two apes -- Caesar and the villainous Koba (Toby Kebbell) -- they were the only two who were consistently flawless and perfectly detailed. The rest of the apes were generally alright -- about the quality they were in Rise. Anything that was animated and not an ape... oh my goodness. The herd of elk at the beginning looked like a video game. Even explosions looked cheap. And most interaction between man and ape was not quite convincing. The ape's expressions were realistic because there were talented actors behind that CGI, but motion-capture technology is not enough of a novelty to me anymore for that alone to impress. Is it just because I'm a year late to the party, or am I missing something?

He looks great, but honestly, I'm still more impressed by Gollum in The Lord of the Rings.

And even if the effects were as awesome as they were hyped to be there would still be that plot to deal with. Arg. First of all, whose genius idea was it for this to be a two-hour, ten-minute buildup to a war that's gonna happen in the next movie? I was waiting the whole time for nice battle of epic scope, and all I got was one little skirmish near the end. This movie was so anti-war that they actually didn't have the war. 

In the middle of the movie I had a thought that maybe they would prevent the war, and no battle would take place in the whole movie -- and that they'd filmed the battle clips showed in the trailer just to deceive us. If that had actually happened this would have been the best movie ever; but still super boring.

"Onward to war, faithful black steed!" "Yes my King Kong-- er, Koba!"

Like I said the first two acts were just the dramatic threat of war, and that was boring enough as it was, but on top of that, neither side was actually bad. Caesar, the leader of the apes, and Jason Clarke, the spokesperson for the humans were both perfectly willing to get along peacefully and trustingly.

"But people -- there has to be a war. It's important. What do we do?"
"Contrive the heck out of it."
(This was probably not a real conversation the movie's writers had.)

And in comes Koba, who hates humans, and wants them gone for good. And in comes Gary Oldman, who's a distrusting coward, and with his perfectly reasonable act of precaution of making sure the humans have the means of defending themselves, Koba is able to misunderstand and justify his rebellion. Misunderstandings. Yep. Those wonderful, ever-helpful misunderstandings.

Interestingly enough, this type of misunderstandings in movies -- of which this film could be the poster child -- is my biggest pet peeve in movies. When two seconds of thought or just a drop of common sense could make sense of the matter, but it doesn't, because this plot point it's contriving needs to happen to keep the story going. Well, the story keeps going, but now I don't even want it to.

That was what pushed the movie over the edge for me.

No. Just... no. Please.

Besides that, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes of the War of the Stupidity of the Humans and Apes of the Failed Peace of the Planet of the Apes tries so hard to be serious and culturally relevant with drama and understated statements, but does it all so wrong. It's humorless, aloof and totally uninvolving; not drawing us in, so when things get serious and dramatic we're still thinking about how ridiculous it is that apes are riding horses, and can't get involved in the emotion of the moment. And its "cultural statements" are nothing more than humanistic sentimentality designed to trick us into forgetting that this movie never actually says anything.

I love Andy Serkis, and all his work I've ever seen. And I like Jason Clarke a lot too, who gave a valiant effort to the task of carrying this huge wet blanket of a film along with Serkis. They're both superiorly talented actors, but the film swallowed them. Good grief -- it swallowed Gary Oldman for crying out loud! What kind of bottomless pit of a movie is so terrible that it pulls talent like this down with it? That is actually very impressive. I'm impressed by that. And that's about all.