Rise of the Planet of the Apes

The only movies in this series that I've seen previously are the original and Tim Burton's terrible remake. I like the first movie, but I didn't have much hope for another attempt to revive the concept, even if a story about how apes taking over the planet might actually happen is more interesting than just doing the first movie again. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it, though. Rise of the Planet of the Apes is certainly flawed - the science is mostly pretty silly, and a lot of the human characters are generic summer movie tropes with nothing to them. But the movie does a few key things right, and the result is a perfectly solid popcorn movie, and the rare kind of one that actually has a soul.

The key to the whole movie is the realization of the character of Caesar, as performed by motion capture veteran Andy Serkis and animated by Weta. If they didn't have him as a central figure around which to base the story, they wouldn't have that much. But by establishing the character and using him so well, they turned what could have been a simple monster movie into something more complex and interesting. What's so different about the movie is that it's not clear what exactly we're rooting for. Normally that would be a problem, but here that conflict is an essential part of what makes the whole idea interesting. In the end, it's clear that the apes are not the bad guys - man's own hubris is. And while that's not exactly a new idea in the realm of science fiction, for once I didn't feel like an anti-science message was being rammed down my throat. It wasn't that we are wrong to try to advance medicine by playing god, it's that sometimes there are unforeseen consequences in the relentless pursuit of power and profit. And I was fine with that.

The reason the apes aren't outright good guys, besides the fact that their victory means the eventual extinction of humanity (as humans we are naturally inclined to be against the death of all humans), is James Franco's character, a scientist who's pushing hard on a drug that allows brain cells to repair themselves and could potentially cure victims of degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's, which his father has. I don't understand why John Lithgow was cast as the father when it's not a significantly meaty role and his mere appearance makes most people get ready to start laughing, but he helps humanize Franco, along with his girlfriend played by Freida Pinto, who pretty much only exists in the movie because they wanted a female character.

When one of the apes the drug is being tested on gives birth and Franco is forced to care for the baby, he both realizes that the drug has intelligence-improving as well as restorative potential and develops a strong bond with the ape. Their connection is what drives most of the drama and more heart-wrenching moments in the story, and Franco and Serkis make a good pair, even if only one of them is ever actually on screen. As Franco's reluctance to continue pursuing the drug grows in the face of the dollar signs growing in his boss' eyes, a more outright conflict develops as more apes get their cognitive abilities boosted and Caesar becomes a Spartacus-esque figure (sort of ironic given his name, I guess). It builds to a climax that is more complex than summer movies usually go for, and the ending does plenty to seed a sequel that could take place either soon after or much later, closer to the time of the "beginning" of the story. I'm not sure which I'd rather watch, but I will say I enjoyed this movie the most of three that I've actually seen. As dopey as some of the characters in Rise are, and as much as I didn't like it going back to the well on some of the original's famous lines, it's still overall a less silly and more competent film.

Deadwood - Season 3

How about that Barack Obama? It's weird, while the country was making its final decision and getting ready to vote, I was watching Deadwood's third and final season, which featured a running side plot about the camp's elections for sheriff and mayor. They both culminated yesterday, as America elected their first black President in history and the votes were cast in Deadwood's last episode. Unfortunately, there won't be as much closure on the latter. There were plans to finish the series properly with two special movies, but they have yet to come to fruition and at this point probably never will, leaving an actual conclusion to the great show out of reach. Things weren't looking too good either, with the series' meanest villain yet sitting pretty at the expense of the rest of the town.

Overall, the third season was up to par with the first two as far as quality of production and writing. It was more of a departure plotwise, with the newly introduced characters playing a larger role than the new ones from the second season did. I wasn't a big fan of the thread involving a troupe of actors, but they provided a flowery change of pace from the usual hard-drinking rough-talking inhabitants of the place, and George Hearst was a pretty great antagonist most of the way. Race also played a bigger role, as a big dispute erupted over control of the stables. It's just unfortunate that things worked out the way they did, because while it was still good television, it doesn't really feel like it probably would if the creators knew it would be the last of Deadwood that people got to see. It didn't have the chance some other HBO shows got, but it's still one of the better ones.

The Bourne Ultimatum

The Bourne movies have started a revolution in the spy/espionage subgenre of action movies, and they have been followed by the recent reimagining of James Bond. I'm all for it, as the intelligence of the plot and grounded, yet still exciting nature of the action scenes is more compelling than more unbelievable, over-the-top stuff found in lesser movies.

The first two Bourne movies were very good. The second was a little more confusing (both in plot and film style), but still enjoyable. The third is a little closer to it than the first, being directed by the same guy, but is easier to follow and has some of the series' best moments. It's still pretty unrealistic, with convenient new flashes of memory when it serves the plot and an at times overly-resilient hero. How many car crashes can you really walk away from unscathed within a ten minute period? Despite this, it's more believable, because he does things a person might be able to do. He's perhaps too clever once in a while, but it's a lot more fun to see someone take down his pursuers with household items than high-tech super-gadgets. Well, super-gadgets are pretty cool, but that's just not Bourne's style. And in his escapes, he's not running around dodging bullets, he's skillfully blending into crowds and outwitting his pursuers. It's just as tense while remaining possible.

The plot wraps up the main story and questions that have been following Jason Bourne since the series began while allowing room for further sequels if they want to make them. Nothing about it is terribly surprising, it's pretty predictable amnesia/spy stuff. It succeeds because it's well executed, with some funny moments and action scenes that have a purpose, without being pointless flash. The hand-to-hand stuff is as good as ever, but I was slightly disappointed in the requisite car chase. It was less of a chase and more of a collision-fest. It was well done and still pretty cool, but I kind of missed the maneuvering and driving that was found earlier. I have to take a bit of an issue with Greengrass' direction. Apparently he's not very good at handling actors, although that's not something that really comes across in a good movie. It's even irrelevant, because you don't need much direction to be a CIA guy who gives orders to lackeys or mess up fools. What annoys me is his persistent use of a shaky camera throughout the movie. It doesn't really make sense in calm scenes, but it doesn't obscure things either. It becomes a problem with things get heavy, and it starts flailing all over the place, making exactly what's happening difficult to determine. It's just distracting. It doesn't hurt the movie too much, it just lessens it a bit. Maybe the Director of Photography is more directly responsible for specific poor shots, but a film is supposed to be a director's vision, and if he approved the final cut, then he's to blame.