THE RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (2011 - Cert 12A)

I’m not a Planet of the Apes aficionado, not by any stretch of the imagination. I saw the first one years ago, so long ago that I can’t remember anything about it, least of all the ‘twist’ at the end. So, with this in mind I didn’t approach The Rise of the Planet of the Apes (or ROTPOTA as it’s now become known) with any preconceptions or any of the usual reservations about a modern day butchering of a vintage franchise.  I’m not really sure what I was expecting, but I definitely wasn’t expecting what I got.

Rupert Wyatt, who’s only achievements of note to date are small British flick The Escapist and a few episodes of Hollyoaks, has crafted a thoughtful and at times upsetting summer blockbuster. Rather than simply adopting a prequel approach, Wyatt’s ROTPOTA is more of an origins story, charting the development of Caesar, from pet chimpanzee to leader of a revolution. Set in the present day, or extremely near future, James Franco’ s scientist is determined to find the cure to Alzheimer’s. Testing on apes takes place and through a slightly iffy plot point Franco ends up taking a baby chimp home. He names it Caesar and as he grows up it becomes clear that the experiments have had an effect on the monkey, giving him advanced intelligence to the point where Caesar behaves more like a child rather than a pet.  As Caesar reaches the equivalent of adulthood he starts to get exposure to all that is wrong with the world. His pure innocence and naivety is taken for granted and abused resulting in flashes of anger and aggression. He meets maltreatment in captivity with other monkeys, all the while using his advanced stuff between the ears to plot escape and revenge. Some of the scenes where Caesar gets hurt are genuinely upsetting and even at times harrowing. Much of this has a lot to do with the incredible special effects. Weta, the company behind Gollum and the updated King Kong, have raised the bar even further. Andy Serkis is again on mo-cap duty and this is easily the most impressive CG character I have ever seen. You never feel that you are watching a computer-generated ape, it seamlessly combines with the physical environment and feels totally realistic. The real achievement though is the emotion and depth that comes across through the technology. This isn’t Jar Jar Binks, it’s miles ahead of Paul (who I was relatively complimentary about), this is a proper living and breathing character. There were a number of tear-inducing moments as the camera gets up close to Caesar and you can see the pain, frustration, anger and unhappiness. All of this without any dialogue (he might be smart but he can’t speak). If it were a live actor (in the flesh) everyone would be calling this one of the performances of the year and calling for a statuette.

The development of Caesar reminded me of Batman Begins and X-Men: First Class. Caesar is Batman and Magneto, the film taking the blank canvas of the character and showing all of the brush strokes as the picture forms fully, all the hurt and mistreatment transforming the central figure into the monster that drives the film to it’s conclusion. It really took me by surprise (in a very good way), for what looks on the face of it a popcorn-fodder action flick the reality is something very different – a state of the art character piece. And a brave one at that, to put a CG ape as the centrepiece was a bold move but Wyatt does it with such confidence that he seems like the most obvious and natural idea in the world.

The ironic thing with the film is that despite the amazing characterization and acting of the lead character, the supporting cast of humans never get close to the same level and suffer from cliché. Franco is decent, but that is only because he’s watchable all the time, Freida Pinto is the epitome of filler and exposition as the love interest/some scientist or something, she has virtually nothing to do, David Oyelowo is the corporate bloke and good old Brian Cox is wasted in a bit part as the keeper of the monkey enclosure. Only John Lithgow as Franco’s Alzheimer suffering father (forming an interesting extra emotional motivation for Franco’s character) and Tom Felton (nasty piece of work) manage to do anything interesting with their roles. It’s a massive shame because if the actors managed to up their game and the writers took a bit of time to create something with more depth, we could have been talking about something in the same league as Inception and The Dark Knight. As it stands it’s probably just on the rung below, but definitely part of the new breed of intelligent blockbuster.

The final part of the film really does satisfy, the ape revolution culminating in a thrilling scene on The Golden Gate Bridge, visually spectacular and a rare treat these days to see action of that nature not in colour-drained 3D. After all of the mayhem, Wyatt impressively still takes the time to fit the last piece of the jigsaw into Caesar, the straw that breaks the monkey’s back, and then give the events of the film a wider context and suggest the possibility of the story continuing into other movies. All of this and it still weighs in at under 2 hours. A remarkably concise film with a minimal fuss approach.

Out at the same time as the much hyped Super 8 and heavily marketed Cowboys and Aliens, ROTPOTA could be seen as a bit of a stealth hit, creeping up on the competition. It’s done very well in the States and has made a very good start over here. It’s well worth checking out, not only for the technical genius of it, but also as a film about someone good turning bad as well as good old fashioned Friday night entertainment.

DATE NIGHT (2010 - Cert 15)

More often than not, I have a hunch about a film before I watch it. Sometimes as I'm putting a DVD in the player, or am rushing from work to get to the cinema in time, I make a little bet with myself that I am going to enjoy a movie, just like when I bought my ticket for Shaun of the Dead at Kingston Odeon all those years ago. I just had a feeling. It's a double-edged sword though, because there are other occasions when I just know that something is going to offend me and really try my patience. The Holiday is the ultimate example of that. I just knew. I'm not saying that these hunches are always right, I thought I was going to love Sucker Punch and I was convinced that I was going to hate Notting Hill. It's this unpredictability that makes going to the flicks still a nugget of excitement. Having said this though, I don't think I've ever predicted a feeling of complete and utter indifference. That is until I decided to watch Date Night on Sky Movies. I didn't think I was going to like it particularly, but equally, I didn't think it would repulse me.....

At it turns out, my gut instinct was spot on.



It's a nice little idea. A married couple (Steve Carell and Tina Fey), constantly exhausted and frustrated with their lives working and looking after kids, try to keep the romance going and the spark alive by arranging date nights - a night when they go out, just the two of them, to remind themselves that there is a relationship in there somewhere. Only on this occasion, when struggling to get into a restaurant, they take someone else's reservation. Then through mistaken identity they are taken on an adventure involving the mafia, flashdrives, bribery, security experts, bent cops and criminals.

The first thing to say is how well it starts off. The 15 - 20 minute introduction to the Carell and Fey characters and their marriage is really well handled. There's some nice comedy as they are woken up at stupid o clock in the morning by rampaging kids when all they want is a day of kip. Then for them to get home and have to rouse themselves for date night is a super human feat in itself. Part of the appeal is that the couple seem so down to earth, all of us have got home from a meal with the girlfriend and felt a bit too 'gassy' for any nookie, but a lot of the credit goes to Carell and Fay themselves. Both are instantly likeable and inherently amusing, even when working with the subtle material provided to them at the beginning of the film. It's great to watch the two of them exchanging patter about other couples while sat eating dinner. However, this connection with the two leads is quickly lost when the film descends into the madness. The script attempts to go back to the stability of the relationship a couple of times during all of the action, and they should be commended for trying to keep the heart of the film there, but the truth is it feels tacked on and gets lost in the frenetic film that it is.

So, as we get teased with the promise of a decent study of married life, only to have it snatched away and morphed into an action/buddy movie, what is the rest of it like? Passable. No more than that I'm afraid. I never really bought the whole set-up, and if you haven't got that suspension of disbelief in place then we're in trouble. One second they're drunk over dinner, the next they're breaking into buildings and getting into car chases. Despite my issues with it, I must admit that the set pieces are well put together and the studio have obviously chucked a bit of cash at the film which does show. The car chase being a good example of a comedic action scene.

I just wish that I could say the same for the comedy set pieces. More often than not they miss the spot. For example, a scene where both Carell and Fey have to perform a pole dance is an attempt at slap stick comedy but doesn't come close. It was more awkward to watch, which through The Office we know is a type of comedy in itself, but I don't think that's what the intention was though. It was all a bit of a tumbleweed moment.

Cameo appearances are lobbed in there in an attempt to keep things fresh, Mark Wahlberg is his good old deadpan self, James Franco and Mila Kunis tickle but no more than that as a criminal couple, Mark Ruffalo has one scene, which involves proper acting, through which his quality shines. We also have Ray Liotta (who says he's type cast?) as the mafia boss and William Fichtner as the DA of New York City, both hamming it up as the roles require.

So, in short, there's some good stuff there (mostly in the first 15 minutes), there's some bad stuff there, and some ok stuff thrown in for good measure. All put together though, it doesn't really have any cohesion and is probably only just good enough to pass the time for an hour and a half. If you're trying to impress a girl on a date by putting on a DVD though, this is not the one.

127 HOURS (2010)

There is no doubt that the story of Aron Ralston and his extraordinary will to survive is a remarkable one, but the fact that Danny Boyle has managed to make such a remarkable film of such a solitary, isolated, personal event is a tribute to his talents.

Boyle could have had his pick of films after the huge success of Slumdog Millionaire, in fact I'm sure he was offered a whole host of projects from various studios and producers, but he followed it up with this tale of a mountain climber, trapped in a narrow crevice when a boulder falls on his arm. It seems ideally suited to a documentary, echoing Touching The Void, especially when you consider that Ralston himself filmed footage of his ordeal on a handheld video camera, but Boyle saw something in it that no one else would have.



There are two stars to the film. The first being Boyle's direction. In a film about an adrenaline-junkie, he ramps up the visuals, starting in a similarly high-octane fashion, thumping music, energetic camerawork as we follow Ralston through his preparation for a trip to the remote canyons where he seeks his thrills. It suits perfectly to the character, I wasn't given time to catch my breath. These impacting, relentless start is made all the more effective when the accident occurs and Ralston if left helpless. No noise, simple shots of his face, I was, along with our protagonist, brought swiftly down to earth.

That is where we are forced to stay for the rest of the film. Boyle again treats us to his creativity behind the camera. Fast, hurried cuts, the camera, and the viewer, is taken on a journey, at times inside a water bottle, inside his arm, at others flying high above the canyon highlighting the isolation and the gravity of Ralston's plight. They are flashy tricks, but they are far from style over substance. In some films these tricks can put a distance between what is on-screen and the viewer, but in this case I was drawn in further, become embroiled in the intensity. No escape.

As time wears on, Ralston's condition worsens and the dehydration takes hold of his sanity. This gives Boyle license to take us on beautiful flashbacks and subject us to trippy visions, leaving me to question what is real and what is not. I really felt as though I was living the ordeal with Ralston.

It's also worth mentioning the sound. It seems as though the volume has been turned up to 11, you hear every crack of rock, every breath, every bit of wildlife. Again it puts us in Ralston's shoes, it's inevitable that he would hear any sound in the hope that it was help on it's way.

The other star is James Franco, who plays Ralston. It's been clear for some time that he is a very talented actor, but this really is a performance where people will take notice. The whole film hangs on him and how convincing his depiction is. He is utterly believable as the thrill-seeker at the beginning of the film, all pumped up arrogance and selfishness, he thinks he has it all sussed. However, it's when he is between a rock and a hard place (see what I've done there) when he is really impressive. His transition from disbelief to will to survive at all costs, via descent into insanity and hopelessness is incredible. I was hanging on every facial movement, every grimace, every word muttered to himself. Some might thing that Boyle's insistence on using widgets and fancy camera angles is a signal of a lack of confidence in his leading man. Far from it. Boyle's visual flair compliments Franco's astonishing display. I have had the pleasure of seeing three great actors at the peak of their powers in one week. Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush and now James Franco. I love awards season.

If there is one minor criticism, it's that we all know what happens at the end, it means that you aren't really, deep down, terrified of what is going to happen. Plus because you know what he does in order to survive, you inevitably are waiting for that to happen. Having said that, it doesn't detract from the intensity of the experience and the zippy style and 90 minute running time meant that I was never bored for one second.

Boyle has created a film that is harrowing ('The' scene is very graphic and not for the faint-hearted) at times, but ultimately one of the most uplifting and inspirational films in recent years. He even gets away with a slightly cheesy final frame as I recovered from the tear-jerking finale. I'm desperate to know what his next project will be.

This film rocks.