Rise of the Planet of the Apes

So, James Franco is a criminally irresponsible scientist who tortures animals so he can cure his father's Alzheimer's which is the exact same plot as the far superior Deep Blue Sea, except with chimps instead of sharks. And that's not an insignificant difference, either, as nobody cares about sharks. Anyway, he works at one of these high tech labs that movies like this always feature and that always place such a high value on "profits" that they will back an experimental drug based on the handsome scientist's assurance that it basically works. Here that means until a chimp goes nuts and wrecks the place. Fair enough.

Except that the chimp went nuts not because of the drug but because she was trying to protect her newborn baby that no one in the lab seemed to know existed. They didn't even know she was pregnant. This chimp they spent millions of dollars testing and observing. Then again, this is the same lab that hired James Franco as its lead researcher.

But leave it to our boy James not to be discouraged. Not only does he take the baby chimp home to live with him, but he decided that the father he cares so much for would make the perfect subject on which to test his untested drug. Not only does it work--his dad can act like John Lithgow again--but the baby chimp, Caesar, is really freaking smart. Like, its mother genetically passed down the drug smart.

So a few years go by and Caesar is really smart now, for a chimp, and everything is sweet and rosy until one day Caesar gets out (yes, he's still living with Franco and dad) and bites the finger off a neighbor. Not good. So Caesar is taken to an ape sanctuary outside of town (the town being San Francisco). Even though we are led to believe the sanctuary is either government-run, or at least sanctioned, it is run by Bryan Cox and his evil twerp son, Draco Malfoy, as a mini primate prison. It's like Midnight Express for monkeys. But James Franco is too heartbroken to check out the facility and so leaves poor Caesar alone in the big house. There's a brief scene where Franco acts like a dick to a city clerk by trying to get his court date moved up, though why he isn't in jail for illegally housing a vicious animal is never explained. Or why his neighbor chose not to sue him for everything he had. Also, his dad dies, though we're not sure if it's from years of injections of the drug. Also, his lab assistant dies, though we are sure it is from minor exposure to the drug. It's a finicky drug.

Inside monkey hell, Caesar eventually gets even smarter somehow and manages to escape back to Franco's house to steal two canisters of the super drug out of the fridge and expose all his other inmates to their Brainiac effects. Instantly, all the other apes, including an orangutan and a gorilla, are people smart and they go Attica on the place. They escape and invade San Fran because why wouldn't they. I should also mention that Caesar can now speak. I'm not a scientist but I don't think that's how biology works.

Anyway, the number of escapees somehow triples and they all descend on the city to go apeshit. They even spring their cousins from the zoo and, despite not having been exposed to the drug in any way, the zoo chimps join right in. There are also more orangutans and gorillas for no explained reason.

Allow me to pause here and link to this article that points out that there are only 23 known apes in the Bay area at the present time.

Back to the movie, the apes are rampaging across the Golden Gate and they overrun the comically inept SFPD who can't shoot straight and are really good at running in fear. Caesar them leads his army to their new life among the Redwoods. The end.

This, of course, is supposed to lead to this small band of apes evolving beyond humanity and taking over the entire world. I can't wait for the sequel. MINUS

Apollo 18 (2011)

So I thought I needed to explain my tweet. Yes, this faux doc about "found footage" from a secret 70s moon mission is essentially Blair Witch in Space. Or Paranormal Activity in Space, depending how far back you want to take your cultural reference. But, it's not all that bad--not as good as the prior, but better than the latter.

My problem with A18, besides taking a little too long to get to the tension (felt like the script padding it probably was), is that it ultimately failed to deliver the kicker at the end. While I thought Paranormal Activity was a cheap stunt of a film, it did know how to close. This movie pulled its finishing blow, giving us just what we expected and nothing more. Honestly, I think they could have made the same movie with a better result if they had just spent a little more time developing the drama and raising the stakes.

Okay, SPOILER ALERT. I can see how they sold this story: astronauts discover "other" footprints on the Moon. Boom! There you go, solid hook. Who left the footprints? Dead cosmonauts who themselves had been on a secret mission years before. Gold. But, then what? No one wants a cold war political thriller here. So, how did the ruskies die? Well, something else is on the moon, too. Of course, horror's hot right now. So, some sort of alien monster naturally. However, it can't be too advanced. No humanoid ETs with spaceports we can see from Earth. Plus, we're spending most of the budget on food services. So, little creepy crawly...rock crab looking things? Rocks, right, they would have to look like rocks. No need to get all sciency, though. The audience is more than willing to buy aliens of any biological make or model. Almost done. I'm assuming the aliens kill the astronauts? What else would we do in the third act? So Astronauts arrive on the moon? Check. Astronauts find something weird? You got it. Astronauts bite it. And scene. But won't everyone see that coming? So what? The trailer will kill. Plus, it's only 86 minutes. MINUS

Playlist: Never Let Me Go

What terrible marketing. Terrible. I remember seeing the preview for this and wanting to doze off before the two minutes were up. But then I heard that there was a twist of sorts. Then, that the book on which it was based was really good. Award-winning even. And then it got some buzz once people actually saw it.

That buzz was still not enough. Enough for me to see it, but not enough for what it deserves. This British countryside drama is actually a fascinating science fiction film, and one of the best in a long time. If I were to Hollywood pitch it to you: Atonement meets Children of Men.

Carey Mulligan (who I can't say enough about without coming away with a restraining order), the suddenly everywhere Andrew Garfield, and the contractually-obligated to be cast in every movie like this Keira Knightly grow up together in what looks like a traditional boarding school (the children picked to play their younger selves are spot on). It turns out the school is anything but traditional. And it turns out it's hard to talk about this film without undermining its power.

That twist I heard about isn't a twist at all because it slowly unfolds from the start when it's revealed that we're in an alternate history where medical advancements have made it possible for the average lifespan to reach 100. But, of course, what makes this high concept so powerful is the humanity captured in Alex Garland's script and Mark Romanek's direction. The plot and the emotional performances are intertwined, feeding off each other, neither one cheating or undercutting the other. It's really an incredible balance and a remarkable film.

SMC Forum: Are Superhero Films Science Fiction?

So I was thinking about science fiction films and seeing as this is a highly prestigious, academically renowned Web site, I was specifically thinking about the definition of the genre itself. Much like my groundbreaking work in the field of zombiology, I feel a certain degree of precision is needed in order to properly educate and provide the foundation to tell people when they are wrong.

So my question to you, loyal SMC readers, is this: are superhero films science fiction?

Obviously, science plays a major part in certain stories--Spider-Man and The Hulk, for example--but should superhero movies be their own genre? A subgenre of sci-fi? Fantasy? Should all superhero movies be treated the same or do they cross genres?

Go on...

Playlist: Pandorum

You've been here before: Earth of the future has a foot and 4 toes in the grave and our desperate descendants have to seek a new planetary home to slowly ravage. You know the spaceship, too: all exposed wires and flickering lights (at least our crappy work ethic will survive. Speaking of which, sorta, what are the chances that people will be speaking exactly the same as we speak today centuries into the future? Right, none. I know why movies overlook this. Because it's a movie. I'm just saying). Oh, and since non-hyperdrive interstellar travel is such a drag, someone inevitably gets a case of cabin fever and goes all space Shining. "Three years into their shift, one of their officers had a psychological breakdown. The doctors referred to it as ODS symptom. The privates, we call it Pandorum. It drove him insane. He became convinced that the flight was cursed. Evil."

Ooh, right? Like I said, nothing new. But, and here's where this whole post reverses trajectory, or something. This is a good movie. A goof sci-fi movie, which sadly, is saying something considering the quickie Syfy dreck we have to endure. And by "have to" I mean because we're idiots. No, this is a film that takes a standard premise and just does it well. Nothing spectacular (though I want to shave with one of those laser razors), but a lot that was solid. I didn't even mind that the double twist ending was visible from a light year away (Science in your face!). It wasn't played for shock value so much as just the resolution to the plot.  

That quote, btw, was from Dennis Quaid, who is the big name here, though not really the star. That goes to Ben Foster who has to race to save the ship's reactor (along with Milla Jovovich knockoff, Antje Traue. Seeing as this was made by the producers of the Resident Evil series I can't imagine that was an accident.) Foster's been putting together a nice run of strong performances in smaller movies. (One more casting bit: I hate Cam Gigandet. Not in an Affleck way, but in a this guy is way too good at playing a prick way. he probably gives kittens CPR in real life. Unlike Affleck, who eats them.)

Playlist: The Box

As maybe the only person not related to director Richard Kelly to like his beautiful mess of a sci-fi epic, Southland Tales (his much-anticipated follow-up to Donnie Darko), I admit I had some mixed feelings upon seeing the trailer for this film. On one hand, I’m easily hooked by Pop Quiz, Hotshot, what would you do? questions—in this case, would you press a button left my a mysterious stranger and receive $1 million…while also causing the death of a stranger somewhere in the world? On the other hand, I was concerned about the premise’s legs and was picturing a "Twilight Zone" episode (a good thing), but quadrupled in length (not so much).


Oh, me of little faith. Kelly answered the big question early on and then refolded the story into a completely different shape. True to form, he probably overextended himself and just missed sticking the landing. But, it’s important to factor in the degree of difficulty before submitting your final score. (I have no idea how I got caught up in this gymnastics metaphor, but I might have to dismount this paragraph…)

(Better.) Kelly has made a commitment to following his artistic vision down whatever wormhole it takes him. His movies are decidedly his and I appreciate that ambition to leave his mark on the profession. He has always struck me as a poor man's Darren Aronofsky, though that's not really fair at all. He's leaving his own mark in his own way and I think he is getting close to making a truly great film. (Chances are it will never get made, but he wrote an adaptation of my favorite book, Cat's Cradle. Kurt Vonnegut has been notoriously difficult to translate to film, but Kelly might be the one to crack the code.)

What I like as a viewer about Kelly and other "auteurs" is the palpable confidence that comes off the screen, that comfort in knowing the filmmaker, regardless of result, was heading to Point B the minute we all left Point A. We always complain about the toothless, generic dreck that gets pushed on us by Hollywood, so I think it's important to applaud someone who is at least trying to give us something more.

One last thing: I’m not sure how I feel about James Marsden (this isn't random--he's in this). I think I’m genetically predisposed to disliking him and his usual casting as Johnny Handsome. But I can't say I actually dislike him in anything. In fact, I think he's generally been pretty good in often thankless roles. Hmm...

Playlist: "Whistle"

I've always found most DVD extras just filler for filler's sake. Really, there are just so many gag reels and green screens someone can reasonably be expected to pretend to be interested in. (And I'm not talking about director commentaries, Vin.) However, one of my new favorite things is getting a director's earlier short film as a bonus feature.

"Whistle" was a particularly fun find on Duncan Jones' Moon because it's his only other work to date (2002 to be exact). And it's not just an experimental novelty, but an actual short film. It's the high-concept story of a really long range assassin who specializes in precise computer-guided laser killshots (yes, that is extremely freakin cool). But, of course, something happens--damn you, something! Since it's only 28 minutes, I won't say anything more, other than it's definitely worth watching if you get the chance.

As for Moon, Vin covered it in one of our first posts, but I'll chime in with a couple of things. If you don't know, Sam Rockwell plays multiple characters who are quite often filmed together in the same scene. The combo of his acting and Jones' directing actually made me forget at times that I wasn't watching two separate actors interacting with one another and that's a helluva feat. Also, I've heard this mentioned, along with Danny Boyle's Sunshine, as some sort of start to a smart sci-fi renaissance. God forbid. I'd rather get these gems every so often then have it become a "trend" to be co-opted and Hostelesque tortured into mediocrity by some studio hack.

Moon

(The following post is bloated with spoilers. You've been warned.)

Is it a spoiler when most people know that Moon has, like, one actor?...True, there is video feed of other actors who are supposedly in the film...but you must know that the lead character played by Sam Rockwell plays multiple roles...I love twist endings...but what about a twist middle? Moon has that...you get the twist in the middle and then the film dares you to watch and see how this new information is dealt with...imagine if you knew that Bruce Willis was dead about 35 minutes into The Sixth Sense. Would it hold your attention?...Probably not the same...because Shyamalan had no true end to that story except for that one realization that Bruce Willis was dead.

In Moon, director Duncan Jones gives you the twist, then shows you the product of this twist...you have to accept the twist and see the consequences...The ending was satisfactory but the consequences to that Middle twist at one point made me well up in tears. I thought of other movies with twist middles...there just ain't very many of them that are good or come to mind. What if you knew that the chick from the Crying Game was a guy in the middle of the film?...Would Stephen Rhea's character then go out on more dates and court the guy/gal? Twist endings are easy...they have an ending that is easy to digest...you shock the audience and there is a satisfactory feeling in "aha I see where this is going"...feeling...I like twist endings but they have become too easy...its a cop out now a days...Give me the twist middle...show me something that I never saw coming and then let me stew in it for a while and allow the director to punish me for the next 45 minutes and deal with the consequences of the film...that's why I loved Moon and that's why Duncan Jones should be a Director that we pay attention too. PLUS