Cineplexus

Cinemaphile 101: Planet of the Apes (1968)

What do you get when you combine all acts of 2001: A Space Odyssey with Inherit the Wind and some over-the top Halloween costumes? A laughably bad movie.  When I reflect on my recent viewing of Planet of the Apes, I am struck with a shocking thought: why did anyone think it would be a good idea to remake this movie? Sequels (this film had 4, plus several TV specials) I can understand - any moneymaker can get multiple sequels.

To put it another way: I thought about making this entry similar in spirit to my post "What's wrong with Revenge of the Nerds? A pointless list." For example, in 2000 years, why is the Grand Canyon on the East Coast? What kind of throat injury leaves you mute until it's totally healed? Why don't the apes' mouths moves? But then I realized there just aren't enough hours in a day. 

 The movie's main flaw may be how seriously it takes itself. This is particularly evident in its more didactic moments. Much effort is spent building an ironic case for evolution, as the ape society Charlton Heston's character, Taylor, discovers is so devoted to its religious teachings that it ignores evidence that the Apes had Human ancestry. Powerful leaders like Dr. Zaius (why are all the elder apes blonde in this movie? Just a thought.) go as far as to try the archeologists that have discovered ancient remains for heresey. In the end, however, the film totally changes gears when it suggests that discovering our true nature is the path to Armageddon. That's what leads to the (admittedly awesome) iconic shot of the top of the Statue of Liberty laying in ruins on the beach. Taylor discovers what spoilers have long since taught us about The Planet of the Apes: it was earth all along.

I lived in a small town from the age of 8 until 18, and my friends and I often visited the local "Antique Mall," which sold a lot of odd pop culture collectibles. As a gorilla enthusiast and a movie lover, I once purchased trading cards featuring the faces and stats (?) of this film's characters (or those of the TV show spinoff, like Urko, Gorilla General).  But the real movie's bitter, inflexible Dr. Zaius is nothing like the hilarious, cute Dr. Zaius I imagined when I gazed at his likeness on my Planet of the Apes trading card! Yet another way this film has disappointed me. 

Maybe the problem isn't with the film at all. Maybe the problem is me. Why ya always gotta be insisting that a movie's philosophical message is inherently consistent, Marissa?! Geez. I guess it's my own damn, dirty human nature rearing its ugly head.

Inglourious Basterds ★★★★½

Quentin Tarantino. A devisive figure to be sure. Is he the great modern filmmaker of his generation, or is he some sort of sick psychopath with a thing for old movies and squirm-inducing violence?

He may, of course, be both. But Tarantino-haters may have to stifle themselves a bit in the wake of the director's most recent film, Inglourious Basterds. Along with a whole bunch of shooting, stabbing, cutting, and bleeding, Tarantino has included a fascInating plot, captivating characters (villain Col. Landa, played by Christoph Waltz, and heroine Shoshanna, played by Mélanie Laurent, are two for the ages), and suspense that proves positively nailbiting. Literally. As in, this particular moviegoer is admitting that her teeth met her fingernails during this film. Oh, and much of it is in French and German with subtitles. How mature and appropriate!

Tarantino reportedly labored for ages writing the film, which he's characterized in interviews as his "spaghetti western." God bless him for that. While the director's cinephilia is very evident throughout Basterds, to describe it as the "Tarantino version" of anything we've seen before is selling it short. Here we have an astonishing melting pot of genres–drama, action, comedy, war, arthouse, and, sure, some westernia–that pays homage to the cinematic arts of the decade it portrays even as it creates something entirely new. And though the film's violent scenes are horrific, they are always brief or balanced with a fair amount of plot development and dialogue. Most of the film's duration–and it's very long, though I didn't mind–is devoted to another kInd of pain: the soul-twisting suspense of not knowing who's going to win each of the film's many battles of wits.

Bravo, Mr. Tarantino, you crazy basterd. I was expecting to enjoy this film, but I ended up loving it.

Moon ★★★★

When I entered the theater last weekend, I knew nothing about Moon except that it starred Sam Rockwell and pretty much no one else. Having seen it, I'm reluctant now to provide any more information than that about the film, so as not to spoil the experience. Instead, I suppose I'll rely on cryptic, tantalizing hints that  might entice you to find out what this film's all about. Yeah, that'll work.

Sam Rockwell plays Sam Bell the only engineer/operator in a futuristic power plant on the moon that harvests energy and sends it back to Earth on a regular basis for power business Lunar. He's aided and kept company by GERTY, a super-smart talking main frame computer, eerily and masterfully voiced by Kevin Spacey. It's been 3 years alone on the moon for Sam, and it's about time for him to go home... that is, if his brain and body can make it a few weeks longer. This gets to be a trickier and trickier undertaking as the film progresses.

The most exciting thing about Moon is the way it sets up genre-familiar expectations and then thwarts them over and over again. This little trick manages to keep the film scary and suspenseful while the plot moves ever forward. Not bad for a freshman director! Duncan Jones, whom you may recognize as David Bowie's son, has created a unique and interesting movie that sticks with you for days as more of it's secrets unravel themselves in retrospect. It's enough to make me want to start counting the days, Sam Bell-style, until his next film debuts.

2 Movies About…Making Bank: The "Summer's" First 2 Blockbusters

X-Men Origins: Wolverine ★★½

Star Trek ★★★★½

In the movie industry, as in so much of retail-based society, seasons start a little early. Christmas season starts at Halloween, Oscar season starts in the Fall, and Summer, the season of the Blockbuster, starts in early May. Summer season 2009 is off to a rollicking start with two hugely anticipated films, each with a very long franchise history to back it up and bring it fans. Wolverine and Star Trek are both examples of mega-budget, sci-fi epics that movie fans love, even those who don't care much about the source material, and they both have already made major bank, thanks in large part to months and months of hype. The films have this in common, and little else. 

Actually, for me, there were some other similarities. I saw both films on the day they opened, at the same theater, where in both cases I had to show the ticket I just paid $10.50 for to a diffident but unyielding usher before entering the theater itself, despite the fact that tickets were already torn on an entirely different floor. Oh, summer blockbusters. We get so excited for you, only to be put through hell for the opportunity to be disappointed by you. At least, this was the case with Wolverine. 

The X-Men franchise has been quite successful at the box office over the years, but scripts and plot development have seen their ups and downs. Wolverine has all the flash and careful art design of previous films, but in terms of editing and storyline, we can mark it in the "downs" column. Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in the history of Cineplexus, I'd like to issue a SPOILER ALERT.

Now, perhaps you already know that Wolverine (Hugh Jackman, of course) and his ilk (i.e., mutants) are practically immortal. This is made crystal clear to us in an opening montage that finds James Logan (Wolverine-to-be) and his half-brother (the future Sabertooth, played by Liev Schreiber) fight in pretty much every American War ever (nevermind that they're Canadian). But after some funny business in Vietnam, some fun with other mutants (a hit-or-miss bunch that includes some characters that will be familiar to comic book fans, but not to anyone else), and starting a new life as a lumberjack, a man named Stryker offers to make Logan "indestructible."  X2 already introduced Stryker to us as a military madman, and as Wolverine's creator. 

Indestructible. It's not an equicovating kind of word. What's more, the man who uttered it, Stryker, has devoted his life to the study of mutants (and how to take advantage of them). So why, Gavin Hood, why, David Benioff and Skip Woods, why, Nicolas DeToth and Megan Gill, is the entire second half of the movie about Stryker trying to destroy Wolverine? Moments after the newly-minted adamantium-infused Wolverine esapes from the laboratory of his creation, Stryker utters the following words to his #2 man: "Blow his brains out." You JUST coated his skull in unbreakable metal, jackass! Sure, a military higher-up points this out a bit later in the film, but it's too little, too late at that point. No matter how many cool fights, awesome mutants, or fabulous special effects can make up for such a mind-boggling backwards plot "twist." 

I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the film. I'm just saying that I spent several minutues of it yelling at the screen from the audience. Literally. No one heard me. It was loud in there. In a way, I have to thank X-Men Origins: Wolverine for giving me some perspective with which to critique the following week's big blockbuster, Star Trek.

Now, I'm no Star Trek lover; in fact, in my younger years I was one of those Star Wars nerds who's so devoted a fan that she actually stands against the very idea of Star Trek. In college, however, I became close friends with Mary, who I credit with getting me excited about things like comic books and superheroes…and with bestowing upon me a working knowledge of Star Trek: The Next Generation. That said, one hardly needs more than a tenuous grasp on 20th century pop-culture to follow along with this film. After all, it's an origins story – OMG, another similarity to Wolverine! How did I miss that one? – and we're carefully, if quickly, introduced to all the heroes from the original Star Trek throughout the film. While they aren't all fresh out of Starfleet, they are all new to the Enterprise, rocketed into key roles by happenstance and quick thinking, and there's something truly exciting about that.

Come to think of it, what's not exciting about the new Star Trek? I expected some thrilling fight scenes and fast-paced chases. I expected crazy effects and fancy explosions. Check, check, check. super-check. For many, that kind of flash will be enough to brand Star Trek a successful endeavor. But how was I to imagine, based on the fast-paced, hype-tastic trailer pumped through the Web and on to television for the past year, that this film would actually have a carefully developed, extremely complex story? The folks behind Star Trek might have devoted as much care to character development as they did to their Enterprise sets and interstellar motion graphics. Furthermore, they managed to totally rewrite the future of the Star Trek universe; one friend of mine was appalled by this fact, but only one. Personally, I think it's a move of pure brilliance, one that could help this film become a sci-fi classic. And who could forget how super-hot all the main characters are? I, for one, can't stop thinking about it.

Both films obviously spent tons of time and money on development and details, but one of them just gave up when it came time for the script and the editing.  Not so fast, Hollywood; therein lies the difference between a frustrating Pre-Summer Blockbuster and an excellent one. Giving a crap about making your movie good, instead of just about your movie making money.

AS SEEN ON DVD: 2 Movies about loser duos ★★★

Role Models and Pineapple Express, both from 2008, both 3 Stars, both available in "Unrated" DVD editions. 

In the life of a film critic, there occasionally arises a kind of inner conflict between the entertainment lover and the film snob within. Sometimes a film is so entertaining that the snob approves; sometimes a film is so unpleasant that both sides disagree. But occasionally, for healthy, well-rounded critics LIKE MYSELF, a movie comes around that is really enjoyable without actually reaching the filmic level of "good."

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you two such movies.

These pictures, Role Models and Pineapple Express bear nothing in common other than the trait just mentioned and the one I brought up in the title of this post. They're both about pairs of total douchebags who are sort of friends as the films start and best friends when they end. How two movies with such a core value in common could be so vastly different is, I suppose, a testament to the power of human storytelling.

One difference between the two is what they appeared to be aiming for. The former was your traditional, hard-cracking buddy comedy, gunning for laughs and sometimes winning them. The latter film aimed for nothing higher than the designation of "stoner comedy," and, á la Cheech and Chong, threw in some raucous action, blood, and gunfights. It aimed low, and it hit the mark. But where Role Models seemed to be trying too hard to make us laugh with old antics like crude sex jokes, naked body parts, and kids saying "boobies," Pineapple Express suffered a bit from its own laziness. Perhaps that could be considered a virtue for a movie about potheads, but I couldn't help but imagine entire sections of the script reading "The two run around screaming. Continue until everyone has forgotten why they are doing so, which is, in fact, for no reason at all." 

Then we have the characters. I waxed poetic in a recent post about how lovable Paul Rudd makes every character, but even I had trouble liking Danny, the total jerk he plays for the first half of Role Models. Down on his luck and fed up with the world, this guy actually had me wishing that Seann William Scott had more lines. And that's saying something. Luckily, things picked up when the kids were introduced. The true stars of the film, Christopher Mintz-Plasse (the infamous "McLovin" from Superbad) and Bobb'e J. Thompson (see him slay as Tracy, Jr. on 30 Rock) make their characters so fantastically comical that it only emphasizes what jerks their older counterparts are playing.

On the flip side of character issues, we have team Rogan-Franco smoking their way through Pineapple Express. While Seth Rogan's character, Dale, is definitely a loser, it's at least possible to relate to him – he's not a total asshole, he just lacks ambition. Then there's James Franco, who conjures up one of the most amazing stoner-pot dealers cinema has ever seen in Seth, who spends the entire movie in his pajamas. Here is a character that couldn't be more of a loser, and yet he's all the more likable for his occasionally-enlightened confusion. These aren't just any two stoners; they're made unique by their quirks and some spirited acting. Yet again, Pineapple Express manages to meet and exceed its clearly low goals.

So, if one film aimed high and faltered, while the other aimed low and succeeded, doesn't it follow that the two should even out? And so we have two enjoyably average comedies. God Bless America.

Three Weeks Later…Watchmen. ★★★★.

I shouldn't be writing this. Or, to be more specific, after seeing Watchmen three weeks ago, I decided I wasn't going to write a review of the film. Having bought my ticket in a frenzy of haste and anticipation, I watched the Watchmen with my heart in my hands, nervously checking in minute-by-minute to see if the film was a complete disaster yet – not the ideal mental state for criticism. One of the perks of writing a film review blog as opposed to, say, a film review newspaper column is the freedom to censor oneself. I paid for my ticket, and I reserve the right to keep my opinions a secret.

It wasn't that I didn't like the movie. Quite the opposite, in fact; I was afraid that I liked it more that I should. If that sounds completely ridiculous – who can say how much one should like a movie? – well, point taken. I decided to scrap that theory and return to the theater, this time with full knowledge of what to expect, and the mental facility to analyze what was being presented. 

The verdict is in: Yes, Marissa. This movie is pretty friggin awesome.

Watchmen is absolutely an epic. It is complex and dark, vertiginous and long, and demands that the viewer bring some kind of interest and investment in the storyline with them to the theater. At least a passing interest in comic books, superheroes, or the Apocalypse is a pre-requisite for entrance, or should be. 

The major victory of Watchmen the Movie is its dutiful exultation of Watchmen the Book. With the regrettable exception of Adrian Veidt's thin stature and weird accent, the filmmakers have painted a live-action version of the graphic novel's famous frames up on the screen. A pivotal chapter from the book, in which major character Dr. Manhattan relives the story of his frightening transformation into demi-god, is held intact for the film, and the resulting montage may be the most riveting few minutes of cinema we've seen in years. On the flip side, some book dialogue that probably should have been cut from the script (Laurie, arriving on Mars: "Whoa. I'm on Mars.") remains, but one can't fault the overall attention to detail. Little from the primary storylines has been omitted, and the result is a fascinating homage to the classic book. 

All of this, in truth, is a mixed blessing for the viewer who has not read the book, as many of the characters and events might come off as confusing or overly grandiose. Someone arriving at the theater expecting a fun romp through the city on the wings of masked avengers might be more than disappointed. Children could be scarred for life. But that total upheaval of the superhero mythology is exactly what makes Alan Moore's novel such a revelation. While the cinephile side of me wishes the film were a bit more transparent, my love for culture and literature wins out here: I am very, very glad that this movie begs the viewer to compare it to the book. What better way to get the world to read a graphic novel from the late Seventies?

What's Wrong With Revenge of the Nerds? A pointless list.

Because I am watching it on TV at the moment, for what is probably the fourth or fifth time, and because I love it dearly, despite its flaws, I present to you this Pointless List. There is no way it could possibly be comprehensive:

Problems with Revenge of the Nerds

1) All students at Adams seem to be about 30. 

2) Despite being an institution suitable for valedictorians who wish to study computer science (in its early days), the football team and coach rule campus

3) The dean watches Alpha Betas throw students and possessions out the windows of the freshman dorm. No punitive action is taken.

4) Freshman paying for room and board are sent at a moment's notice to bunk in the gymnasium.

5) Two naked men (Louis and Gilbert) wear their glasses in the shower.

6) Gilbert is able to sketch a digital graphic of himself and a girl he just meant using only the keyboard. It's 1984. The graphic can dance.

7) A middle-aged woman is attracted to a 12-year-old boy on sight.

8) The police of the town in which Adams is located have no jurisdiction over what happens on campus. 

9) The football team doesn't notice that their jock straps are wet from "liquid heat."

10) Poindexter totally sucks at playing the violin…until the big talent show.

11) Booger is not a nerd. A stoner? Yes. A dork? Maybe. Not a nerd.

I could go on, or I could make a list of the many, many things that are just so right about this movie. Like the soundtrack, which includes Talking Heads, "Daisy" in Japanese, and a choral rendition of "We Are the Champions." But I'll have to save that list for the next time I catch Revenge of the Nerds on TV. So…see you in 2011.

Teeth ★★★★1/2

Growing up, as so many have, in a small, midwestern town that ached to embody "Good Christian Values," I found myself in an unusual position for a teenager: I felt compelled to follow the rules. I am fairly certain that one of the main reasons I avoided drugs was a 7th-grade health class video in which three kids die after using cocaine just once. And even as the 21st century neared, my high school health teacher could barely hold down his lunch as he showed us the infamous "STD Slideshow." With so many dangers lurking about, I knew one had to be conscientious in every decision. Smart but green, I imagined for a while that others my age felt the same way. Eventually, though, time and observation taught me just how seamy the underbelly of a sweet little town can be.

As the curtain rises on Teeth, the first feature film from writer/director Mitchell Lichtenstein, I saw an eerily precise rendering of my little town appear before me, and in it lived Dawn, a young girl not unlike myself – call her our heroine, if you like – whose well-meaning but naîve ideas about the world are a cause of some major confusion. And then, over the course of the next 88 minutes, I saw those things ripped to shreds, battered and bloodied, with all semblance of manners or remorse trampled upon along the way.

It was astonishing. It was wonderful.

No one, in my opinion should go see Teeth, this sick-and-wrong masterpiece of horror-comedy-satire, without knowing that the teeth in question refer to vagina dentata, or, well…vagina teeth. I'll leave the rest of the history and explanation of the term to the film itself, but certainly this is a topic that has the potential to be powerfully offensive, and not in the good way. But far from suggesting an anti-female perspective, or even an anti-sex perspective, Lichtenstein and his phenomenal star (Jess Weixler, who won a Special Jury Prize at Sundance for this performance) manage to dance around potentially damning political statements, first horrifying you with a truly freaky monster, and then turning everything on its head by making the victims the authors of their own demise. By setting up a range of stereotypical – and, in many cases, just plain typical – sexual situations and relationships, we get to know Dawn and her monster as they carry us through some of the grossest and some of the awesomest things I've ever seen in a movie theater.

I'm sure there are things about Teeth that were wrong, or bad, but I sure as hell can't name one for you. I was too caught up in this film - genuinely scared, nervous, excited – to take note of them. If you have the opportunity, and a strong stomach, just go out and see it while you can. (Chicagoans can see Teeth at the Music Box until at least April 12; or you can pre-order the DVD).

Oh, and by the way: Potential Suitors, rest assured. Other than a slightly naîve tendency to follow the rules, Dawn and I have absolutely NOTHING in common.