Movie Review: PROMETHEUS

PROMETHEUS

2012

R

"Big things have small beginnings."
-- David

Prometheus is a 2012 sci-fi horror film directed by Ridley Scott that serves as a quasi-prequel to Scott's 1979 film, Alien. After archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover a string of clues to the origin of human life on Earth, they enlist the help of the Weyland Corporation to make their way to a distant planet where they believe they will find the alien species that created humanity. Once there, they find the remains of what looks to be an old colony, but as they continue to explore the caves, they start to realize that there may be a menace amongst them that's more powerful and more terrifying than they could have ever imagined.

Those of you who follow my blog will know just how excited I have been for the release of Prometheus. As a huge fan of Scott's original Alien, I waited (im)patiently for his return to the franchise after thirty-three years. And for most of the film, I have to say that I was filled with an awkward giddiness that kept me engaged from start to finish. It's only in the time after the movie ended that I've started to realize that Prometheus wasn't all it's cracked up to be.

The first major issue with the film is its place as a "quasi-prequel" to 1979's Alien. In recent months, Scott had claimed that while the film would not directly precede the events of Alien, it would take place within the same cinematic universe and would explore the mythologies behind the creatures and events he created within that universe. And so, I was prepared for a film similar to Alien but not necessarily connected to it in any way, shape or form. Where the film goes wrong is in its execution of this idea. Rather than steering clear of the Alien storyline, Prometheus acts as though it's going to answer all the questions left resonating by its predecessor. It has all the pieces to do so, but it's only in the final act that it becomes clear that the situations aren't exactly the same. In a way, the film hypes up the story as a direct prequel but then ungraciously reminds the viewer that it isn't by taking the story in a different direction right at the end. Perhaps I was just put off by this idea, but it took me out of the film and made for a bit of a disappointment.

The second issue is the screenplay itself. While the story proves to be inventive, and it does manage to channel some familiar plot pieces from previous Alien films, it doesn't seem as though the situations are interconnected or plausible. We go from one scene to the next, but we're never quite sure why anyone is doing any particular thing at any given time. I suppose the real issue is that we're never given a clear sense of any character motivation. In past Alien films - especially in the original flick - we always had a great sense of character development. We knew who was doing what, and why they wanted to do it. In Prometheus, however, these things prove to be a bit clouded. Our two archaeologists seem straight-forward enough: they want to learn the origins of human life. But it's some of the ancillary characters who act in strange and peculiar ways, and there really isn't a reason given for some of their actions. And aside from Michael Fassbender's David (an android), we never really get to know any of the characters on an intimate level. Maybe that was the idea, and the joke. Let's make the audience know the most about the only non-human character on board the ship. My biggest issue with the screenplay, however, is that it tried to force emotion onto the audience in blatant and over-the-top ways. Because we couldn't establish any real connection to the characters, it seemed as though tiny plot pieces were added here and there to make us feel some sort of emotion to a given character from time to time. Unfortunately, these moments just seemed gimmicky and proved annoying after a while.

What's sad about all this is that the screenplay actually spoils some rather fine attributes about the film. For starters, I thought the special effects were incredibly well-done, and although they're nothing ground-breaking, it definitely looks realistic, and for that, Prometheus should be applauded. We're also getting a slew of decent performances from the cast. Rapace is good as our apparent lead, although I know she's capable of stronger work (see: 2010's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo). Fassbender offers the best performance in the film, bringing forth an android that is both the most and least human-like in the franchise. That's quite a feat considering we've gotten some great android performances in past films in the franchise from the likes of Ian Holm and Lance Henriksen. I also thought that Charlize Theron and Idris Elba played their parts well, but both were a tad bit under-utilized, in my opinion. Also be on the watch for a fine supporting performance from Guy Pearce, who you may not recognize under all his makeup.

Still, despite everything I've just said, I have a strong desire to return to the theaters to give this one another chance. Part of me thinks that the only reason I'm so put-off by the film is because it hyped itself up to be a direct prequel then left even more questions unanswered. It's almost as though Scott wanted to leave this film open-ended for a potential sequel, and I can see where they might have the possibility. I suppose we'll have to wait and see about that, but I very well may give this one another view, and should I do so, my thoughts and opinions could very well change drastically. But as it currently stands, I'd go into this one a little wary because, despite all the issues I have with its "quasi-prequel" status, there are still a few negative aspects that simply cannot be overlooked.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B-

Should You See It? Maybe

Movie Review: INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM

INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM

1984

PG

"Fortune and glory, kid. Fortune and glory."

-- Indiana Jones

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a 1984 action-adventure film directed by Steven Spielberg that serves as the second installment in the Indiana Jones franchise. Although the film was released after Raiders of the Lost Ark, it actually serves as a chronological prequel to the original Indy adventure. After narrowly escaping a nightclub battle in Shanghai followed by a crash landing in the Himalayas, Dr. Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) finds himself stranded in India with his young partner Short Round (Jonathan Ke Quan) and nightclub performer Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw). They soon find themselves in a small Indian village that has become barren and destitute. Indy learns that the village has lost a sacred stone that kept life amongst the people and their crops and livestock. As Indy listens to the village leader's story, he learns that a group of people known as the Thuggee may have risen from the ashes and has come to inhabit Pankot Palace. These people worship an evil god called Kali-ma, and if they can find all five of the sacred stones, they will be able to unleash Kali-ma's wrath upon the world. Spurred by the thought of profiting from finding the stones, Indy takes Shorty and Willie to Pankot, where the three become more and more entangled in the dark and evil plot.

When one thinks of Temple of Doom, they usually think about how it's often considered the darkest of the Indiana Jones saga. While the first film managed to maintain a seeming lightheartedness throughout its run-time, Temple of Doom never shies away from the fact that we're being taken to a much darker place on this particular adventure. It takes a little while for us to reach the evil that will encircle our heroes, but once we reach it, it's an almost steady stream of pain and suffering.

The film's screenplay works on a couple different levels. It starts out in a seemingly similar fashion as the first film, giving us a little bit of a prelude to the action of the film's main story. This time, however, this little situation leads directly into the rest of the film's storyline, and in a way, the film's prologue sends Indy and his friends on their journey. From there, we get our adventure, but there's a very different feel to this one's storyline. While Raiders presented a screenplay that blended the drama, action and comedy together, Temple of Doom offers a story that presents each of those elements in a more choppy manner. In one scene, we'll be getting a bit of drama; in another, it'll be straight comedy; and in yet another scene, we'll be getting our action sequences, which are just as good - if not better - than those in Raiders. On occasion, the film offers scenes that intertwine drama and comedy well, but for the most part, we're only getting one or the other, and I think that hurts the film a little bit. There was one scene that I thought worked particularly well with combining drama and comedy, in that it keeps things lighthearted while still managing to further the storyline. Here's that clip, for your viewing pleasure:

That being said, when Temple of Doom manages to delve into its darkness, you can be sure that you'll be going as deep into the depths as you can possibly imagine. Although the movie manages to remain fun, we definitely have a bit of an emotional ride to take to reach the film's finale. Another difference between this film and Raiders is that we don't meet our central villain until halfway through the flick. In the first Indy film, we meet our villain at the outset, and we're able to form our feelings against him right away. Here, we have to wait it out, but the screenplay manages to create such a vile human being in Mola Ram that we almost instantly have to root against him. In this, I think Temple of Doom is just as effective as Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Part of the reason we're getting such a disparity between the different genres in the film is the cast the filmmakers chose for the film. We're getting our same Indy as in Raiders, as Harrison Ford isn't necessarily bringing anything terribly different to the table. Aside from what the screenplay calls for, it's the same man we grew to know and love in the franchise's first installment. The biggest changes are the additions of Ke Quan and Capshaw, who both provide a strong level of comic relief. As Indy's partner and romantic interest respectively, there's plenty of opportunity for each of them to shine opposite Ford, and they definitely take advantage of those moments. This film served as Jonathan Ke Quan's first film role, and he definitely stepped up to the challenge of appearing alongside such a big-time star as Harrison Ford. Also worth mention is Amrish Puri, who brings life to the villainous Mola Ram. With a significant lack of screen-time, Puri manages to create a character that's so terrible that, as I previously said, we instantly hate. That takes quite a bit of work, if I must say so myself. All in all, the cast works well.

At the end of the day, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom still manages to be quite the exciting adventure, and it fits well with the rest of the Indy franchise. Yes, it delves into some darker themes here and there, but at its base, it still manages to follow the very distinct Indiana Jones format. If anything, I think there's more emotion to this film than any of the other films in the franchise, and that says quite a bit for this one's accolades. Does it measure up to Raiders of the Lost Ark? Not quite, but it's pretty darn close.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Should You Watch It? Yes

Movie Review: RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES

RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES

2011
PG-13


"Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!"
-- Dodge Landon

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a 2011 sci-fi action film directed by Rupert Wyatt that serves as a prequel to the classic 1968 film, Planet of the Apes. When genetic physicist Will Rodman (James Franco) starts to have success with an experimental drug he hopes will cure Alzheimer's, he pleads with his boss, Steven Jacobs (David Oyelowo), to allow him to start human trials. After his prized chimpanzee subject ruins his pitch meeting with the board of supervisors, Will is left with nothing but an infant chimp. Because the company doesn't know of its existence, Will reluctantly takes it home to live with him and his Alzheimer's afflicted father (John Lithgow) in order to save it from being put down; however, he soon learns that the experimental drug that worked in its mother has passed genetically to this offspring, which he affectionately names Caesar. Will secretly starts to observe the animal over the course of a few years, watching it grow and learn and become smarter than he could have ever imagined. However, because Caesar is still a chimpanzee, he still has animalistic impulses that ultimately land him in a rundown ape sanctuary on the outskirts of San Francisco. As Caesar's intelligence continues to grow, he begins to see just how much the humans harm and oppress the apes. He begins to devise a plan to exact revenge...

For those of you who don't know - or haven't already figured out - this film is the next in a long line of films in the Planet of the Apes franchise. Before this, we've seen the original, some sequels, and an often-ridiculed attempt at a remake. We have not, however, seen an attempt at a prequel until this day. I can honestly say that I had my qualms about this film in the past few months. The trailers didn't seem to do the film much justice, and seeing as I didn't find the original film to be overly amazing (it's good, but it's nothing spectacular), I wasn't sure whether this film would be my cup of tea. Add to this the fact that Franco himself came out publicly a few weeks ago saying that he essentially mailed in his performance for this film. After hearing remarks like that, anyone can imagine why I had my doubts heading into opening weekend.

Then something happened. The film started to garner incredibly positive reviews. As of the writing of this post, Rise of the Planet of the Apes holds an 82% approval rating on the online review aggregate Rottentomatoes.com, which offers the following critical consensus: "Led by Rupert Wyatt's stylish direction, some impressive special effects, and a mesmerizing performance by Andy Serkis, Rise of the Planet of the Apes breathes unlikely new life into a long-running franchise." Raise your hand if your jaw has dropped as well. Even with that, I had my reservations about the film, but rest assured, ladies and gents - this one's a legitimate flick with a force that should be reckoned. Maybe Franco made those remarks to lower people's expectations...

Now, the screenplay itself isn't necessarily something to rave about. Yeah, it brings up a lot of questions about ethics and the like, but there really isn't anything truly fantastic about the storyline or the plot. It does enough to keep things moving along, but in a way, this is almost a bit of a character-driven film. Strangely enough, however, the "human" actors aren't the characters that make up the driving force.

Yeah, Franco does a decent job as the film's "lead" (if you can call him that), but it does seem like he's mailing in his performance a bit. Still, he does enough to make us care about his character. Some of the supporting cast does a decent job, including Freida Pinto and the always good Brian Cox. Lithgow delivers a few powerful scenes, but I felt like he was a tad bit under-utilized. We even get an legitimate performance from Tom Felton - famous for playing Draco Malfoy in the Harry Potter franchise - who has officially been type-cast as the jerk.

However, the real credit has to go to Andy Serkis, who provided the "acting" for Caesar (and maybe some of the other apes, but I'm not entirely sure). Serkis has become the king of motion capture acting, bringing us such iconic characters as Gollum (from The Lord of the Rings trilogy) and Kong (from 2005's King Kong). Chalk up Caesar to that list, who might be the most fascinating of them all. When you have a computer-generated character, a lot of their success comes through the eyes. Look at the titular character from 2008's WALL-E: the eyes told everything about the emotions he was having, and he was a robot. In this film, however, so much emotion is conveyed through the eyes of the apes that it's almost as if they were human actors. The CGI was just that fantastic. You garnered such an emotional connection with Caesar and the other apes that it was impossible not to cheer against your fellow humans. You could feel their pain and their slight, and it conveyed beautifully across the screen. Kudos to the special effects guys - they deserve every compliment and accolade that they receive.

Also, if you're a fan of the original 1968 film, be on the lookout for a couple of nods and references, including the quote at the beginning of this post.

Overall, I have to say that I was thoroughly impressed with Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Is it going to be a classic, must-see film? Probably not. However, if you've seen the original 1968 film, then you might want to give this one a go. It's an interesting look at how things might have led to the events of that film, and the special effects are breathtakingly beautiful. That alone should drive you to the movie theater.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: B+
2 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: X-MEN: FIRST CLASS

X-MEN: FIRST CLASS

2011
PG-13

X-Men: First Class is a 2011 superhero action film directed by Matthew Vaughn that serves as a prequel to the 2000 film X-Men and its subsequent sequels. The film opens in the mid-1940s, giving a little exposition for our two male leads: Charles Xavier (to be played by James McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr (to be played by Michael Fassbender). We then fast forward nearly twenty years to the early 1960s, where Erik has spent the majority of his life looking to avenge his mother's death by the hand of a man named Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon). Meanwhile, Charles is finishing his doctoral dissertation about genetic mutation in humans while living with his seemingly-adopted "sister" and friend Raven (Jennifer Lawrence). On the night of his dissertation presentation, Charles meets a woman named Moira MacTaggart (Rose Byrne), who tells him of a matter of major security: Shaw is dealing with the Russians in order to start what looks to be a third World War. Charles and Raven accompany Moira to stop Shaw's plan and meet Erik in the process. After learning that each of them is a mutant, the three agree to join forces with the CIA in order to put a stop to Shaw's plans. By recruiting a number of mutants from around the United States, Charles and Erik assemble a crackpot team to do battle against Shaw and his loyal followers, all in the hopes of preventing a massive nuclear war that could wipe out the face of humanity.

When I first heard about plans to produce a prequel to the X-Men franchise, I can honestly say that I was a little unnerved. I had never been a huge fan of the X-Men films, but I had thoroughly enjoyed all of them (the Wolverine spin-off included, if only for Hugh Jackman's charisma). As the cast list slowly started to trickle through the grapevine, however, I found myself becoming more and more anxious for the film's release. With stellar actors like McAvoy, Fassbender and Bacon headlining the cast, I assumed we'd be in for a pleasant treat. Still, taking a story back to its roots can be a daunting task, and I've seen some "origin" stories simply crash and burn. Fortunately for us, First Class is, as one of my readers so blatantly put it, "a first class movie."

Let's start with the acting since I've already mentioned it a little bit. McAvoy proves to be the perfect fit for a young Charles Xavier, in my opinion. He brings the grace and the attitude that Patrick Stewart brought to the role in previous films, and he doesn't forget to turn on the charm now and again. It's a different look at Xavier, however. We get to see him as a young man who, despite all of his ambitions, desperately wants to fit into society as a normal individual. Fassbender was an equally good choice to take over the role of a young Magneto. His character is benefited by one of the larger character arcs in the film, giving Fassbender the opportunity to strut his stuff a little bit more than the rest. Although his Irish accent starts to slip out a little bit towards the end of the movie, he mostly stays on an even keel and provides a strong and surprisingly emotional performance. Recent Academy Award nominee Lawrence gives a decent performance, but having seen her in Winter's Bone makes it a little difficult for me to believe her as Raven/Mystique because the characters are so glaringly different. It took me a little while, but I finally fell into her character and could believe her in that role. And what can I say about Kevin Bacon? If anyone's stealing the show here, it's him. He and Fassbender work their multilingual magic throughout the film; the difference, however, is that we all knew that Fassbender could rock it. When Bacon started spouting in German and Russian, I was simply blown away. He gets a lot more screen-time in the first hour of the film, but he makes the most of what he's given. Kudos, Mr. Bacon. I tip my hat to you.

Now, I could go on and on about every character in the film, but we're really being given a solid performance from every featured actor. And boy do we have a laundry list on our hands, folks. There's so many recognizable faces in this film that it was difficult for me to wrap my head around it all. Be on the lookout for the likes of Oliver Platt, Zoë Kravitz, January Jones, Olek Krupa and Michael Ironside. Oh, and there is one cameo that I'd rather not mention because it's probably the funniest part in the film. I'll leave it for the people who've already seen the film to know what I'm talking about.

In addition to the stellar acting ensemble, we're also getting a solid screenplay to bring the story to life. As I said earlier, it's almost like an origins story, in that we're getting a lot of the back story on our two main leads, and it's telling us how we get to the events that take place in the original X-Men film. I personally have always been rather fond of films that take true historical events and warp them a little bit, twisting them into an alternate reality (i.e., the entirety of 2009's Inglourious Basterds). This time, we're getting a crack at the Cuban Missile Crisis, a moment in U.S. history that could have easily spelled the certain doom of America. Fortunately, it never panned out extremely violently, but this screenplay takes a look at how it might have turned out had mutants been involved. It's a clever twist on history, and it makes for an interesting concept. That being said, the real meat of the screenplay comes in the exposition and the back-story for both Charles and Erik. While Erik's is a little grander and more drawn out, getting the in-depth look at the driving forces behind their personalities is quite a treat for the viewer.

Now, there's been a TV spot running around with a review that said that X-Men: First Class is better than 2008's The Dark Knight. I'd like to quash that right here and now: First Class is a great film, but it doesn't come close to touching the brilliance exhibited by Christopher Nolan's second Batman flick. So please, let the comparisons stop there. I'm not saying that First Class isn't good - it just doesn't reach the bar set by The Dark Knight. Still, I personally believe that First Class is the best X-Men film to date. As I said earlier, I was never huge on the previous films, but I always found them entertaining. This one, however, is another another plane entirely, and I mean that in the best way possible.

Movie Review Summary:
(I'm going to start giving my "score" for each film I review in addition to its grade. For a breakdown of how I "score" films, take a look at my grading system.)
Score: 8.5
Grade: A-
2 Thumbs Up