Planet of the Apes (2001)

So within the last few weeks I reviewed Rise of the Planet of the Apes, this summer's movie that is attempting to reboot the Planet of the Apes series/franchise.  As I reviewed, it was a surprisingly good effort, taking a concept that didn't need to be remade and finding something new and interesting about it.  What the 2011 film confirms is how truly bad 2001's Planet of the Apes was, a straight remake of the original 1968 classic.

My curiosity got the best of me on this one. The original five 'Apes' movies are some of my favorites, and the newest entry was highly enjoyable. I've avoided director Tim Burton's addition to the series for years for a couple reasons. The biggest reason? I thought it looked like a pile of awfulness. More than that though, it looked like a dumbed-down, mindless remake that didn't need to be remade. I was in the right frame of mind though to watch it, hoping my enjoyment from 'Rise' might boost the 2001 version. Long story short? It didn't. The 2001 version is everything I was afraid it would be and more...or less I guess depending on how you look at it.

An astronaut/scientist on a U.S. space station in 2029, Leo Davidson (Mark Wahlberg) is working with a large staff, exploring all space has to offer, including studies with chimps. As the station moves through space, an electromagnetic storm is discovered in front of them, Leo following one of his test chimps into the storm which turns out to be a wormhole. His pod crash lands on a strange planet full of jungle and deserts. Just minutes after crash landing though, he makes a bizarre discovery. The planet is ruled by a war-like tribe of apes, and the humans are slaves. Leo is caught almost immediately so what can he do? An ape general, Thade (Tim Roth), is suspicious of this more intelligent human, leaving Leo to come up with a plan. Can he get free and then get off this planet? 

This next part is going to sound stupid, but I can't come up with a smart, semi-intelligent way to say it. You're watching a movie called 'Planet of the Apes,' right? It's clear at some point a human main character will discover he's on a planet ruled by intelligent apes, right? With the 1968 original, there's a sense of mystery, and when the apes are revealed in the human-hunting scene, there is a genuine shock and surprise...even knowing it's coming. That is a fundamental problem of Burton's 2001 remake. Wahlberg's Leo crash lands, runs, sees intelligent apes and never seems to question what's going on. He just goes along with it. To a point, Burton and the script seem to take that element for granted, assuming the audience just isn't going to be shocked/surprised and throwing that chance aside.

As I brought up in the 'Rise' review, there was a cheese-ball charm to the original, humans dressed up as apes. 'Rise' went the other route with computer-generated apes (<---that sounds cool). 2001's 'Planet' is somewhere in between, but the effort falls short. The apes, gorillas and chimps are both too human and too simian-based. At times, they are like skittish cats, and other times are far too much like humans. Also, monkeys apparently can leap hundreds of feet into the air from a stand-still. Who knew? Roth's Thade is too over the top as a villain, finding a way to be both unintentionally funny and not intimidating at the same time. Helena Bonham Carter is Ari, a sympathetic monkey, Michael Clarke Duncan is the angry army ape, Paul Giamatti is a finnicky slave-trading monkey, David Warner is a monkey senator, and even Charlton Heston himself -- star of the original Apes movie -- makes a quick appearance.

Now as much as I like Mark Wahlberg, I think he is not the right choice here to play the lead, U.S. astronaut Leo Davidson.  Some of it is his fault as he doesn't bring a whole lot of charisma to the part, brooding and growling through his situation. He also never seems to question anything. If it's me, and I crash land on a planet ruled by apes....I don't know...maybe I ask some questions. In the matter of hours, Leo becomes this heroic human who all the slaves are drawn to, and I'm thinking....really? That's all it took? Punch an ape and lead a poorly planned escape? The script gives him absolutely nothing to do though so it's not entirely on Wahlberg. Also wasted in human parts is Kris Kristofferson as Karubi, a chief of a fleeing tribe, and supermodel Estella Warren as Daena, a young, babely human girl. I imagine at some point the script called for a random hot girl who had to do nothing except look good. She nails the part in that sense.

There is something missing in this movie that I can't put my finger on.  The look of the movie isn't quite right, appearing like it was shot on a poorly-built studio set. The ape village/town certainly looks pretty clean as does the whole movie. Jungle, village, expansive desert, it feels faked.  The whole movie is boring though on top of that. There is a certain B-movie campiness to it, but basically nothing happens, Leo becomes a hero, leads a revolution, and then there is a brief ape vs. human fight. The original explored in some depth the idea of what was happening, animal mistreatment, fate and destiny, bigger issues. Not so much here. Dumbed-down was pretty spot on, the final product a mindless two hours that doesn't even touch its predecessors.

And how about that ending? The 1968 original was a gem, one that still is remembered for its shock value. How about this one? Shock value, yes, but it makes absolutely no FREAKING sense. Burton has said in interviews he left it up to the audience to make up their mind, and that a possible sequel would have explained things clearly. That's a weak excuse on the part of a director. It certainly goes for a surprise, and it is that...surprising. But nothing is explained, and no logical, reasonable explanation comes to mind. You've got to watch it yourself though, and revel in the badness.

Planet of the Apes <---trailer (2001): */****

Pulp Fiction

When I reviewed Inglorious Basterds over a year ago, I said that there isn't as divisive a director as Quentin Tarantino currently working in Hollywood.  I stand by that statement still.  Is he immensely talented, an eccentric movie lover? Or is he a hack, taking here and there from previously successful movies and making them his own?  Is it a bad thing that it seems he falls somewhere in between?  I think he's both. Of course, if you're not a fan of his, it's going to take more than that to appreciate the man's films.  To each his own.  Like anything with movies, it comes down to personal preference.

What's impressive about Tarantino and the love-hate relationship moviegoers have with him is that the man just doesn't have a lot of films to his name.  He picks projects that appeal to him, not just taking anything that comes down the road.  Of the 15 directorial claims IMDB makes, only eight are feature length projects.  In their own right, each can be called in a classic (okay, a minor classic in some cases), and fans have their own individual favorites.  For many, it's an easy decision, and the movie that always seems to come up is 1994's Pulp Fiction, Tarantino's first movie after the surprising success of 1992's Reservoir Dogs.

I don't put much stock in the IMDB's fan rating system which allows fan voting to show how good/bad a movie is.  Pulp Fiction currently sits at No. 5 all-time.  I don't think it's close to being one of the top five greatest movies of all-time, but then again, IMDB voters have The Shawshank Redemption as No. 1 so take that for what's it worth.  This is a good intro to Tarantino for fans not familiar with him.  Long scenes of uninterrupted dialogue broken up by brief but extreme moments of graphic violence, style to spare, and a cast that any movie fan should be able to appreciate.  Here goes an attempt to give some sort of plot synopsis, however muddled it may be. Interweaving storylines, characters in and out of the story, and a non-linear plot certainly keep you on your toes.

Two low-level enforcer/hit men, Vincent Vega (John Travolta) and Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson), have been dispatched on a mission from their boss, Marsellus Graham (Ving Rhames). Someone owes him money, and Vincent and Jules intend to get it back.  Vincent's also been assigned an unusual task, go on a date with Marsellus' wife, Mia (Uma Thurman) while the boss is out of town. Also going on, Marsellus has arranged for aging boxer, Butch Coolidge (Bruce Willis), to throw a fight for big money, but Butch has other plans that only he knows about.  On top of that, two bottom-tier thieves (Tim Roth and Amanda Plummer) are planning their next job, and everyone is involved whether they know it or not.

Where to start, where to start? Tarantino uses his usual chapters storytelling device, breaking up the 153-minute movie into smaller segments that aren't told in chronological order. For example, we see someone get killed in one chapter, but they're alive in the next.  Gimmicky, yes, but when handled right, it's a home run, and Tarantino brings it full circle, ending the movie exactly where it started. The soundtrack is full of classic rock songs, and really runs the gamut across genres.  Style-wise, Tarantino tells a story with his camera, blending long unedited takes with quick in your face editing at other times.  Question if you will what the director is showing, but just in terms of pure movie-making skill, it's hard to beat this guy.

By 1994, John Travolta's career was all but mainlining when he accepted this part to play hitman Vincent Vega.  It was the part that put him back in the limelight and earned him an Oscar nomination in the process.  For me personally, Travolta (and his interactions with Jackson) are what makes this movie special.  It's the little things that make it work.  I couldn't place Vince's accent if I tried, but it adds something to the character.  He's a little off, maybe a little crazy, but at the same time perfectly sane.  His dance scene with Uma Thurman (watch it HERE) is about as iconic, as memorable as anything to hit theaters in the last 20 years and is so sublimely perfect it's not even worth trying to explain. I loved this character and wish there was more of him.

With a story that bounces around as much as Pulp Fiction does, some characters/storylines get more in-depth than others.  On top of all those names mentioned above, there's also parts for Eric Stoltz, Rosanna Arquette, Steve Buscemi as a smarmy waiter, Tarantino stepping in front of the camera for a quick appearance, and two perfect parts for Christopher Walken and Harvey Keitel. Walken is on-screen for no more than two minutes but delivers one of the most movingly effective and equally funny monologues I've ever seen (watch it HERE).  Keitel nails his part as 'the Wolf,' a cleaner who fixes other people's messes.  Check out Keitel's entrance HERE. These are two small parts that Tarantino clearly loved writing, stylish and unnecessary but nonetheless giving a movie those little touches that can bring it up a notch.

As much as I loved certain parts of the movie, others just fell flat.  The Bruce Willis boxer subplot didn't work as well for me as the rest of the movie -- with the exception of the Walken scene -- and I found myself fast-forwarding through it.  Tarantino can be too self-indulgent at times, and the dialogue goes on too long at times.  That said, the positives make the negatives a minor problem.  Travolta, Jackson, Rhames, Walken, Keitel, Thurman, deliver amazingly memorable performances.  For all the dialogue that never stops, there's monologues (like Jackson's in the finale SPOILERS, HERE) that make you appreciate what good writing really is.  Flawed as a movie overall, yes, but one of the best flawed movies I've seen in awhile.

Pulp Fiction <---trailer (1994): *** 1/2 /****   

The Incredible Hulk

With all the franchise reboots, sequels and prequels in the market now, it never comes as much of a surprise when one hits theaters.  But what about when a studio cuts their losses and admits a mistake and does another reboot, just five years after the previous effort?  Released in 2003, Hulk was a disappointment to fans and to the studio even though it made over $130 million in theaters. I was one of the few who actually liked that one, but in 2008 Marvel Studios released a new Hulk movie, aptly titled The Incredible Hulk. Maybe they just needed to start over for the new Avengers movie, announced for 2012.

The 2008 version starts after Bruce Banner has accidentally turned himself into the Hulk via some gnarly gamma ray exposure.  The opening credits actually serve as a prologue of sorts, explaining how he became the Hulk and the fallout that was to come because of his actions.  While the reboot has some potential, it follows basically the same formula as the 2003 version so it made me ask, what's the point?  Hulk has also been in the news recently because star Edward Norton has been bumped for Mark Ruffalo -- no explanation why -- for the Avengers movie.  As a Norton fan, it's sad news because he is a strong point in 2008's Hulk.

Hiding in Brazil as he runs from the U.S. military and General Ross (William Hurt), scientist Bruce Banner (Norton) is doing everything he can to experiment on himself and see if he can ever go back to being just Bruce instead of turning into the Hulk if he gets too angry/excited.  Ross is hot on his trail and sends in a Special Ops commando, Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), and his team to extract him.  Bruce manages to escape and sneaks back into the states where he tracks down lost love Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) and a doctor (Tim Blake Nelson) who may be able to help him. But all the while, General Ross and Blonsky -- after some medical experiments -- are close behind, doing everything they can to get their hands on Banner.

First off, I did like this movie if not exactly loved it.  The visuals are great, full of bright, vibrant colors that look lifted right out of a comic book.  The action is solid if a little repetitive, and that's where the problem comes in.  Christian Bale playing Batman is one thing, he's a regular dude with a badass suit.  But when Banner turns into Hulk and Blonsky transforms into Abomination late in the movie, it's just two freakishly huge CGI creations beating the crap out of each other.  It loses some effect as most CGI creations tend to do to me.  Oh cool, look at those two computer images fight!  I don't know the solution, and at a certain point you just have to go along with it, but it is a big problem I have with superhero/action movies.

Starting a franchise over again, director Louis Leterrier had to work with a cast that's as good if not better than 2003 Hulk. I thought the cast of Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, Sam Elliott, Nick Nolte and Josh Lucas was one of the best selling points for Hulk.  For the 2008 reboot, I'd say it's a push.  An actor's actor, it's fun to see Norton in a blockbuster where he can just have some fun.  I've always had a crush on Liv Tyler, and she's okay here but Connelly is the better actress. Sam Elliott or William Hurt? Do I really have to go into that one?  Nolte and Roth are about the same, and Lucas is better than Blake Nelson in somewhat similar roles.  Moral of the story, both casts are good, neither one pulling too far ahead of the other one.

One of the biggest complaints of 2003 Hulk was the lack of action, a superhero movie that was too cerebral which sounds ridiculous to me.  What's funny is that 2008 Hulk doesn't up the ante too much.  There's a chase through crowded Brazilian streets early, and we see Hulk in shadows and darkness, never getting a great look at him.  The best action comes in a scene where Ross and Blonsky have cornered Banner, and he's forced to protect Betty on a college campus.  There's some epic qualities to this segment that make it worth rewatching.  I've mentioned the finale -- CGI monster vs. CGI monster -- which is all right but nothing spectacular.  The two last scenes are cool, including a very brief snippet of what's to come in the Avengers movie.

Overall for a reboot, I'm looking for something new, something different that improves on the previous franchise ventures.  The Incredible Hulk doesn't do that, instead taking steps side-to-side instead of forward.  It's a good enough movie, good to watch with a bucket of popcorn that lets you sit back and enjoy, but that's about it.  Other superhero movies like Iron Man have raised the bar, and this one isn't quite there.  Cool throwback tribute, look for original Hulk Lou Ferrigno in a cameo as a security guard.

The Incredible Hulk <---trailer (2008): ** 1/2 /****