Score: **** out of ***** (B+)
Long Story Short: Dawn kicks the story of humans vs. apes into high gear after 2011's slower but exquisite Rise. Andy Serkis resumes his role as the actor behind Casear, who is now the leader of a colony of the super smart apes. The apes collide violently with the boring remnants of human civilization led by Jason Clarke and Gary Oldman. There's great action and solid moral themes, but a predictable plot and stale human characters keep it from greatness.
Back to the summer blockbuster genre! Since May, I haven't been too impressed with the summer action releases (although I may catch some of them on Netflix). The remainder of July doesn't look great, either, but there are at least a few in August I'm looking forward to. As for Dawn, it was a pretty clear choice given that I was very impressed by 2011's Rise of the Planet of the Apes and its remarkable technological and emotional creation of Caesar the ape. With an outstanding Rotten Tomatoes score (+90%), I was excited to head back to the theater. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was directed by Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) and stars Andy Serkis, Jason Clarke, Keri Russell, et. al.
A montage of news footage reveals that in the ten years since Rise, the simian virus has spread quickly and devastatingly across the world leaving only a handful of human survivors. One such outpost of humanity lives in San Francisco, and an exploratory group in the woods encounters the colony of apes, led by Caesar, which escaped at the end of Rise. Wary but not hostile to humans, Caesar demands that the group leave the forest, and that the two civilizations - the two species - leave each other alone.
Unfortunately, the humans in San Francisco are running short on fuel. Their only chance to keep the lights on is to make use of a hydroelectric dam - in ape territory. While individuals on both sides loudly call for war, it is up to just a few others to try to prevent calamity for both human and ape.
Dawn is quite similar to its predecessor Rise in that its ape characters steal the show completely from their dull human counterparts. Thanks to outstanding visual effects work in both films, the film allows human actors to bring ape characters to startlingly realistic life. Leading the acting effort once again is the motion-capture king, Andy Serkis as Caesar. Where Rise showed Caesar's development as a sentient, non-human person, Dawn moves him on to the role of leader of a tribe, a tribe of what might be "primitive" humans if not for their ape bodies. Serkis and the effects people work in beautiful harmony to produce subtle, human-like expressions of anger, frustration, pain, and many more complex emotions. The other apes see significantly increased screen time, including Rise apes Koba, a scarred, angry former lab ape, and Maurice, a wise old former circus orangutan. Other individual apes are introduced, including members of Caesar's family.
I'll briefly mention the human characters, secondary to the apes. Jason Clarke is the brave, empathetic leader of a small band of the survivors. He does fine, but his character Malcolm is more important to the plot than as an individual. Keri Russell is the lone woman, playing the exasperatingly cliche role of former CDC medic. She and Kodi-Smit McPhee (?), playing Malcolm's son, make emotional connections with some of the apes - a touching but also fleeting part of the film. Gary Oldman is entirely wasted as the leader of the humans; with just a few minutes of screen time, could have easily been replaced by someone else. And Kirk Acevedo, so likable in his role on Fringe, plays a very dislikable asshole (on purpose) here.
With Rise having set the stage for why the apes are so smart and why human civilization is brought to its knees, Dawn is the first of presumably at least a few films depicting the direct conflict between the two sides. Even if you're not an Apes (I'm not) or film buff in general, you'll likely pick out the clash-of-civilizations theme quite quickly, which anchors the film. This serves as both the film's greatest strength, and its greatest weakness. For the good, Dawn takes a complex viewpoint of neither apes or humans being "good guys" - there are good and bad on each side. Even at that level, there's no knight in shining armor nor devil; the bad are driven by experience and self-interest, while the good are tempered by mistrust and uncertainty. The bad part is, the plot is pretty predictable. Once you see where it's going, it's pretty easy to see the journey from point A to point B, if not all the details. Dawn is also a much, much more action-packed film than Rise (featuring a thrilling centerpiece gun-enabled ape assault on the humans), although it also maintains a nice level of tension most of the way through. And of course the visual effects, led by the CGI apes themselves, are very impressive.
***
While I think Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a very good film, I'm not as enthusiastic as the overall critical praise (i.e.: RT score) indicates. I'm in the minority in preferring Rise to Dawn. Origins films are hardly, well, original, these days, but I felt that Rise actually was. By concentrating on the development of a creature (an admittedly advanced one) into a non-human person, making use of astounding visual effects and physical acting, Rise set itself apart (and also incorporated enough supporting elements to keep it lively). Considering we get even more of the CGI ape wizardry in Dawn, it's amazing how much more conventional the new film is. Don't get me wrong, the themes (clash-of-civilization, good and bad on both sides) and the action/effects are strong and better done than most others. But it also didn't really try anything particularly new or daring, not to mention its predictable plot and throwaway human characters. This franchise still has potential to grow past a very solid base, here, and I look forward to Caesar's next adventure. Recommended (if you want a July blockbuster, this is likely your best best).
2014 Tennis: French Open, Wimbledon
Before I get started on tennis, I have to say that I'm very excited about the news that LeBron James is coming back to Cleveland. It makes it a lot easier to forgive him for The Decision and the Miami years (btw, the number of Heat fans probably just dropped 75%). I'll be watching the Cavs closely - and since they're the closest NBA team to me, that includes in-person!
But back to tennis. It's been yet another interesting year, thanks mostly to the phenomenal, all-time talent at the top of the men's game. We've had some surprises and glorious victories in the past couple months. Here's a recap.
French Open:
This is old news by now, so I won't go into too much detail. The men's top 20 thinned out fairly quickly, most notably #3 seed Stan Wawrinka losing in the first round. The quarterfinals featured a typically unusual clay court mixture, such as Monfils back from who-knows-where (losing in 5 sets to Murray). Clay court bulldog Ferrer had the misfortune of running into the Nadal meat grinder in the quarters; Nadal would go on to humiliate Murray even worse (6-3, 6-2, 6-1). On the other side, Djokovic cruised to the final without much trouble, either. No surprise, though, that Nadal won it, claiming his ninth French Open title in ten years (the other year, he was injured).
The women's draw was a crapshoot, as it has frequently become these days. Only three top 10 players made the quarters, after five of them bowed out in the third round or earlier (including Serena in the second). On the positive side, Canadian Eugenie Bouchard continued her rapid rise, making the semifinals; and Simona Halep got to the finals, and looks poised to be a fixture (but will she simply be yet another very solid player who can't reach greatness?). Perhaps most impressive was Maria Sharapova, who fought through many three-set matches to claim the title. While Sharapova may be a bit inconsistent, I admire her fierce competitive spirit.
Wimbledon:
Ah, the best tennis tournament in the world. From seeing the nice, fresh green lawns to some of the most exciting tennis to the many traditions (e.g., everyone wears white), Wimbledon can't be matched. And the men's draw certainly lived up to that standard in one of the best tournaments in recent memory. This time, the only true surprise was Nadal missing the quarters (didn't get to see the match). The quarters saw Federer and Wawrinka battling fiercely in an all-Swiss match; Djokovic taken to five sets by fringe star Cilic; and Dimitrov shellacking defending champion Murray in a quick three sets. Every tennis fan could see it coming (or hope that it would come): the best player of all-time on his best surface (Federer) trying for perhaps one last title, against arguably today's best player, Novak Djokovic. In five very close sets, I was thrilled when my favorite player, Djokovic, captured the title. Despite suffering a melt down in the fourth set, losing it 5-7 after being up 5-2, he rallied to win the fifth set, 6-4. To be honest, it wasn't as thrilling of tennis as the score suggested, since there was a lot of brilliant serving that kept points very short, mostly. But still, it was great to see such high-level tennis.
The women's draw? Just as much confusion as in the French Open. Once again, just three top-10 seeds made it to the quarters, and many top players lost early (again, Serena among them). Interestingly, three women from the Czech Republic made the quarters (including the champion). Last year's finalist Lisicki made it, too, but got crushed by rising star Halep - who was then stopped by the other rising star, Eugenie Bouchard. Many predicted the winner of that match would win the title, but Kvitova unleashed one of the nastiest beatdowns in recent memory on poor Bouchard. It wasn't even that Bouchard played badly, but Kvitova's shots were so fierce that almost every point was over within two to three shots (she won 6-3, 6-0). Interestingly, 2011 Wimbledon saw Djokovic and Kvitova as champions - just like this tournament, three years later.
Top Players:
(1) Novak Djokovic: As was entirely appropriate, Djokovic recaptured the top seed with his soaring Wimbledon title. Sure, he's not the flashiest player (tennis experts can surely see his brilliance better than me) but he is the most reliable in the game. Add to that a great sense of humor and a humble, respectful, classy character, and it's easy to root for him. Here's hoping for many more Grand Slam titles to solidify his all-time status with peers Federer and Nadal.
(2) Rafael Nadal: After winning two Wimbledons, Nadal has actually struggled there, losing early each of the last three years. But he certainly isn't in decline. He remains dominant on clay (only Djokovic has a chance against him), and he is up there with the other Big Four on hard courts. Another humble, hard-working guy, I root for him, too.
(3) Roger Federer: The number of times Fed has been prematurely declared finished is now almost as high as his Grand Slam title total. He had a sensational tournament, no doubt about it, with one of the most dominant serving performances of all time. Only a gutsy showing by the game's best overall player could barely take him out. That said, Wimbledon has always been his best, so it will be interesting to see how he fares this summer.
(10) Andy Murray: After failing to defend his Wimbledon title, Murray took a tumble down the rankings. It's still hard for me to gauge his true level. He may have already peaked, with his previous Wimbledon and U.S. Open titles. Taken at their average levels, Murray is simply a tier below the other Big Four - without them, he likely has at least five Grand Slam titles already.
Other Players: Stan Wawrinka is still a big threat; losing to Federer was no letdown... Milos Raonic is working his way up, a big Canadian server, but I haven't seen him play enough to know how good he is... Grigor Dimitrov seems to living up to the hype he's been getting - another baseline athlete, who whipped Murray at Wimbledon.
(1) Serena Williams: Not to beat a dead horse, but... ugh, I hope this is finally the beginning of the end for Serena. All through her career, she has been one of the most petulant (top) athletes I've ever seen. She often lacks class when winning, and when she loses - look out. There's no denying that she's an all-time great in the women's game. But I won't be sad to see her go.
(6) Maria Sharapova: Although she's ranked sixth, I think she's probably the second best player in the women's game right now. If she can avoid injury, she should be in contention in every tournament due to her competitiveness and skill. Of course, we've also seen that she can lose quite easily to lesser players when her inconsistent game isn't on.
Others: Yes, everyone else qualifies as "other". The other top seeds are a wild grab bag. Li Na, Jankovic, Azarenka? They've had their share of success, but whether it's injury or age, none of them should be considered favorites in any tournament. Kvitova or Kerber? They have big games but are also very up-and-down; Kvitova should likely just count herself lucky for her two Wimbledon titles. Halep or Radwanska? Basically the opposite of the previous two, these players will likely make it deep into most tournaments, but also usually fall to whomever happens to have the "hot hand" because they don't have any powerful weapons. Bouchard is about the only player right now who seems to have the potential to become the next superstar: she's mentally and emotionally stable, and her game is both potent and reliable (thus far). We'll see!
Score: ***1/2 out of ***** (B)
Long Story Short: Perhaps the most popular female comedian today, Melissa McCarthy launches her newest film, Tammy, on the iconic July 4th release date. Formula genre blockbusters abound at this time, but Tammy steers away from its star's bread and butter. The result may register significantly lower on the humor scale, but it packs a punch with characterization thanks to great dialogue and the two leading ladies. Go see it to encourage more of this creative filmmaking.
I took a little break from movies - partly on purpose, partly not. Even for me, seeing six films in theaters in six weeks was quite a streak, so I wanted to take a little "break" to be fresh for the next summer offerings. Well, it turned out June was a bummer for new releases, anyway. I may end up seeing 22 Jump Street at some point (and Netflix the new Transformers - hey, I'm not forking over any more money to that franchise, but sometimes I just need a fix of plentiful explosions). So I'm back with a new movie this week, followed by tennis next week. I really enjoy Melissa McCarthy, so this film was a pretty straightforward choice, despite a worrying score on Rotten Tomatoes. Tammy was directed by Ben Falcone (McCarthy's husband) and stars McCarthy and Susan Sarandon.
(Note: I always check Wikipedia to read a plot summary to make sure I'm not forgetting anything. Usually the summaries are quite good and detailed but the one for Tammy is pretty shitty.)
Tammy is a good-natured but down on her luck young woman, who starts the movie by limping to work in her beat up old car and ends up discovering that she's been fired from her fast food job. Upon returning home, the bad news continues as she finds her husband engaged in an affair with a neighbor. Tammy goes straight to her mother's house (two doors down the street), where her unsympathetic grandmother Pearl (Sarandon) also lives. It turns out both women feel a need to get away, and so Tammy and Pearl simply hit the road.
As the two women stumble along in various adventures, they rediscover a freedom that had been missing from their lives - but also must confront the problems that got them to their pre-road trip lives in the first place.
Tammy has a good cast, especially the two leads. McCarthy takes a break from her usual foul-mouthed smart ass character in this one, exchanging it for a sincere and friendly, yet also bitter woman with self-esteem issues. It's quite a change, combined with the fact that she is the true lead here and in a different type of film than usual. The characterization is a little inconsistent as the movie develops, but McCarthy injects it with her impressive charisma and so she's never boring. Sarandon is the co-pilot, and often just as good as McCarthy. One of the best things she does is to not act over exuberantly as many "independent spirit" grandmother roles often resort to. Instead, she delivers scalding lines calmly but with the effect of a cattle prod. A perfect compliment to the often mopy Tammy. There are a few other roles, none of which are nearly as big - among the noteworthy are Kathy Bates as Pearl's wealthy, lesbian cousin (hits a sweet spot of both humor and lesson-learning for Tammy), Mark Duplass as Tammy's love interest (great, finely-tuned performance), and Dan Aykroyd as Tammy's father (tiny role, but possibly the funniest in the film).
Warning: do not go into this film thinking it will be in the style of The Heat (I did). Tammy is a unique creation all its own, combining elements from other genres (including road movie and romantic comedy) - which ends up being both its best strength and greatest weakness. We'll start with the positive: unshackled (mostly) of genre convention and sporting two great leads, Tammy has some fascinating things to say and show about its characters that few other films do. While the plot is a bit meandering, the dialogue is very strong and delves deeply into Tammy and Pearls' lives, as well as their relationship. Now for the negative: Tammy isn't as funny as a McCarthy film should be. Two main reasons: the script forces McCarthy's usual humor into the first part of the film (but it doesn't fit here), and can't consistently figure out a style of humor that does work. It does certainly have its moments (Aykroyd, fast food robbery, etc.), but it's hit or miss with a few embarrassing whiffs.
***
Critics have been quite unfavorable to Tammy (just 27% on Rotten Tomatoes), but I think that's unfair. This film is a branching out effort from McCarthy - yes, there are some stumbles and it's not as finely-tuned as standouts like The Heat - and I think that many are holding that against Tammy. Do I wish that this film had been funnier? Sure, but I'm just as happy if not happier that McCarthy decided to go in a different direction. Will Ferrell, as much as he's my favorite comedian, perhaps should have done the same. He had real gems like Stranger Than Fiction that were outside his comfort zone, but he kept (keeps?) going back to the same well, with diminishing returns (Anchorman 2 being a perfect example). McCarthy tries out not just a whole new kind of character (at least, new to me), but she also incorporates creative new storytelling and characterization (the dynamics of her relationship with Duplass are particularly well done). I applaud McCarthy for her creative choices and hope she sets an example for the industry. In order for that to happen, this movie needs to be a success - so go out and see it!
