Movies: The Tree of Life

Score: **** out of *****

Long Story Short: An unconventional film, to say the least, The Tree of Life is a good solid film at its core but suffers from excessiveness. The soundtrack is amazing, and serves to lift the narrative-less focus on an average middle-class family. The cast is quite good and convincing but it's just too long. With little dialogue and no plot, slower parts drag interminably, weighing down some powerful moments found elsewhere.

All done with summer blockbusters now. The film reviewed here is about as far from those summer movies as possible. Because of that, I'm not sure how good of a review I'll be able to write, but I'll do my best. It also doesn't help that it's now been a little while since I've seen it, but that's what Wikipedia is for. The Tree of Life was directed by Terrence Malick (The Thin Red Line) and stars Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. As a quick aside, it was rather amusing to see several young (as in middle or high school) girls watch this movie when I did, obviously drawn by Pitt. I don't think they enjoyed it very much.

This will be a rather different plot summary, since, well, there isn't much of a plot, but I'll go over generally what "happens" in the movie. First, we are introduced, through music and a few spare narrative lines, to an average family (1950s? 60s?) grieving the death of one of their three young boys. This is followed immediately by one of the boys, Jack, (Penn), now full grown, thinking about his childhood while he wearily surveys his business surroundings. Next, we are taken through, essentially a journey from the beginning of the universe through the earliest life forms to the time of the dinosaurs during a fifteen or twenty minute interlude.

Next, we see Jack being born, and his parents' joy over having and raising a son. The other two boys quickly follow, and the film settles into its main chronological period, with the boys in adolescence. The family is middle-class, living in the suburbs of Waco, Texas, and what we see here on out is basically the progression of their normal lives. The main themes are the dual nature of the father (Pitt), who clearly loves his family but is nevertheless often strict and harsh. The mother (Chastain) is fairly passive but provides the foundation of the family. The boys act pretty much like boys, getting into trouble, developing relationships amongst each other as brothers. This main part ends when the father loses his job and the family is forced to move away. Finally, the movie ends with a strange, surely metaphorical series of scenes based around the older Jack (Penn) walking on a beach with his family who are all the ages that they were when he was as a teenager.

Brad Pitt is obviously the big name in this film. And he does do quite a good, convincing job as an everyday dad, with faults like a quick temper, but also a deep love for his sons. His acting lends the film a good chunk of its credibility and impact of showing what is a pretty average family. Penn is the next biggest name, but he really doesn't do much. I don't think he says a dozen words total. He just gives pensive, concerned, or wistful looks and serves basically as a symbol more than a character. His younger counterpart, Hunter McCracken, who probably gets the most screen time in the whole film, does a very good job of conveying a variety of moods despite the lack of much dialogue. Jessica Chastain as the mother is also very effective. Those three - McCracken, Pitt, and Chastain - give great performances that hold up the director's narrative-less film.

Well, there's no action or comedy to talk about in this film, so I'll bring up some things that didn't get mentioned in the film summary. First I want to say, this film has one of the best soundtracks of any film I've seen. I think it's about half original music and half classical selections; the former for general mood setting and the latter for terrific emotional swells. It truly elevates the film dramatically (literally and figuratively). Next, there is a lot of kind of random imagery in the filming - particularly at the beginning and the end, as well as the scientific interlude itself obviously. I guess you could sift through them for symbolism but I'm not interested in doing that. It's not overdone, anyway, and the interlude is spectacular at times, if a touch slow. As I mentioned, there really isn't a plot to the film. The acting work is good enough that it doesn't suffer too badly from this.

***

After seeing this film, I wasn't sure what to think. It is so different from anything else I've seen recently, it was hard to process. Looking at the film as a whole, there are certainly some powerful parts - always enhanced by the outstanding soundtrack - and it sheds light on some aspects of life in interesting ways. The biggest down side of the film is that it is considerably too long. The second half is the biggest culprit here; there is just scene after scene after scene of Jack and his brothers messing around like adolescent boys do. In my opinion, there is no point to it. The director wanted to show normal life, fine. But there came a point when I wanted to yell at the screen "do something, already!" The general lack of dialogue is in line with the film's theme, but during the slow, repetitive parts it just worsens the boredom. Sean Penn was also basically unnecessary, except for the very last part on the beach. A unique, good movie that could've been significantly better had a good editor chopped off a lot of the fat hanging around the important parts.

Sports: NFL/Tennis Mega Post

Ah, it's that time of year again! The kids are going back to school, and more importantly, the athletes are getting back on the field. Next weekend marks what I believe is perhaps the best sports weekend of the year: first NFL Sunday of the year, second college football Saturday, and the U.S. Open tennis finals. It's kind of funny comparing the two sports, considering how different they are (I hope to make a "sports broadcasters" blog post soon - sneak peek: tennis announcers are awesome, football announcers suck). Anyway, I'll give a review of some tennis goings-on, focused on the U.S. Open primarily, before focusing on an NFL season preview. Enjoy! (and let me know where you disagree if you're so inclined)

Tennis:

As of this writing, the U.S. Open is just about halfway done. It's been a good tournament so far, but first I'd like to give a little season recap. Novak Djokovic, who I first came to notice (and become a fan of) when he beat Roger Federer en route to winning the 2008 Australian Open, is having an absolutely extraordinary year - and one that is being tragically overlooked by the sports world overall. He came into the year ranked a very respectable third in the world behind the greatest player of all time, Roger Federer, and a guy who at this point is now even better (Rafael Nadal). In just six months, he has bypassed both men to become #1, going 57-2 coming into the U.S. Open. He has won nine tournaments this year, including the Australian and French Opens. He has beaten Federer three times (and lost once, thanks to a truly vintage performance from Fed), and beaten Nadal FIVE times. I've admired "the Djoker's" sense of humor (search YouTube for "Djokovic," "Sharapova," and "Head") and his humility for some time, and, since reading an SI article about him, learned of his early family struggles in Serbia and intense, focused training regimen. Djokovic has my full admiration this season for his phenomenal success and the way he's gone about it. Bravo.

To the U.S. Open: on the men's side, all four top seeds - Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, and Murray - are still in (though Murray got taken to five sets last round). Other notable players include Mardy Fish, the top ranked American having a career resurgence and playing solid tennis. Roddick also remains, despite falling dramatically in the rankings. Two others to watch are Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, a Frenchman who has beaten Federer twice this year, and Juan Martin del Potro, a big young guy who beat Federer to win the U.S. Open two years ago.

On the women's side, havoc has been wreaked on the top seeds - but that has become so common for the women recently that it's not very surprising. Top seed Caroline Wozniacki has looked quite strong. She doesn't have an exceptional game, but has thrived with the lack of other superstars. Second seed Vera Zvonareva is still in it, a dangerous player who has reached Grand Slam finals before. Serena's return disappoints me, as I've never been a fan of her arrogance and disdain for her opponents (not to mention her completely unprofessional outburst at the U.S. Open a few years ago).

Djokovic remains the favorite for the men, as he shows no signs of slowing after a recent shoulder tweak. Nadal has been struggling - at least by his usual standards - perhaps because of the beatdowns Djokovic has given him this year. I give Federer a better chance than Nadal at this point, but he has been vulnerable to second tier foes this year (ie: Tsonga). Barring injury to the top three, I don't see anyone else with a great shot, though Murray has an outside chance of taking advantage of any off days or injuries. For the women, I must sadly admit that Serena is the favorite with her dominant game. Wozniacki is consistent enough to beat most players, but doesn't have the firepower to compete with Serena. Zvonareva might actually have a better chance to beat Serena in the finals, but she'll have to be at the top of her game (*crosses fingers*).

The men's game has certainly been the highlight of the 2011 season, as Djokovic has improbably asserted himself as belonging among - even surpassing - the Federer-Nadal combo that had dominated for so long. This in turn has given other players renewed confidence, and so the men's game is very entertaining right now. The women's game, unfortunately... not so much. I've seen several quite poor matches in the U.S. Open, and the only consistent superstar is Serena who I dislike (and she keeps coming down with injuries, hence her ranking). The men's final of the U.S. Open, no matter who is in it, should be excellent, so tune in if you can.

NFL:

The 2011 lockout is now a distant memory as we get ready for the kickoff of the season on Thursday. However, it will be interesting to see how the reduction in team practice and the frantic free agency period caused by the lockout will affect the league. A general consensus is that team's with little personnel or coaching turnover will do the best, which makes sense. There are many other things to look out for, as well. The Eagles assembled a so-called "Dream Team" after the lockout, led by LeBron - er, Michael Vick, and highlighted by the signing of shut down cornerback (had to double check the spelling here) Nnamdi Asomugha. Several new contenders will try to prove that they weren't a fluke (Kansas City, Tampa Bay, St. Louis). Others will try to grind one step closer to a Super Bowl as they build on their recent success (Baltimore, Atlanta, N.Y. Jets). And who knows which teams will come out of nowhere to contend? Now I'll go through each division and predict their records (I'm not going through each game here, just trying to get the number of total losses and wins to match up).

AFC East:

1. Team That Shall Not Be Named (known from here on out as "TTSNBN")

Last Year: 14-2

Projected: 13-3

No comment.

2. N.Y. Jets

Last Year: 11-5

Projected: 10-6

I feel like this could be a turning point year for the Jets. They've been contending well since getting Coach Ryan - but there seems to have been an invisible ceiling for their overall success so far. I didn't notice a whole lot of player movement this offseason, so I'm assuming the defense will be very good again (although when I watch them sometimes I feel it's a little vulnerable). The real question is how will QB Mark Sanchez and RB Shonn Greene play. Greene must become the workhorse they expect him to be (hasn't happened yet), and Sanchez must help him by keeping defenses honest, at the least. This team is going to either improve or get worse - they won't be the team they were the last two years.

3. Miami Dolphins

Last Year: 7-9

Projected: 7-9

In a lot of ways the Dolphins remind me of the Jets - except that they're not as good across the board. They have a very good defense - but not as good as the Jets'. They have a young, struggling QB - but Henne isn't even as good as Sanchez. And they have questions in the running game - and here they are in much worse shape than the Jets here. The defense will keep them in games, but Henne MUST improve for this team to move up. I don't see it.

4. Buffalo Bills

Last Year: 4-12

Projected: 3-13

Here we have our first member of what I'll deem the Poop Pile. Several characteristics that describe the Bills and their cohorts are a bland, identity-less franchise; a horrible QB situation; and few hopeful prospects. I'm really not sure why they bother trying anymore. Of course, now they'll probably make the playoffs. But really, the Bills just suck all around.

AFC North

1. Baltimore Ravens

Last Year: 12-4

Projected: 12-4

Yes, this is partially an attempt at a reverse jinx. The Ravens haven't looked good yet in the preseason, and I think they might struggle early in the year, but I have a feeling they'll work it out. I feel that while their defense will continue to decay a bit this year (only 10th overall last year), their offense should finally break out. Ray Rice keeps improving, and he's got better blocking this year. Joe Flacco is under the same system, and gets new receiver help. They won't look like the old Ravens so much, but they'll be good by the end of the year.

2. Pittsburgh Steelers

Last Year: 12-4

Projected: 10-6

The schedule looks favorable for the Steelers this year, and they just went to the Super Bowl. Which is why I'm predicting they have somewhat of a let down this year. Whenever it seems like they have an easy schedule, they tend to live down to it, I've noticed. And the Super Bowl loser jinx has a rather depressing consistency. I'm hoping I'm wrong, but I think that this might be a frustrating year for the black 'n' gold.

3. Cleveland Browns

Last Year: 5-11

Projected: 8-8

Fear the Browns' stains after they have left your stadium this year! OK, OK, that was a bad one, I'm sorry. However, I think the Browns will take advantage of an easier schedule this year, unlike Pittsburgh, and they won't get the same respect as their big brothers. Colt McCoy will continue to improve, and Hillis will do well again with appropriate support to keep from wearing down. The beat down of TTSNBN last year was a sign of things to come, I think.

4. Cincinnati Bungles

Last Year: 4-12

Projected: 2-14

The Bungles had a semi-effective offense last year and still won only 4 games. Now they've lost Chad Palmer, Chad Ochocinco, and Terrell Owens. Uh oh. I think we're in for another classic Bungles season, perhaps even worse than usual.

AFC South

1. Houston Texans

Last Year: 6-10

Projected: 10-6

Yes, this is the year I think the Texans will finally break through and win the division. I guess "walk" through might be a better description, considering my 9-7 projection. Houston's offense is spectacular, with both a great passing and running attack. The problem is a defense that ranked 30th last year. They did bring in a good defensive coordinator, but it's doubtful it'll be that much better this year. Still, the Texans should win the division because of the next team.

2. Indianapolis Colts

Last Year: 10-6

Projected: 8-8

The Colts, so steady in the regular season for so long, now depend on the health of their long-time QB Peyton Manning. Very little is known currently about his neck injury. Perhaps he won't miss any time and he'll be as good as ever. Or he could miss half the season or the whole season. So the possible outcomes for this team are quite varied. Aside from Manning, though, the defense isn't any better, and neither is the running game. All outcomes considered, I expect a moderate decline for the Colts this year.

3. Tennessee Titans

Last Year: 6-10

Projected: 8-8

Some good news, some bad news for the Titans. They lost both their starting QB and head coach from last year, who famously did not get along. Their replacements are a relatively inexperienced coach and a solid veteran QB. Chris Johnson should bounce back a little from an "off" year last year, with more stability at QB and a better O-line. However, the team will have to adjust to a new coaching staff, and their defense was surprisingly poor last year. This team has potential, but I think it'll be slow going.

4. Jacksonville Jaguars

Last Year: 8-8

Projected: 5-11

I don't know how the heck this team finished 8-8 last year. Whenever I have seen them play, they just seem to be a pretty poor team. The defense is awful, and so the team must score lots to stay in games. I don't see that happening this year. If MJD gets hurt (and he's been banged up before), they will be in even more trouble. Frankly, this team really just doesn't interest me, so let's move on.

AFC West

1. San Diego Chargers

Last Year: 9-7

Projected: 13-3

I think the Chargers are serious title contenders this year. They have a number of things going for them. They were #1 in yards allowed AND yards gained last year, yet somehow finished 9-7. A lot of that, it is believed, was due to poor special teams play. With the new kickoff rule, however, that problem should be less of an issue. As long as injuries don't hit hard again, this team is set to dominate both sides of the ball, with Philip Rivers leading the charge as a rising elite QB.

2. Kansas City Chiefs

Last Year: 10-6

Projected: 8-8

I predicted this team would do better than expected last year, though I didn't expect that well. Benefiting from a pretty easy schedule, the Chiefs were only a little above average on offense and defense. I think teams will be better prepared for them this year (see their domination by the Ravens in the playoffs) and facing stiffer competition. They're still fine, but they'll come back to earth somewhat.

3. Denver Broncos

Last Year: 4-12

Projected: 6-10

The Broncos dumped their run-and-gun coach Josh McDaniels (formerly of TTSNBN, so good riddance) for the steadier, conservative John Fox (from Carolina). The defense really can't be any worse this year, since it was dead last last year, but it's difficult to see major immediate improvement. The offense was decent last year, but it will undergo a dramatic transformation most likely. Fewer ups and downs might lead to a slightly better record this year, but nothing more.

4. Oakland Raiders

Last Year: 8-8

Projected: 5-11

Last year, the Raiders ran all over everyone - but everyone ran all over them, too. Their strength, pass defense, took a huge hit in the offseason by losing Asomugha. RB McFadden had his healthiest, most productive season last year; they must pray that he remains healthy and that they can finally get something out of the passing game. That's because it's likely their defense will give up quite a few more points this year.

NFC East

1. Philadelphia Eagles

Last Year: 10-6

Projected: 11-5

The Eagles, in the span of a year, have gone from a fading NFC East team to the most followed one in the entire league. Michael Vick improved beyond anyone's wildest expectations last year, but the problem is his offensive line is still terrible, as the preseason has shown. They do have Vince Young as a solid backup, but if they lose Vick, they will be much less effective. The defense also has areas of great strength, but there are weaknesses, too. The expectations for this team are too high, but they'll still do well with an easy schedule.

2. Dallas Cowboys

Last Year: 6-10

Projected: 9-7

After firing Wade Philips last year, the Cowboys managed to be halfway decent, despite the loss of their star QB Tony Romo. As long as he can stay healthy this year, which is reasonable, the team has the potential to match the offensive firepower of their state rivals the Texans. But like the Texans, their defense is also a major question. They will likely be facing shootouts again this year - but with Romo, they should win more of them than last year.

3. N.Y. Giants

Last Year: 10-6

Projected: 8-8

The Giants put up some impressive stats last year, ranking in the top ten in offense and defense. However, I just don't see Eli Manning leading this team much farther than he has without some serious help - like 2007's dominant defense. RB Ahmad Bradshaw is fragile, but they depend on him for balance. The defense is strong overall, but can be exposed. I just don't have a good feeling about this team, although they shouldn't be bad, either.

4. Washington Redskins

Last Year: 6-10

Projected: 3-13

Here's another member of the poop pile. Reason #1: their QB situation. After stupidly thinking McNabb could single-handedly save them last year, they dumped him for... who? They now have the legendary Rex Grossman, and perpetual bench-warmer John Beck. Ouch. They looked decent in preseason, but many, many other bad teams have, too. Plus, the Redskins just irritate me with their perennial underachieving, so maybe this is the year they truly bomb out and someone does something about it.

NFC North

1. Green Bay Packers

Last Year: 10-6

Projected: 13-3

While Super Bowl losers certainly have a poor track record, winners also don't have it easy. They can fairly point to being a different team this year, hopefully getting back a number of key players who were hurt last year - including their starting RB. They are very well balanced, and I don't see anything particularly wrong with them. But it seems that a combination of a little less drive with being a key target for opponents may get to them come playoff time.

2. Detroit Lions

Last Year: 6-10

Projected: 10-6

Yes, I am on the bandwagon - and I'm just as shocked myself, believe me. But this team has been creeping up the last few years. They had some truly terrible luck last year, both in game results and health (starting QB missed most of the season). The defensive line shook up the QB of TTSNBN this preseason, not a feat to be taken lightly, and the offense has a lot of potential. With a weakened division, I think this is the year they start to play with contention.

3. Minnesota Vikings

Last Year: 6-10

Projected: 7-9

The Vikings' defense continued to be strong last year, but as old man Favre fell apart, so did the offense overall. Peterson is the best RB in the game, but it just shows you how important the passing game is now. McNabb is certainly a step up, but as he showed in Washington last year, it takes him time to learn a new system. Plus, they lost their best receiver in the offseason. If an aging McNabb can't adjust, or gets hurt, they'll find a lot of games just outside their reach.

4. Chicago Bears

Last Year: 10-6

Projected: 6-10

Possibly last year's luckiest team - having watched them quite a bit on TV - I confidently predict that they're going down this year. From first to worst. Jay Cutler is the dictionary definition of gunslinger, hurting his team as often as helping it. And if the backup is the same as last year, they really, really, really have to hope he doesn't get injured. Speaking of injuries, the defense remained miraculously healthy last year, which bucks the trend. Bye, bye, Bears.

AFC South

1. Atlanta Falcons

Last Year: 13-3

Projected: 12-4

The Falcons' defense was just average last year, but I liked the way they looked. They have a good coach, and seem to have good focus and overall strategy. While I think they'll need to take some pressure off their RB Michael Turner, who they've been riding a little too hard the last few years, I think they can do it. Matt Ryan isn't flashy, but he's a smart QB who now has another weapon in rookie WR Julio Jones to go with Roddy White. I certainly can see this going the other way, but I think Atlanta will keep their division title.

2. Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Last Year: 10-6

Projected: 11-5

The Bucs are a dynamic young team, one that surprised me last year (I saw them as a Buffalo Bills-type bland team). Their defense, like most of the division, is average at best, but they have some up and coming offensive weapons in QB Josh Freeman and RB LeGarrette Blount. I'm basically betting here that they'll continue to improve, but I think they will, especially if they get more help from the defense.

3. New Orleans Saints

Last Year: 11-5

Projected: 9-7

Drew Brees should be getting a decent running game back this season, helping to balance an offense that relied too much on the pass and therefore had too many turnovers. But the defense still concerns me. They actually had better overall numbers than I thought, having looked them up, but I'm still skeptical. They certainly could go make me look stupid and win the division; I just have a feeling that the defense is going to degrade this year and they'll slide back a little.

4. Carolina Panthers

Last Year: 2-14

Projected: 3-13

I think the Panthers bottomed out last year, and now they begin their slow rise back to at least mediocrity (and if they can't get past there, of course, there may be more rebuilding). The team still has two very talented running backs, which should take some pressure off rookie QB Cam Newton from having to immediately become a star. Their defense was only a little worse than average (run defense being the weakest link) which should let them win more than a measly two games this year.

NFC West

1. St. Louis Rams

Last Year: 7-9

Projected: 9-7

Ah, the NFC West. It's truly the wild west out there, with the division up for grabs by anyone. In fact, it often seemed last year that none of the teams did want it. With a defensive-minded head coach, and a new high-octane offensive coordinator, the Rams are sure to improve in both areas with their young roster. QB Sam Bradford, in particular, has shown himself steady in leading an offense with the help of veteran RB Steven Jackson. Plus, they get six very winnable games, as they do each year.

2. San Francisco 49ers

Last Year: 6-10

Projected: 8-8

The 49ers have the best defense in the division, and that's why they should get 2nd place in the division. The agonizing position for this team, though, is the all-important QB. They seem set to start Alex Smith again this year, but as anyone who follows football knows, that probably won't last long. With RB Frank Gore, WR Braylon Edwards and TE Vernon Davis, this team is just begging for a good leader. If they can actually find one, they may even win the division.

3. Arizona Cardinals

Last Year: 5-11

Projected: 5-11

How the Cardinals managed to win even five games last year is a mystery to me. They ranked just about last in both offense and defense. One of the best receivers in the game, Fitzgerald, was frustrated by one of the most pathetic casts of QBs I've ever seen. Their running game and defense was just as bad. Much depends on how well unproven QB Kevin Kolb can play. If he can find a groove with Fitzgerald, their offense should improve - but some complementary running would also be nice. With the upgrade at QB, they'll probably make up for the luck that got them to five wins last year.

4. Seattle Seahawks

Last Year: 7-9

Projected: 4-12

With all due respect to the Bears and Cardinals, the Seahawks were the luckiest team last year. They are the last member of my Poop Pile squad, and this year even more so than ever. Matt Hasselbeck gave them a decent, steady QB for an otherwise talentless offense. And they traded him... instead acquiring Tarvaris "Short Arm" Jackson. They did trade for WR Sidney Rice... but who is going to get him the ball (ala Fitzgerald-Arizona last year)? The defense is as bad as Arizona's. So have fun, Seattle.

Whew! That was long. So, by extension of my projected standings, the AFC playoff teams will be TTSNBN, Baltimore, Houston, and San Diego, with Pittsburgh and N.Y. Jets as wild cards. NFC playoff teams will be Philadelphia, Green Bay, Atlanta, and St. Louis, with Tampa Bay and (*gulp*) Detroit as wild cards. With that in mind, I'll predict San Diego over Atlanta in the Super Bowl. However it turns out (other than TTSNBN winning the Super Bowl), enjoy the season!

Movies: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Score: **** out of *****

Long Story Short: The final blockbuster of the summer really comes through. With a focus on the unique creation of smart-chimp Caesar, modeled brilliantly by veteran Andy Serkis, this film has something new to offer audiences. Humans are left in the background as we get a film that is little like the trailers and commercials - and all the better for it.

Well, this is the final summer blockbuster of 2011. It's possible I'll see one or two more in the dollar theater, but this is the last to be released in theaters. Most likely, I'll have a better variety of movies to review in the coming weeks and months (sneak peek: I saw The Tree of Life in the dollar theater last night). Back to this movie: I actually didn't even know it was coming out until I saw the trailer, maybe two months ago. Didn't interest me a whole lot, but I was intrigued by the good reviews that it got. Rise of the Planet of the Apes (a terrible, clunky title) was directed by Rupert Wyatt (???), and stars James Franco, Freida Pinto (Slumdog Millionaire) and John Lithgow.

Rise wastes no time getting started: we are introduced to an advanced laboratory in San Francisco where Dr. Rodman (Franco) is the lead scientist developing a powerful drug to cure Alzheimer's disease. Also quickly shown are the chimpanzee subjects used in the testing, as well as both protective caretaker Franklin and callous boss Jacobs. (I mention the quick start, since I tend to expect more of a mysterious, slow build-up of elements in this type of film. Not so at all here). Franco begins presenting the drug to shareholders, just as the top test chimp goes AWOL and has to be put down, ending the drug's chances for further development. Franklin is ordered to put down the rest of the chimps as well, but he passes on a baby to Dr. Rodman who takes it home.

Three years pass by, and the chimp, named Caesar lives in Rodman's attic and develops quite like a human child. Also in the home is Rodman's father, Charles (Lithgow), who has Alzheimer's. Rodman decides to try his drug on his father - and it works for a little while, but he regresses again. Caesar, beginning to outgrow the house, gets in trouble and is taken away to a poorly-run primate facility. While Caesar deals with his ape-prison, Rodman works on a stronger drug, which works on primates but, as poor Franklin finds out in private after being exposed, does not work well with humans. Caesar and Rodman's paths cross again, of course, in the film's climax, as the apes turn the tables on their human overlords.

The main character of this film is, in a pleasant surprise, not human. It is the chimp, Caesar, who develops from infancy with the drug's effects making him rather human in a number of respects, but still definitely ape. Caesar is, of course, CGI, but he is based off the motion-capture work of Andy Serkis, known for playing Gollum in Lord of the Rings. Caesar is far and away the highlight of the film. Without saying a word, he conveys a phenomenal depth of emotion, sort of like the way a dog wears its heart on its sleeve. And yet, as I said, he also retains the core of an ape, which manifests itself in usually small but frightening bursts of anger and other instinct. Caesar is the movie.

Of course, there are human characters as well. The primary one is Dr. Rodman, played by Franco. He does a serviceable job in the role, and responds well to his CGI companion, but is also completely outshone by him. Lithgow as Rodman's father is the best human character, displaying the terrible horror that is Alzheimer's disease with respect while not holding anything back. Freida Pinto's character is essentially just a love interest for Rodman, making her a sub-subplot - really, if you'll pardon the expression, she's just here for eye candy. Other familiar faces include Brian Cox (Rushmore, X2) as the primate facility manager and Tom Felton (Malfoy from Potter) as his son. Felton hams it up a bit at times, but, of course, he's good at playing a slimy little villain.

What this film lacks in humor (it does have a little, though) compared to its blockbuster companions, it more than makes up for in heart. And of course, it still has action. Again, virtually everything revolves around Caesar here, and that's OK. For myself, I felt more and more sympathetic toward the chimp as the film went along, but there was always the lingering feeling in the back of my head that this is, after all, a wild animal, NOT a human. I think that this was a very important thing to do, and I'm impressed that a big blockbuster like this bothered to make the effort. (Of course, you could blame it on the mere fact that this is a prequel to Planet of the Apes after all, but it's only an added effect). The action is pretty good, nothing that will blow you away. But in doing so, it remains at least slightly realistic. The primary action piece deals with the Golden Gate bridge - hardly a unique set-up, but it is cleverly executed, and fully utilizes the apes' increased intelligence. On a final note, I don't really remember the score very well, but I don't think it was poor, just not memorable.

***

This was a good way to end the summer blockbuster season. I'm still deciding what I thought of the season as a whole, but this film certainly gave it a boost. The main theme for the film is surprise. The first is how deceptive the trailer's and ad campaign was for this - and I warn you I'm about to give a few more spoilers. Instead of the apes already turning evil and taking over, the whole point of the film's climax is for the apes to simply escape their human confinement. Symbolizing just how different a vibe the film has to its marketing, the apes in fact do their best not to kill any humans on their way to freedom (and as yet another twist, I feel that this fact was one of the little letdowns. I can see Caesar not wanting to hurt humans having grown up with them, but there was no reason the other apes should restrain themselves - other than keeping a PG-13 rating). END SPOILERS...

The next surprise was the very direct nature of the film, which, as I noted, seemed strange to me as most similar films like to drag out the mystery of the science a little. I guess they figured they'd have to pretty much give away that information in their marketing campaign anyway, so why hide it. And the final surprise was the focus on Caesar rather than any of the humans. It would have been SO easy for them to focus on Franco, his struggle with his father and his love for Pinto. But I'm so happy that they didn't - and it turned the film from a generic blockbuster into a summer standout. I highly recommend this one.

Movies: Cowboys & Aliens

Score: *** out of *****

Long Story Short: Cowboys & Aliens is a modestly entertaining summer film, most notably for, unsurprisingly, its two huge stars. Despite combining two dissimilar genres, the story proceeds in a pretty conventional manner, with few surprises. A good supporting cast helps, along with fun music and nice scenery, but it's not enough to make it one of the better films of the summer.

Well, this is likely to be my second-to-last review of the summer movie season (I'm hoping to still see Rise of the Planet of the Apes). It's been a full season, even by my busy movie-going standards. This one, Cowboys & Aliens, I had been looking forward to for some time since seeing the trailer. I mean, James Bond and Indiana Jones (the actors, at least) in one movie? Sign me up. The film was directed by Jon Favreau (Iron Man - as the poster proudly states). Let's get started.

Jumping right into things, the film starts with a random cowboy (Craig) who has awakened in the middle of the wild west. He is clearly not a normal cowboy, though, as A) he doesn't know who he is or how he got there, B) he has a strange metal "bracelet" on, and C) he totally kicks the butts of a group of wandering outlaws (a la... James Bond). The cowboy stumbles into a nearby town, where he humiliates the town head honcho's arrogant son, but is then arrested when the sheriff recognizes him as outlaw Jake Lonergan. Col. Dolarhyde (Ford) comes to get his son released from prison at night, but out of the blue the town is attacked by UFOs, which begin snatching people off the ground. Afterwards, Col. Dolarhyde rounds up a rescue team to search for their kidnapped townsfolk, but Jake goes off on his own to try to recall what's happened to him.

After Jake manages to recall his connection with the aliens, he rejoins Col. Dolarhydes group. They have tense encounters with both Jake's old gang of outlaws as well as Apache indians, but eventually combine with these groups as they hope to fight off their common enemy. The film culminates in a final battle with the aliens to free the abductees, while Jake and a mysterious woman from the town also explore their own strange connections. (I don't want to spoil any more, even surprises that aren't particularly well disguised).

There is a wealth of acting talent in this film, but sadly it does not quite live up to its potential. Let's start with Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford. They are both entertaining here, and I wouldn't describe their performances as "mailed-in" at all. But they have a bad script to work with. Basically, the writer seemed to be a little too enthused with the idea of teaming "James Bond" with "Indiana Jones" - despite the fact that in this movie they are cowboys, they really just play the roles they were made famous by, particularly Craig. I think both of the actors are talented enough to effectively pull off cowboy characters, but the writer just didn't give them a chance to do that. Ford's character is a little better, but here the problem is that the traits of his character (grumpy, sarcastic, tough, yet a family man) are exactly the same as Indiana Jones, particularly the latest installment from a few years ago.

The supporting cast has some highlights as well. Unfortunately, the female lead, played by Olivia Wilde, is quite bland and cliche despite (or because?) the script trying to a dual nature. Standouts include Doc (Sam Rockwell), a gun shy bar owner; Percy (Paul Dano), the cowardly son of Col. Dolarhyde; and Rev. Meacham (Clancy Brown). These characters add a little spice to the movie, although they lack significant screen time.

These movies, as I've noted before, require creative and/or tense action sequences, a good sense of humor, and a sense of concern for the fates of at least some of the characters. This film makes an attempt on each front, but doesn't excel at any of them. The initial UFO attack is unsettling and intriguing, yet the climactic battle is a little long and falls into convention and lacks suspense. There is some good humor, but the film could really have shifted into more of an action-comedy with little effort and seen substantial improvement for it; as it is, the supporting cast (esp. Rockwell and Dano) provides most of the laughs. Finally, there are sympathetic aspects to several characters, but we don't really get to know any of them well enough to get a great connection. On a final, more positive note, the film does benefit from both a very nice, sweeping score, as well as gorgeous scenery and cinematography.

***

Cowboys & Aliens is an entertaining film, but it falls more in the Pirates 4 category of fun than Captain America category. Ultimately, its worst sin is that it's an unimaginative mashup of two well-worn genres. The writers and director had plenty of creative space to work with, whether it was finding a clever way to combine the genres or taking the film's two huge stars out of their comfort zones. They could have even simply made it a silly movie with lots of comedy (perhaps Rush Hour-esque). What we get is passable filmmaking thanks to the strong presence of its stars, the effective supporting cast, and nice peripherals (music and visuals). But this movie should have made itself memorable, even if not as one of the strongest movies of its kind, at least for doing something particularly well or original. It doesn't, and I sadly can't really recommend it unless you are a big fan of Craig and/or Ford.

Movies: Captain America - The First Avenger

Score: ***1/2 out of *****

Long Story Short: Captain America: The First Avenger is a fun summer blockbuster; yes, it's another comic book movie, but it's a worthy addition, not a cash-in. The main strength of the film lies in its ensemble of heroes, from the very likable Steve (ie: Captain America), to love interest Peggy, to skeptical Col. Philips. Sadly, the villains aren't nearly as interesting, but it all comes together nicely in a throwback adventure with a good sense of humor - and a surprisingly good ending.

Yet another superhero movie! I like the genre quite a bit, but I must admit I had started to grow a little bit weary of them this summer (I've seen two of the others, and skipped the dreadfully-reviewed Green Lantern). However, this film looked pretty entertaining from the trailers, and seemed different enough to be interesting - fortunately, I was correct on both. So, Captain America: The First Avenger - a title which refers to, if you aren't already familiar, a group of superheroes called the Avengers (including Iron Man, Hulk, etc.) who will have their own movie next summer - was directed by Joe Johnston (Jumanji, Jurassic Park III). Let's get to it.

After a mysterious opener in present time, the movie quickly reverts to the central time period - 1940s - where a team of Nazis, led by officer Schmidt, invade a Norwegian town searching for an artifact. Back in the States, we meet a pair of friends: Steve, a short, scrawny guy desperate to enlist, and Sgt. "Bucky", who is already set to be deployed. During one of Steve's failed attempts to enlist he is noticed, however, by Dr. Erskine, who recruits Steve for to try out for a special operations unit. At the training facility, he meets the skeptical (to put it mildly) Col. Philips and the lovely but tough Peggy. Admiring Steve for his strength of character over body, Erskine selects him to be the subject of a radical experiment to transform him into a super soldier. However, an assassin from Schmidt's Nazi division - known as HYDRA - kills Erskine, and ends his own life when Steve finally catches him.

With Dr. Erskine gone, the skeptical Col. Philips puts Steve to work - as an actor in the States selling war bonds to fund the military. When Steve comes to attempt to give moral support to troops in the field, Peggy prods him that he was destined to do more for the war effort. Thus, Steve goes on a daring mission to rescue some POWs - including his friend Bucky - and meets Schmidt along the way. After his spectacular success, Col. Philips changes his plans and the war soon intensifies as Schmidt puts his evil plans into action. (No need for me to go further than that in specifics).

One of the reasons that I give this film a better score than Thor is the cast. There are a number of excellent casting choices, and they really do a nice job. This starts with Steve, played by Chris Evans (a superhero veteran from the Fantastic Four series), who is a classic young man of the era, eager to, in his words, "stop the bullies." He isn't as charismatic as Thor - and isn't supposed to be - but his heart, humility, and sense of humor quickly win you over (particularly pre-transformation). In short he is a perfect Captain for America in WWII. Hayley Atwell plays team member - and Steve's love interest - Peggy Carter. She displays her character's imperfections as effectively as her intriguing yet natural combination of loveliness and toughness. Tommy Lee Jones as Col. Philips is perfect; maybe I just haven't seen him in anything for a while, but his dry humor combined with his commanding presence steals just about every scene he is in. Finally, Hugo Weaving also seems a perfect choice as the brutal and insane Nazi officer Schmidt; but I think the script let him down. Weaving, as shown with Agent Smith in The Matrix, is perfectly capable of incredibly creepy menace, yet he doesn't get the screen time nor the right scenes to properly convey this. A disappointing missed opportunity.

The supporting cast also has some stand outs. Stanley Tucci plays Dr. Erskine, who sadly doesn't last long, with such a warmth that you can practically feel it - a perfect yet brief mentor for the discouraged pre-transformation Steve. Toby Jones (Karl Rove from W.) also does a nice job as Schmidt's assistant, a timid little guy with unexpected humor. In an interesting but unintrusive cross-pollination, Howard Stark (Iron Man's dad) is basically Q for Col. Philips' division, and Dominic Cooper gives it some spice. Steve's friend Bucky is pretty uninteresting, however; he mostly just provides a nice plot device.

Obviously, Captain America is pretty much an adventure movie. Thus, even if it's not the most important thing, the action sequences and special effects need to be pretty good to keep pace with the film's numerous competitors. I'd say this film does alright in those areas, but perhaps nothing to write home about (oops, I guess I'm writing about it in my blog). It doesn't help that the villains are pretty generic - and I was a little disappointed to find that the enemy foot soldiers were not Nazis but Schmidt's own special troops (perhaps there were political reasons). Still, it's pretty fun to watch Steve kick some butt as Captain America. And his abilities are not so over the top as his name might suggest, which is refreshing; he relies on creative use of his neat shield mostly. Sometimes (particularly when Steve pursues Erskine's assassin) the action seems deliberately '40s propaganda-esque, a unique touch. As I've mentioned before, there is some great humor in here, that fits the less ambiguous, good-guy-vs.-bad-guy feel (ie: not Nolan's Batman) of the film. One of the best examples of this is Steve's brief stint working for USO to sell war bonds. Everyone contributes to this humor (well, except Schmidt - another flaw of his character), particularly Steve and Col. Philips.

***

Captain America is far from a flawless film. The last third arguably dips somewhat in quality as the fun character interactions subside. Schmidt and his evil organization are perhaps a little too dull and cliche. However, the film has more than enough strengths to make up for these and create an overall enjoyable summer escape. There aren't necessarily a lot of original concepts here, but most of the pieces fit together nicely. It's a feel-good film that really gets you rooting for Steve, who was once picked on mercilessly, couldn't get a girl to even look at him, and couldn't even fight for his country. But Steve is not self-pitying, and so when he starts reaping the rewards of his hard work, you feel happy for him. As Captain America, he doesn't zap guys from a distance, he beats them up with his natural weapons - hands and feet - or uses his trademark tool, a shield, which is of course defensive in nature. Hence, the old-fashioned feel. So if you don't see it this summer, then I would recommend it as a rental/Netflix in the dark days of winter when some good fun adventure is just what you need. (A final note: I was very pleased by the ending, one I certainly was not expecting given its genre brethren, and gives the film a little more emotional weight and finality than it might otherwise have had).

Movies: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallow - Part 2

Score: ****1/2 out of *****

Long Story Short: At last, the Harry Potter adventure on film comes to a close, and this last entry gives it a grand conclusion. The Deathly Hallows - Part 2 has all the elements of a classic (well, except for maybe the clunky title): exciting, epic action built around the concluding adventures and realization of a rich set of characters in emotionally wrenching scenes. Just about everyone in the superb supporting cast is given their curtain call, too, in this magnificent film that reminds you what a true blockbuster is.

Perhaps one of the most anticipated films of all time, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 hit theaters with huge success, breaking the opening weekend box office record. I was among those who were very excited to see this final movie version of the outstandingly popular book series. This installment was directed once again by David Yates, who also directed the last three films. I've now seen it twice, actually, and am glad as my opinion of it has changed quite significantly with the second viewing. It's unlikely that we'll see many of the aspects of the Potter films occur anytime soon, such as watching the young actors portraying Harry, Ron, and Hermione grow up over ten years. So buckle up for the ride and enjoy it.

Those familiar with the books need no plot overview, but for those who aren't, here's a brief glimpse. Harry is back where he left off at the end of Part 1, at the seaside hideaway of the Order of the Phoenix (the group fighting bad guy Lord Voldemort). Here he makes a deal with a former (goblin) employee of the Gringotts wizard bank to break into the highly-secured facility to fetch another of Voldemort's horcruxes (long story short, horcruxes are magical items that need to be destroyed to kill Voldemort). Harry, Ron, and Hermione make their move, and get to the horcrux but face quite a mess trying to escape. After this event, Harry has a shared vision with Voldemort (the two have a magical connection) that lets Harry know that Hogwarts must be the next stop.

With Dumbledore's brother's help, a tavern owner in a nearby town, the trio sneaks into yet another heavily-defended facility - their old school. Unfortunately, word gets out that Harry has returned, making it a race against the clock for Harry to find the horcrux hidden in Hogwarts before the Death Eaters (Voldemort's followers) storm the school. Don't worry, though, it's not quite that simple: there are still two horcruxes left, and the true character of many players, both good and bad, come through in unexpected ways. Battle rages and emotion pours out like never before by the end of the climactic conclusion to Harry's grand adventure.

One of the most astonishing things about seeing the Potter films from 2001 to 2011 is the aging, maturation and evolution of Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Emma Watson (Hermione), and Rupert Grint (Ron). They have steadily grown more confident in their roles and really helped flesh out their characters - which is the heart of the entire series - quite well. By this last installment, Radcliffe gives a great, restrained performance. I can imagine it would be easy for his ego to balloon and make him exaggerate every line and expression. But he makes it all look very natural, humble, and sometimes pained as his character's experience should reflect. Watson has admirably made Hermione into a strong character who can both give her friends unequivocal support and display great courage in the face of real fear. And Grint has perfected his body language, while making the most of his few lines; he has a great sense of humor, and is Harry's true friend - competitive at times yet completely loyal. The actors have become so intertwined with their characters that it will be difficult to see them as anyone except Harry, Ron and Hermione, but what they have accomplished is quite a triumph.

The secondary cast is, as usual in the Potter films, excellent. Ralph Fiennes gets more screen time than before as Lord Voldemort, and he uses it very well to portray a cruel, slimy, yet in some ways pitiable villain. My only complaint is that he doesn't come off as intimidating as his character perhaps should. Michael Gambon gets just a little time as Dumbledore, but arguably he does his finest work yet as the clever old wizard. Alan Rickman gets to show off in a small segment of the film devoted to his character, and he really shines in his role as one of the series' most complex and interesting characters. Helena Bonham Carter is still perfect as Bellatrix Lestrange, and does a particularly nice job when her character's polar opposite, Hermione, is disguised in her body. Many minor characters get brief send-offs, such as perfectly-cast Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid, John Hurt as wandmaker Ollivander, and Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall. The only performance I was not a fan of was Matthew Lewis as Neville - but part of this is probably just my slight distaste for his transformation in the source material itself.

Certain that the movie was bound to make obscene profits, Warner Brothers let the filmmakers go for it in the special effects department. However, that's not to say that the whole thing is just one big action movie. But it does mean that there are a number of set pieces and effects that are quite fun. From the robbery at Gringotts to the Battle of Hogwarts, they spared no expense in creating a visually enthralling film. Interestingly, I might add that while the Room of Requirements scene had spectacular fire effects, I thought that it looked kind of odd when they got on brooms; the rest of the film is so well done that the mistake here is noticeable. There is a little bit of humor here, and when used it's effective, but there isn't a lot of room for it. Instead, we are provided with some of the most emotionally poignant scenes in the series - particularly for Potter fans, of course. I give Yates a lot of credit for really focusing on maximizing the impact while not going overboard at all. These included moments of both sadness (especially the Pensieve scene and Harry's "reunion" in the forest), as well as those of triumph or happiness - from Harry's return to Hogwarts, to *SPOILER!!!!!!!!!! (highlight to read)* his leaping from Hagrid's arms when supposedly dead. *END SPOILER*

***

The first time that I saw this film, I thought it was very good - but wasn't overly impressed. I think part of the reason is that I am such a huge fan of the books that I unconsciously compare how I feel particular scenes or characters should be done to the way they are shown on screen. But before sitting down for the second viewing, I tried to put myself in the mindset of the previous films, their style of storytelling, and it worked. Thus, I've given HP-DH Part 2 four and a half stars for the moment - and this may be upgraded to five stars someday, in other words, a classic. But a film has to stand up to multiple viewings over time for that status, so I'll withhold it for now.

The huge popularity of the Harry Potter series has combined with its long development time, from the beginning of the phenomenon in the late '90s to the last film in 2011, to create a special situation. As I mentioned, there are the young actors who spent literally half of their lives portraying the now-legendary young trio. But there are also millions of fans of all ages and backgrounds who came to know those characters and the world they inhabited so well that they became more special than just any ordinary fictional elements. Perhaps that's why I and others have sometimes had mixed feelings about the film adaptations, which are great in many ways (many casting decisions - Snape, Hagrid, McGonagall, etc. - informed my own mental images of the characters as I read the books), yet can't quite reach the magical status that the books achieved. Still, the films captured a certain vision of the series that had more than its share of special moments, and it is worthy of its mission to put the adventures of Harry Potter and his friends on screen.