Rise of the Planet of the Apes - % % %

The joy of watching a gorilla attack a helicopter makes up for many of the unfortunate missteps of this prequel to the 1968 original, 'Planet of the Apes'. This film will still be enjoyable for those who aren't familiar with the original, but there are numerous hints and lines referencing it which will seem odd and out of place in this new film.

The Rise imagines how the Earth may come to fall into the hands of super intelligent chimps and gorillas through animal testing. It does make an interesting argument that, as Frida Pinto's superfluous character repeatedly makes, one can't or shouldn't control everything. And yet, this is a profoundly anti-science argument that none of us can accept because obviously we all benefit from immunizations and cell phones and so on. Rather than treating this film as a philosophical equal, it's best to discus it as nifty fantasy made possible by CGI.

And while this film is made possible by remarkable CGI, it isn't made good by it. I never once forgot that the chimp, Cesar, adopted and experimented on by scientist, James Franco, was CGI and I never really felt that much for him. As he enters his adolescence, he stops being cute and becomes sullen and grumpy, not helping me to empathize with the character. It's an interesting coming-of-age story and a father-son drama, but these fall apart upon closer examination.

Franco's character raises this ape from infancy, but doesn't quite seem to fully embrace the fathering role he claims. It made me confused at times when he was able to walk away from his son so easily, and to me this is the main problem with the resolution of the film.

But the plot is interesting and Cesar's road to adult independence is very well crafted. Kudos to the several listed screenwriters, the team that brought us 'The Hand That Rocks the Cradle'.

Basically this film is carried by the awesomeness of a bunch of monkeys kicking ass. They smash up several buildings and take over a San Francisco street, tearing up parking meters and hurling them through cop cars. And then they ***SPOILER ALERT*** move to the climax on the Golden Gate Bridge, which is pretty awesome. Like I said, a gorilla attacks a helicopter. It's fantastic and super cool. ***

Aside from that, the characters aren't engaging, the plot is interesting and then it's over. Sure, I'm maybe rethinking how the animals are sourced for testing and certainly may make a donation to a chimp sanctuary, but I'm not willing to go back to a world rampant with polio because of this movie. It doesn't really engage enough.

***SPOILER ALERT***The director pulls so many punches, having the apes spare human lives over and over again, although certainly some people were killed when they charged the police line on the bridge, but also with Franco. It's the director's choice to keep his character from having a greater emotional bond with Cesar. Franco's father dies in his arms and he remains stoic. My father broke down repeatedly the day his mother died and he's hardly a warm and fuzzy guy. It's terrible for a parent to die and it's also incredibly painful to say goodbye to a child, let alone to leave them in a prison or in a forest as they move to reclaim the planet. It's emotional, but Franco plays it strong and it just feels like a lost opportunity. ***

This film is interesting because of the very rational fear that all humans have of very strong animals. We are only in our position in the food chain because of our ingenuity and linguistic skills. We would very quickly be defeated by a stronger species if they ever gained such abilities. It'd be an amazing site to behold, too. And that's the only reason this film gets three %s rather than the two it otherwise would deserve. It's a good premise and the plot is well executed, but the characters are weak and the direction waters down the drama and excitement too often to keep it from being truly terrifying. Too bad. The end of human domination of the planet should be scary. Petrifying, in fact. Instead it's just kinda nifty. Too bad, indeed.

Tangled - %

Disney's 50th Animated Feature is major tragedy. The animation quality aside, the film epitomizes all that is generic and shallow about the current studio. The plot is acceptable but the characters are cloying and obnoxious. The dialogue is some of the worst attempts at humor I've perhaps ever seen. Ever.

The central 'prince charming' is repulsive. In theory, through getting to know the princess, Flynn sheds his macho, smarmy charm and accepts his real self. We barely see any evidence of his sincere self and the oily, sociopath that he starts out as is so excessive and nauseating that it is impossible to shake through the weak resolution. It's not enough that he admits his real name is Eugene. It's not enough that he is willing to die in order to break the spell trapping his princess. It's a good turn, but the first guy we meet is so gross that there's little to engage the audience into caring about him.

The princess Rapunzel is pretty vacant and has very little personality. She's spunky in defending herself, but perhaps it's just naivety, really. She likes to paint and her best friend is a chameleon. That's it. Her naivety supposedly charms a bar full of medieval thugs in a hot second. It doesn't make sense, although it does set up the only good sequence in the film, a musical number about the dreams of ogre-like ruffians, including an odd little old man in his underwear dressed like cupid. That's so weird that it's wonderful.

And Pascal, the chameleon, is cute for sure. But how on earth does a chameleon end up in a tower in the middle of somewhere in Europe?

According to wikipedia, there are chameleons in Spain, so is this film set in Spain. It sure doesn't look like it at all. France or Germany perhaps. As opposed to a film like 'Princess and the Frog', with its embrace of a particular culture and time, 'Tangled' is a mish-mosh of fairy tale ahistorical associations. It's so vague as to be un-engaging and generic.

And the villain is the woman who kidnapped Rapunzel at an early age and raised her as her own, played by the talented, Tony-award winning, Donna Murphy.

Even though we, as the audience, know this, it's hard to want Rapunzel to hate the only person she's ever known and to want her to hate the woman she calls mother. It's too complicated psychologically for such shallow fare. And how is someone who has lived her entire life alone in a tower with three books, one window, and a chameleon so socially capable? It's an impossible leap of faith for any adult. The original Grimms Fairy Tale is dark and tortured, allowing for such leaps of faith, whereas a chipper Disney film just can't support such psychological murkiness or fantastical flights of fancy.

The animation is very impressive. The textures of fabrics and natural items like trees and leaves is very true to life. But this makes the slapstick violence and absurd physics of, for example, a man flying over a castle wall and landing on the saddle of a horse without injury too much to bear. There are just so many ridiculous slapstick head-bonks with a cast iron skillet and crotch kicks and leaping and landing without injury that I became irritated with the physical absurdity.

There is a whole sequence in which Rapunzel tries to shove the unconscious body of Flynn into a wardrobe but his floppy body keeps falling out, often on his face. He's unconscious because she's hit him in the head twice with a cast-iron skillet. Yeah. That's hilarious. I love Warner Bros. cartoons of Wile E. Coyote falling off cliffs, but the set up of emotionally connecting with the characters prevents me from giggling when they are tortured. The story doesn't need such stupidity and if these are meant to reinforce the fantastical setting, in reality they serve to push the audience out of the film with their absurdity.

It's a wreck and I sure hope no child develops their ideas of beauty, love or romance from such a crummy, poorly executed film. Bleck.