DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES; Carlisle's Final Word

"War has... already begun. Ape started war. And human... Human will not forgive." 

Caeser

What did I learn watching this film? Never piss off an ape.

Synopsis:

In the years following their escape across the San Francisco bridge, Cesare and his intelligence-enhanced tribe are living peacefully in the forests, almost oblivious to the complete collapse of mankind by a deadly virus. That is, till a small group of human survivors accidentally wander into their territory. What follows from this tense encounter is an unlikely yet shaky alliance, as both sides strive to better their lives, but old hatreds die-hard and tragedy looms on the horizon, threatening to lead both man and ape into a bloody conflict...




Script: 1/2

The script is solid by any standards, with a small-scale focus and intimate drama rarely seen in Blockbuster fodder. Cesare’s character arc is the most effecting (he is, after all, the lead), and it's the primates who are given the most to do on screen. Despite the fact the titular primates do more than carry the film, more effort could have been put into fleshing-out some of the human characters. During the more human-centered elements the film is at its weakest; story arcs and character motivations aren’t so well defined, meaning that the film's nail-biting climax, while very dramatic from the point of view of the apes, lacks punch while resolving the human character's journeys.


Pace: 1/2

Never a dull moment. The story appears to take it’s time and build suspense while simultaneously rushing at break-neck speeds to its inevitable and tragic conclusion. And even though it’s clear from the outset that man and ape will know no peace, audiences will still find themselves engrossed to uncover the reasons for this bloodshed, and captivated by the heroism and betrayal on both sides of the species divide. However, that same script flaw also costs the film a further mark here- while the pace may work in favor of the apes, it still leaves the humans with little time to become fully rounded characters...


Acting: 2/2

No weak links here, believe me. I mean, has motion capture ever been so captivating? Never. But leaving aside the incredible facial performances of the apes (as played by the always incredible Andy Serkis and co), even the less developed humans, as played by veteran Gary Oldman, and the lesser-known but equably reliable Jason Clarke and Keri Russel, convey a desperate and anguished realism: they all have the look of people who have seen terrible things, and lost something inside during the process of survival.


Aesthetic: 2/2

One of the film's many triumphs (and possibly its biggest talking point) is the superb special effects. While they don’t quite manage to cross the 'uncanny valley', like many knee-jerk critics claim, they do represent a big step in the right direction, and this is a far more significant breakthrough than claimed by the overhyped Avatar. While most of the CGI seen in films is distracting at best, on this occasion you'll soon forget that what you're watching are a bunch of CGI primates; instead, you’ll find yourself completely captivated by the realism and subtleties of their performances and character arcs.

One very minor gripe, I personally found the score distracting (all percussion drums and awkward pauses before the beats). While I do understand this is a conscious call-back to the original Planet of the Apes films, I did found myself being “taken out” of the action. But like I said, it’s very a minor gripe.


Intention: 2/2

The first Planet of the Apes reboot / prequel was a pleasant surprise- a blockbuster with both invention and heart, but this, the second in the new run, is a superior film in all respects, and technically and dramatically better than most summer fodder.




Final Score: 8/10

Serious-minded, affecting, heartrending and exhilarating- a film that actually does more than live up to the hype; I hope the series continues in the same vein, although this has certainly set the bench mark staggeringly high.

HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN; Carlisle's Final Word

"There's something else about bears not many people know. If a bear gets hooked on the taste of human blood, it becomes a man-killer. He'll go on a rampage and has to be destroyed. And that's why you should never hug a bear. " 

Hobo

Rutger Hauer, you deserve so much better than this...

Synopsis:

A nameless drifter wonders into the city, hoping for a fresh start, only to realise he’s literally entered the most corrupt, sinister and lawless inner-city war-zone this side of Bosnia. As he witnesses with growing despair the violence all around him, he finds himself compelled to act for the greater good of the city’s many victims, arming himself with a double barreled shotgun, and dispensing some bloody civic-minded justice. Along the way he finds time to bond with beautiful-hooker-with-a-heart Abby, before finally squaring-off against the city’s all-powerful, untouchable criminal overlord "The Drake".


Script: 0/2

Not that the script was ever intended to be more than an excuse for  stringing together as much gratuitous gore and shocking violence as possible, even by the most forgiving standards, the script is terrible. Worse than terrible. Fucking useless. Plot holes (even if you’re trying your hardest to overlook them) litter the run-time, patchy ideas are never fully developed, awful (heinous, actually) dialogue undermines the story at every turn, and there is sweet F.A in terms of character development- outside of what ‘old pro’ Rutger Hauer manages to bring to his titular role.


Pace: 0/2

Despite its many faults, at least it rattles along at a fast pace. However, at a relatively brisk 90 minutes the film still feels stretched and, unforgivably, dull. As a 3 minute joke-trailer, the idea had probably run its course, so you can see there could be some issue with the remaining 87 minutes… It put me in mind of all the ‘dead baby’ jokes I heard as a young teenager- because, I’ll freely admit, sometimes shocking people is quite satisfying (although it’s much funnier if you can also make them think, too!), but those old jokes only worked (if they ever worked at all, which is debatable) because they were short and sharp.


Acting: 0/2

The acting (if you can call it that) should be scored in the negatives, but genre veteran Rutger Hauer somehow transcends the material, rising above the limp scenarios and risible lines of the script to deliver a gravitas and pathos that almost (almost!) makes the film worth catching. He offers something raw and real amongst all the surreal chaos and you’re left wishing bitterly that the film had tackled its subject in a way that showcased his talents in a better light- because, believe it or not, there is a germ of a good idea buried in this rancid shit-stain of a film.
So, does Rutger’s performance somehow counterbalance the shockingly amateur acting offered up by the rest of the cast? Sadly no, not by a long way...


Aesthetic: 1/2

Rating the film in terms of an aesthetic is a tad difficult in this respect. It’s garish and rough-edged, but intentionally so- and if anything it actually looks cheaper than its meager budget. But, having said that, the gore is elaborately handled, and the film does more to recreate its sensibility to time-and-place than simply adding grain and poor focus to some of the shots- even the framing and colour pallet echo the ‘grindhouse’ style, and perhaps in this respect alone, Hobo’s creators deserve some praise, and this mess of a film comes closest to any high-minded pretensions.


Intention: 0/2

Half way through the film, I was struck with a single thought, and once it hit me I was unable to shake it from my mind: “why am I still watching this?” I mean, what is the point of this film, why does it even exist? Is it funny? No. Is it poignant? No. Does it have something to say? No. Beyond offering up shocks, is it of any other value? No. When the controversy dies down (particularly in regard to its censor-bating "school bus flamethrower" scene), will anybody remember it? I doubt it. So, in answer to my own question, I think I only finished watching this film for Rutger Hauer...

It’s not enough to simply ‘be grindhouse', you need to subvert it, or bring something different to the table. 1000’s of films like this have faded into obscurity because (crucially) they were crap. The films that people recall affectionately from this period of cinema history did something more than simply delivering the expected excess and shocks of the genre.


Final Score: 1/10

Kudos where kudos is due; as a 3 minute trailer on the Grindhouse film, Hobo With a Shotgun was pretty funny, in a base sort of way, but at feature-length the joke is pretty thinly spread. At best, Hobo with a Shotgun can be considered a 90 minute ‘dead baby’ joke, and at worst it’s a disturbing harbinger of cinemageddon and a worrying indictment of humanity.


Final Word:

I’ve made a small exception to my usual scoring rules; if you neither care or know who Rutger Hauer is, consider this a neon-flashing 1/10 rating, but if, like me, you respect Rutger Hauer and enjoy his work enough you would consider watching anything, no matter how cheap or awful it is, simply because he’s in it, consider this film a 2/10… The man deserves so much better than this.

"A long time ago I was one of you. You're all brand new and perfect. No mistakes, no regrets. People look at you and think of how wonderful your future will be. They want you to be something special... like a... a doctor or a lawyer. I hate to tell you this, but if you grow up here, you're more likely to wind up selling your bodies on the streets, or shooting dope from dirty needles in a bus stop. And if you're successful, you'll make money selling junk to crackheads. And you won't think twice about killing someone's wife, because you won't even know what was wrong in the first place. Or, maybe... you'll end up like me - a hobo with a shotgun! I hope you can do better. You are the future." 

Hobo.