DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES

On the silver screen: ‘Dawn of the Planet of the Apes’ is the best movie this summer

Thursday July 24, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

It’s all about trust. That’s not a bad value to dramatize. Who would think that a multitude of apes could deliver such a noble message? Well, when handled by a score of super-talented film makers – message received.

“Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” has got to be the best in its current franchise. Acted and directed with skill and unending craft, this movie brings a ridiculous story to believability. What a great adventure and what great lessons to be learned. Along with trust, we are served generous portions of loyalty, family, cooperation and, of course, love.

In the wake of a global sweeping virus that decimated most of humanity, a pack of survivors come across a population of apes quickly evolving toward human traits, i.e. speech and motor abilities. In the devastating ruins of San Francisco, this troop of humans, led by Malcolm (Jason Clarke), work tirelessly to restore power to the city and begin the business of rebuilding humankind. The apes, mistrusting humans and their guns, want to destroy them and own the world in peace and harmony. Caesar (Andy Serkis), the appropriately named head ape, has a particular affinity toward human beings which was established in “Rise of the Planet of the Apes.” Here’s where issues of trust and peaceful coexistence butt heads with the killer factions of apes and the humans who want an all-out war that will determine only one victor. They are not eager for compromise. They will never trust one another. The world can only belong to one species – humans or apes. War is inevitable, or is it?

Caesar has a past that includes favorable memories of his life with humans. This is his conflict – how to trust these desperate human survivors and help them rebuild their world. Where, then, does that leave the apes? Will humankind make the same mistakes – destroy the world again and the ape population along with it?

Although this is a sequel, one need not see “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” to thoroughly enjoy this fantastic movie. I did not see it and never felt out of it. I do plan on renting it solely on the merits of “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.” It’s that good.

Serkis as Caesar is very good. Considering the realistic makeup, use of puppetry and the process of “motion capture,” he manages to give an unusual and amazingly subtle performance. In fact, all the lead apes are extraordinary, as is the makeup design. You will have no trouble distinguishing one ape from the other. Standouts are Toby Kebbell as Koba, Nick Thurston as Blue Eyes and Karin Konoval as Maurice. On the human side, Jason Clarke as human head honcho has a monopoly on compassion. I haven’t seen such a caring face since Schindler. I’d trust him with my dog – no questions asked. His face would be enough. Equally human, in all the right ways, is Kerri Russell as Ellie, a loving and nurturing soul. The bad humans are well played by Kirk Acevedo, the obligatory hothead, and Gary Oldman – is he ever good?

Matt Reeves directs with a sturdy vision. This is Reeves’ first major film as director. I am happy to report he will direct the next Planet of the Apes movie, as well.

An important element to the success of “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” is the score. Composed by Michael Giacchino, the music does what a film score should do – compel and supply tension – manipulate the audience into understanding purely through emotion. The fringe benefit of a Giacchino soundtrack, as always, is its sheer beauty. There is also a strange beauty in the visuals. The ruins of the city, the forest and the interiors blend cohesively into a realistic setting. Special effects are phenomenal, especially the use of “motion capture” and seamless CGI.

“Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” now moves to the top of my summer movies list as great entertainment with the added feature of great lessons to be learned. But don’t tell the kids that. You wouldn’t want to discourage them from enjoying this thrilling movie by saying, “It’s good for you.”

“Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” is in theaters

http://www.thesunnews.net/scene/527-On_the_silver_screen_'Dawn_of_the_Planet_of_the_Apes_is_the_best_movie_this_summer.html

Jersey Boys

On the silver screen: ‘Jersey Boys:’ Not a musical, but a good time


Wednesday July 9, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa | News



When “Jersey Boys” opened on Broadway eight years ago, it was promoted as a musical. It is not a musical. “Jersey Boys” is still running on the Broadway stage, to great success. It is still being promoted as a musical. The perception by all who intend to see it on the boards, whether on Broadway or its national tour, is that it is a musical. It is not a musical. It is a play with music. Now it is a film with music – lots of music but it is not a musical.


Directed by Clint Eastwood, “Jersey Boys” the movie, is a very effective drama about the rise and fall and rise again of Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons. Yes, there are plenty of songs to be heard in this entertaining biopic. But there also is plenty of drama. It really gets heavy, in the second half of the film. The sparks fly as the cast delightfully chew the scenery. It is great fun to watch.
“Jersey Boys” is, in many ways, an old-fashioned movie about entertainers. You can see something like this almost every night on television’s TCM channel. It is very much a formula script, with all the cliché’s kept intact. There’s the expected feuding and fighting among the band members, the usual domestic quarrels with the wife and the guilt at neglecting the children, due to career demands. It is all on hand, masterfully acted and directed, resulting in a swell time at the movies.
And then there’s the music — all the hits from “Sherry” to “Big Girls Don’t Cry” to the show-stopping “Can’t Take My Eyes Off You.”


It is performed by the very talented cast - no dubbing or lip-synching to the original group. Repeating his Tony award-winning performance as Frankie Valli, John Lloyd Young is simply wonderful. However, Vincent Piazza as Tommy DeVito, the band member who is most responsible for creating the Four Seasons, almost walks off with the movie. He gives a star-making performance! Also exceptional are the other two band members; Erich Bergen, as composer Bob Gaudio and Nick Massi, as Mike Lomenda, the unhappy bass singer who just wants to live a normal life.
The movie moves along briskly. Despite its show biz cliché’s, “Jersey Boys” has some surprising elements, regarding a very sad chapter in Valli’s life. This sad turn only enriches the drama and adds credence to the story. Adding even more credibility to “Jersey Boys” are Frankie Valli and Bob Gaudio as producers.


Whether or not you are a fan of The Four Seasons, “Jersey Boys” will entertain. With a sharp script by veteran screenwriter Marshall Brickman, amusing supporting performances by Christopher Walken and Mike Doyle, “Jersey Boys” delivers a solid entertainment.
A fun tidbit for baby boomers: Barry Livingston of “My Three Sons” fame appears briefly yet substantially in two highly charged scenes. No longer little Ernie, see if you recognize him.


Jersey Boys” is currently in theaters.



http://www.thesunnews.net/news/917-On_the_silver_screen_'Jersey_Boys_Not_a_musical,_but_a_good_time.html

Chef

On the Silver Screen: ‘Chef’ is delectable

Thursday July 3, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

There is a whole genre of movies known affectionately as “foodie films.” Movies Like “Water for Chocolate,” “Eat Pray Love,” Babette’s Feast” and “Eat Drink Man Woman” use food as a metaphor, yet engage our senses in the most basic and delightful ways. “Chef” joins that pantheon of “foodie films.” Like its predecessors, “Chef” sent me out of the theater craving something to eat. In this particular case, a Cuban sandwich or cubano.

I will add “Chef” to another category known as the “likable” movie. It can be on the same list as “About A Boy,” “ET,” “Driving Miss Daisy,” “On Golden Pond” and the like. These films have an irresistible quality and a certain authenticity of human emotion that compels us to look favorably upon them. I look very favorably upon “Chef.”

This is a smart, sweet and nice film about nice people wanting happiness through honest endeavor and true merit. It is also a very funny movie, written, directed and starring Jon Favreau in the most surprising performance of the year so far.

Favreau plays a chef in an upscale restaurant. As a chef, he has gained a fair amount of fame and praise from Los Angeles’ most renown food critic, played by the always spot-on Oliver Platt. After 5 years of praise, the food critic revisits the restaurant to reassess the chef’s culinary skills, with hopes that his favorite chef is still pushing the envelope.

What stands in the way is the eatery’s owner, marvelously played by Dustin Hoffman in a sensational cameo. Seems he subscribes to the belief “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Chef however wants to “fix it.” What ensues after this set up is unpredictable, funny, surprisingly dramatic and heartwarming.

Yes, it is a feel-good movie, but of the highest caliber. Not corny, not pandering, just a lovely slice of humanity. Thrown in is a healthy dose of commentary on social media that is wisely stated and completely convincing. And there’s the food – ah, the food – mouthwateringly convincing, as well.

“Chef” starts out as a situation comedy, then transitions into being a road movie, then transitions again into a humorous study of familial love and ends with a rather inevitable climax that we the audience see coming but are thankful that we were right.

The cast is pitch perfect. Sofia Vergara shows a soft, lovely side we never get to see on “Modern Family.” John Leguizamo effortlessly portrays Favreau’s sidekick with nary a false note. Emjay Anthony as the chef’s young son is in a word - remarkable. My only quibble is that Robert Downey Jr.’s character is written so out of sync with the rest of this sweet-natured film. Acted out of sync as well, it is a brief vulgar bump in an essentially fine comedy of heart and quiet triumph.

As for Jon Favreau, he is simply great. As a writer, director and especially actor, I feel Favreau has finally come of age, as an artist. His talent has matured considerably. He may just be on an upward trend of filmmaking, giving us a body of work that could approach the likes of such auteurs as Woody Allen and Mel Brooks. Whatever the case, “Chef” stands on its own as an original work of quality that will delight and amuse all who choose to see it.

Take a break from the summer superheroes and enjoy a fine comedy about a super chef that is superhuman. “Chef” is currently in theaters.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

‘X-Men’ is the perfect summer movie

Thursday June 12, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

HAMBURG — Of all the super hero franchises, the X-Men series is the most satisfying. This very entertaining series is more fun than the proverbial barrel of monkeys. “X-Men: Days of Future Past” is the sixth film continuing the mutants’ fight for equality in a distrusting world.

As in the five films before it, the mutants, good and some bad, bring their individual powers to bear down once again on a mutant-phobic society. That’s when the fun begins and never lets up. From the great Wolverine to the wildly fascinating Mystique, we are treated to various acts of revenge and justification. Getting even – that’s the ticket.

Wolverine is sent back to 1973, to alter history in an attempt to prevent the implementation of a scheme to wipe out the entire mutant population. It may even bring down all of humanity, if allowed to happen. Giant robots were created to detect and hunt down mutants, including humans who are friendly to the mutants, and render them extinct. These robots, called Sentinels, were built in 1973 but now, decades later pose a threat to all humanity. Professor Xavier, with the help of Kitty Pryde and her special powers, sends Wolverine back in time to change things.

Again, more fun, as we are treated to all things ‘70s such as waterbeds, lava lamps, music of the era and even Richard Nixon. It’s wild but made credible by great plotting, acting, special effects and a darn good script. This is how you do a sci-fi movie. You create an outrageous world and make us believe. And believe, we do.

Hugh Jackman is back as Wolverine. Looking a bit weathered and weary, Jackman is perfect. Also returning in the roles they created are Patrick Stewart, Ian McClellan, Halle Berry, Jennifer Lawrence, Ellen Page, Anna Paquin, James McAvoy and the great Michael Fassbender, among so many others. The integrity of the X-Men series is gratefully kept intact. Additional casting brings in the wonderful Peter Dinklage in a villainous role. Frankly, the whole cast is wonderful. I especially like Lawrence as Mystique and Evan Peters as Quicksilver.

All of these characters and all of their intriguing powers make “X-Men: Days of Future Past” the perfect summer movie for everyone – children and adults included.

Bryan Singer, as producer on this as well as previous X-Men movies, adds director to his duties. He is a splendid director and word is he will direct the next X-Men, set to hit theaters in 2016. It’s entitled “X-Men: Apocalypse.”

“X-Men: Days of Future Past” is available in 3-D. Let me say, not since “Life of Pi” has 3-D been used so well. Remarkable visuals of depth and texture enhance the experience to the highest level.

However you decide to see it, don’t miss this latest episode in the saga of lovable mutants who just want to be allowed the freedom to pursue a happy life. We can all relate to that.

“X-Men: Days of Future Past” is currently in theaters.

http://www.thesunnews.net/scene/988-X-Men_is_the_perfect_summer_movie.html 

Godzilla 2014

New ‘Godzilla’ is scary-bad

Monday June 2, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

HAMBURG — It’s that time of year when we are inundated with super hero and monster blockbuster movies. Godzilla has arrived – once again. There just may be more Godzilla movies than any other movie remakes and sequels, combined. You’d think with all the attempts they’d finally get it right. I am sad to say this is not the case.

“Godzilla” (2014) has all the hardware, all the special effects, all the required action one should expect with today’s phenomenal movie technology. It’s even in 3-D! What it doesn’t have is a worthwhile story.

A movie like “Godzilla” must provide thrills. That’s why we go to films of this genre. We are not going for a message or a life lesson. We are going to scream, to have a few laughs, to ride the roller coaster, if you will. This latest “Godzilla” is a big bore. Our monster doesn’t make his entrance until an hour into the film and he is upstaged by two other monsters stalking Tokyo, Las Vegas and San Francisco. I’m still shaking my head in disbelief over this geographical plotting. Ah well, it isn’t Shakespeare. It’s Godzilla. OK, but must it be this stupid?

The other monsters wreaking havoc in “Godzilla” are termed “Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism” or MUTO, as they are referred to throughout the movie for economy. There are two MUTO. The MUTO eat energy, especially radiation, but they also eat nuclear waste. So, why are they the bad guys? According to the film’s logic, they are. So, Godzilla shows up to battle them and restore nature’s balance. He shows up to save mankind by wiping out the MUTO. And that’s the problem with this film. Godzilla is not scary enough because he’s just so darn good and politically correct. He’s also not very scary looking. He’s just big – very big and featureless.

As for the acting: Bryan Cranston turns in a surprisingly bad scenery chewing performance. Juliette Binoche, a great actress, is wasted. Ken Watanabe seems to possess one expression – pained. Aaron Taylor-Johnson, as the lead character in “Godzilla,” is as weak as a wet noodle.

The plot deals with cliché elements such as government secrets, one lone man knowing the truth that no one will believe and the usual destruction of major cities. The outcome is predictable and I, for one, am left with the nagging question: how will they rebuild the destroyed cities?

The film is darkly lit, which adds to the confusion. Godzilla is one of those films where we find ourselves asking “What’s going on?”

What’s going on is a gray muddle of noise, a plodding and ponderous movement of dull visuals and a directorial failure to build suspense and interest. I kept thinking during the first hour of the movie, “Where’s Godzilla? I bet when he finally appears this movie will get better.” Believe me; I wanted it to get better. I wanted to like “Godzilla”.

I still do like Godzilla, the monster. I just don’t like “Godzilla”, the movie.



“Godzilla”(2014) is currently in theaters.


http://www.thesunnews.net/news/957-New_'Godzilla_is_scary-bad.html

The Amazing Spider-man 2

‘Spider-man 2,’Most Thrilling Film This Year

                                               

                                               

 Friday May 23, 2014 | By: Tony Baksa |

Peter Parker/Spiderman is the Marlon Brando of superheroes. Brilliantly acted by Andrew Garfield, Spiderman inhabits a substantial world of angst. Like any well-written character Brando has ever portrayed, Garfield brings an amazing reality to Spiderman. Within this comic book adventure is a touching love story that is the glue that holds this movie together. For those lo...oking for high adventure and sweeping special effects, not to worry. It’s all there to be savored. But what elevates “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is its humanity.

We are given three young characters – all with father issues. They are all so appealing and likeable, even the semi-villain Harry/Green Goblin. Dane Dehaan’s debut as Harry lights up the screen with originality and a compelling pathos. Equally compelling is Emma Stone as Gwen, the object of Spidey’s affection. This trio of young actors interacts with great chemistry. They will make you care, very much so. They feel deeply. They love fully. And they live the adventure.

This film is far superior to its predecessor. The first Spiderman with Garfield was very good. This follow up is great! With kinetic direction by Marc Webb and a smart screenplay by a team of writers led by Alex Kurtzman, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is the most thrilling movie of the year.

The film opens with a flashback showing Peter’s parents and their supposed fate. This bit of exposition will figure in to the plot later. We then are brought into the present. Peter is enjoying his alter ego’s crime-fighting but is unhappy, due to his promise to Gwen’s dying father to stay away from her – for her own good, he pleaded. Well, how can one break a promise to a dying man? This is Peter’s main conflict throughout the film. Staying away from Gwen is an impossible feat for Peter. Keeping away from Peter is equally impossible for Gwen.

Along the way, we meet new opponents for our beloved crime-fighter. Jamie Foxx turns in a fine performance as a good man who is transformed into a monster – namely Electro. He becomes a very formidable nemesis to Spiderman. The maniacal Rhino, played by an unrecognizable Paul Giamatti, fills the screen with terror and perhaps a small snicker of delight.

Yet, with all the battles and fireworks, at the very heart of this movie is the towering love story – beautiful and sad. For fans of the Spiderman saga, there is a shocking development to grapple with. I am still grappling with it. Frankly, I was stunned.

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is a uniquely balanced film – love, betrayal, adventure, comedy and thrills – thrills and chills galore. Perhaps the movie should have been called “The Thrilling Spiderman 2.” Peter Parker inhabits a world we care about. For all the superhero trappings, this movie is not flighty – pardon the pun. It is a rich narrative – fully satisfying especially because Peter Parker has promises to keep.

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is in theaters.

‘Spider-man 2,’ most thrilling film this year | Scene |News Classifieds Events | thesunnews.net

www.thesunnews.net

Bears

The Sun movie review: ‘Bears'

Thursday May 1, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |
I am so glad that I am not a salmon living in Alaska. A salmon must swim up stream, but once its journey is successful, along comes a brown bear....

Our stars of Disney’s newest nature film “Bears” are bears, of course – brown bears. Salmon is apparently an essential sustenance for their survival. But what about the poor fish? I guess that’s another movie.

In “Bears,” we are witness to one year in the life of a family of Alaskan brown bears, mother Sky and her cubs Amber and Scout. We know their names, because John C. Reilly, our cheesy narrator, tells us so. He also occasionally speaks “bear.” It is unfortunate that this movie is saddled with such a bothersome narration.

Although the story of our charming family isn’t ground-breakingly new, the visuals are appealing. Alaska is beautiful and so are the bears, the wolves and the other featured wildlife.

This is a short movie, but because of Reilly, it felt rather long. I think the idea was to have this tale appeal to children. But why dumb down the film? It is not necessary, when you have this kind of footage.

The story is a simple one: survival. We are taken along the Alaskan terrain, witnessing our bear family members hold on to their lives, avoiding predator wolves and other bears. Most importantly, they are searching for food to provide them with protein, which will allow a healthy hibernation. Here is where the poor salmon come in. It seems that they are essential to the bears’ survival.

Unfortunately, “Bears” is disappointing. It is bland and mild. It tries to be exciting and cute, but it fails. All of the bears are brown, therefore confusing the viewer. Lacking distinct traits, the “characters” are difficult to discern.

The “plot” is repetitive. The 77 minutes is a series of episodes in which the bears are doing the same thing: searching for food or battling predators. But a sense of danger and adventure is missing.

I seriously think children, this film’s obvious target audience, will not care for “Bears.” But the movie could be saved with reediting, dropping the smarmy narration, dumping George Fenton’s pompous score and giving the salmon more screen time. I perked up in the middle of the film, when a short segment was devoted to the plight of these fish.

The end credits were the most interesting; they show the film crew’s capturing the animals’ actions and, in some instances, provoking the creatures.

This closing segment spoke volumes. What particular scenes did the filmmakers create? How real was the menace? There was closing footage of a wolf standing approximately 5 feet from a camera, slowly advancing toward the crew. I am certain this footage was edited into the sequence, when the wolf was threatening to attack the cubs.

Did the filmmakers manipulate nature? Perhaps they should have let nature take its own course.

I left the theater unmoved. The movie was just OK. I don’t think we go to the movies to leave at its conclusion with that feeling.

Most especially, a film about such magnificent creatures should enthrall, excite and entertain. “Bears” is just OK.

The Sun movie review: ‘Bears' | Scene |News Classifieds Events | thesunnews.net

www.thesunnews.net