The Cue Card

What was I thinking? I guess I thought this movie might be summer fun and sort of capture some of the mystery or intrigue that the original “Planet of the Apes” films from 1968-73 had. This latest one is meant to be a prequel about how intelligent apes took over a planet (in this case Earth). But unfortunately I think fans of the original films and others will find it quite disappointing. My brother warned me not to go. Good grief he was right. It’s a far cry from the films with Charlton Heston and Roddy McDowall. This movie feels so separate than those; it doesn’t seem in the same galaxy.

In the original you recall astronauts crash their spaceship on a strange planet in the distant future and find apes in charge. In this film set before that, geneticists looking for a cure for alzheimer’s inject apes with a drug that heightens their intelligence, enabling them to escape their cages and eventually run amok on Earth.

But the latest storyline gets pretty drippy and predictable: about a genetic company out for a buck, the cruelties of animal experimentation in medicine and a scientist with an ill father who breaks the rules. You might be reminded of the recent movie “Splice” perhaps and a few others. Also the computer-generated apes and effects lend it a cartoon-like feel, manipulating the star ape to be endearing and able to do anything. At some points it reminded me of the cuteness of “E.T.”

I’m a bit surprised that “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” got such favorable reviews in the papers. I guess for summer blockbuster fodder it’s pretty on par or above. But the original films were so much more than that; they were interesting and gripping and had something to say. Maybe it was because I was a kid then, but “Planet of the Apes” took me away to another place, it seemed real and scary. This one doesn’t “rise” to the occasion.

“In a Better World” just came to my neck of the woods though it’s been out a year and received high accolades for winning both the 2011 Golden Globe and Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. It beat out “Biutiful” with Javier Bardem twice among other strong nominees so that’s saying something.

I didn’t know much about “Better World” other than it was Danish, but it turned out to be quite a dramatic film, a bit more ominous considering the recent news out of Norway. It’s about two broken families who cross paths after their outcast sons become friends and get into trouble. In one family, the parents are on the verge of a divorce with the father spending long periods of time in Africa as a doctor in a refugee camp. Meanwhile their son is bullied and harassed at school. In the other family, the mother has just died, and the father and boy move to town, where the boy’s new to the school. Both of the boys going through turmoil become friends and start to act out in ways that pushes them to the edge of disaster.

The film switches between scenes in Africa, where the one father copes with the bloodshed in the camp (and his family separation), to scenes in Denmark, where the sad, troubled boys decide to make a bomb. It’s disturbing for sure, but fortunately these kids turn out to be not as sinister as the attackers in Columbine or Norway. The parents seem to hold sway and come together in the end.

The music at times seems a bit overwrought in “Better World,” but the cinematography and acting capture the isolation and angst. It’s quite sad for sure, more sad than disturbing than two movies out now (“Beautiful Boy” and “We Need to Talk About Kevin”) that deal with the aftermath of a teen’s mass killing spree. It’s just too eerie and horrifying to see either of those any time soon.

Both my parents (who see a movie about once a year or less) and my mother-in-law saw “Midnight in Paris” before I did. It’s one of those little pleasers, perhaps especially to a certain generation, that gains steam through word of mouth-around-town kind of thing. Some folks tell their friends who tell others and they tell others who implore their adult kids to go and on it goes from there.

Woody Allen’s latest film is a clever, charming homage to the city of Paris and the golden age of the 1920s. It’s about an engaged American couple who visit Paris but start to drift apart when Gil, played by Owen Wilson, a struggling writer, falls for the city and wants to move there after marriage. Inez, played by Rachel McAdams, doesn’t share his romantic notions of the City of Lights, and plans instead for their life in Malibu. While Inez is out dancing with friends and tagging along with her parents, Gil opts to walk the city streets, magically falling into a kind of time portal at midnight that takes him back to Paris in the 1920s and all of the famous writers and artists of the day.

The film’s pretty funny from the start, poking fun at hopeless Americans in Paris, but gets a little zanier when Gil starts to meet his idols from the ’20s, including Hemingway, the Fitzgeralds, T.S. Eliot, Dali, Picasso and many others. To appreciate the full scoop, it helps if you recall these giants of the ’20s, or the artists who came and went at Gertrude Stein’s salon. By the way, where was Alice Toklas, Stein’s long-time partner in it? The Hemingway character is amusingly funny, spouting dialogue as if from one of his books about Truth and Courage, War and Love.

Along the way, Owen Wilson does a wonderful job carrying the film as the doe-eyed, dream-filled, amusable Gil. His performance reminded me a bit of Woody Allen himself when he played in “Hannah and Her Sisters” and “Annie Hall.” Owen was a hoot in “Wedding Crashers,” but he’s even better in this.

“Midnight in Paris” is perhaps Woody Allen at his least offensive. It’s a nostalgic, heartfelt romp with delightful shots of Paree, a bit safer perhaps than his film “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” and more clever than his recent “You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger,” which is also about a struggling writer. It shows that Allen still has it even when he’s far from his beloved New York.

This movie is sheer crazy and pretty outrageous most of the time (ding ding: “crude warning”!). Which isn’t to say it’s not enjoyable to sit through another zany wedding movie. Kristen Wiig sort of saves the whole kit and caboodle (just wanted to use that phase) as a maid of honor whose life has hit rock bottom but tries to pull off all the rituals that go with the territory; along the way she battles another of the bridesmaids for maid of honor status. Wiig’s face during the movie and the tennis scene alone are probably worth the price of admission. It could have done without the whole food-poison-gross-out stuff, hello?! you kiddin’ me. Some scenes fall a bit flat, like on the airplane, or the strange roommates (?!), but others find their mark: gotta go with the tennis scene (AC/DC!), and the Wilson Phillips singalong is a schmaltzy crackup.

Wiig is pretty hilarious. If you like her on “Saturday Night Live,” you’ll like her here. Her character, Annie, is a mess: broke, left by her boyfriend and living with wacko roommates. She’s on the precipice of a breakdown. It’s safe to say: the wedding duties send her over the edge. Good to see another “SNL” alum, Maya Rudolph, as the bride. (Her “Bronx Beat” skits on SNL still make me laugh just thinking of them. Oh god the one with Jake Gyllenhaal?!) Anyways it’s a bit sad to see Jill Clayburgh in her final role here. Here’s to you, Jill.

It sort of reminds me, which are the funniest wedding flicks in memory? If you had to pick for a desert island, they might include: “The Hangover” “Wedding Crashers,” “Four Weddings & a Funeral,” “My Best Friend’s Wedding,” “The Wedding Singer” … and perhaps a light sprinkling of “Bridesmaids.”

This is a gem of a little film, which I thought was going to be solely about a wrestling coach and team, but it turns out to dwell more on family issues. The wrestling sort of comes in later. It’s about a small-time lawyer and high school wrestling coach (played by Paul Giamatti) who makes the dubious decision for financial reasons of taking on the guardianship of a elderly client whose grandson, an excellent wrestler, he stumbles upon after the kid winds up at his grandfather’s. But with his grandfather in a nursing home and his mother in drug rehab, the kid ends up living with the coach’s family and joining the wrestling team. All seem to be winning in this arrangement, until the mother shows up out of rehab and things begin to unravel.

Giamatti, of course is wonderful just as he was in “Barney’s Version,” and makes a good team with Amy Ryan as his wife, who recently played Michael Scott’s love on “The Office.” It is an endearing film that sneaks up on you and gets under your skin. It’s funny at times and also a drama about the family and what will happen to the boy on and off the mat.

This movie is a weepy and whiny affair about a popular country singer (played by Gwyneth Paltrow) who tries to overcome her alcoholic demons. I thought it would be a good chick flick so I rented it, but the script’s considerably weak and cliched, though I wasn’t asking for all that much. The dialogue’s not that great either.

Gwyneth’s character Kelly Cantor is indeed a crying mess; she’s lost a baby, she’s drinking despite rehab, she’s having affairs, notably with a rising country star, played by Garrett Hedlund. Her husband, played by Tim McGraw, has hurried her out of rehab and put her on a short tour to reestablish her reputation, but she’s far from ready! She can’t get through these shows! She’s too messed up and has to cancel the first two, but then she gives it her all at the last concert, only to end it all in dramatic fashion after.

Despite its flaws, “Country Strong” has some good music, and Leighton Meester and Garrett Hedlund seem believable as opening acts. It’s a bit hard to see Gwyneth as anything other than Gwyneth. I plan to check out the soundtrack for the hell of it and see if it’s not too sugary.

“Country Strong” comes on the heels of “Crazy Heart,” which was also about an alcoholic singer/songwriter, but that script and movie were a bit “stronger.”

Okay so it’s not exactly “Water for Elephants,” but the usually good Werner Herzog was listed as director, and apparently Roger Ebert said it was one of the best movies of 2009, which I had missed. So I rented it, though it’s not really on a subject matter that has many redeeming qualities. It’s a pretty dark movie about a detective on the take of drugs and other favors on the streets of New Orleans while trying to solve the murder of an immigrant family. This is one crooked cop (played by Nicolas Cage); you name it, he’s done it, which makes it a pretty uneasy watching experience.

It’s quite a change to see Cage, who’s done a slew of Disney films recently, playing this corrupt a character. Even his Ben in “Leaving Las Vegas” knew more right from wrong. Yet, Cage’s bad lieutenant is still good at solving the case at hand despite all his illegal activities.

I sort of forgot Harvey Keitel had played the “Bad Lieutenant” in a different movie set in New York in 1992. No wonder it sounded familiar. The filmmakers say it isn’t a remake, but it sure seems quite alike. In the end, there wasn’t a really good reason that I needed to sit through the same themes again. There’s some good suspense and acting in it, but during the process you wade through considerable sleeze. Keitel’s lieutenant pays for it, but Cage’s lieutenant comes through clean.