War for the Planet of the Apes

Year 10, Day 145 - 5/25/18 - Movie #2,943

BEFORE: So here's my plan, for what happens after July 4 - and I had to consider what movies are being released in June that I might want to see.  (Since I've been to the movies a LOT lately, I've seen just about every preview out there, multiple times.). Based on where I'm going to end up on 7/4, I could easily link to ONE of the three big June films I want to see ("Jurassic World", "The Incredibles 2" or "Ant-Man and the Wasp") and so far I haven't figured out how to work in all three.  But ONE of those paths links me, within a week, to a certain documentary that will allow me to kick off a Summer Rock Concert event, of sorts.  This is about 17 or 18 rock documentaries (rockumentaries?) that I either have on DVD or are available on Netflix, and they've just been sort of building up at the bottom of my list.

But, with Netflix, you never know when a film's going to disappear, so it's imperative that I try to get to some of these sooner, before they're gone.  (Seriously, can we do something about this?  I can't be the only person bothered by the fact that when I go to look for a film I saw last month on Netflix, suddenly it's not there any more.  Who can fix this problem?) I took a little time last week while on break to link these films together, and it turns out that if I add a couple more that are on iTunes or Amazon, I can stitch together about four weeks worth of programming, and many of these are films that I've been dying to see, but couldn't find a way to get to.  This will clear a LOT of films off of my list, while still maintaining my linking chain (umm, except for maybe four films at the end).

When I did my geek-themed documentary chain last year, what I learned was that there are only so many "experts" in a field to interview, and those films kept going back to the same people again and again, so maybe it will work the same for rock and roll. (They don't always list every interview subject, or every person who appears in archival footage on the IMDB, so I'll have to stay sharp and look for ways to work in those last 4 films.). But I think this is a "go" for the Summer Rock Concert series, especially since I'm not going out to San Diego this year, for the first time in about 15 years.

So I can relax now, my chain's good until mid-August, and I've got plenty of time between now and then to figure out how to get to my back-to-school chain.  I've just got to stick to the program and get through Memorial Day, Father's Day and the Fourth of July, then things should fall into place.  Meanwhile, Woody Harrelson carries over from "Solo: A Star Wars Story", and he'll be here tomorrow as well.

FOLLOW-UP TO: "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" (Movie #2,426)

THE PLOT: After the apes suffer unimaginable losses, Caesar wrestles with his darker instincts and begins his own mythic quest to avenge his kind.

AFTER: It's a little weird to cover this one right after "Solo", because the two movies faced a similar storytelling challenge, and managed to solve it in different ways.  How do you have characters interacting with each other when they don't all speak the same language, or in the same way?  Caesar is not the only talking ape, but there are only a few other apes that manage to speak as well as he does.  So the other apes mostly resort to sign language, and this makes sense in a way because humans have been known to teach apes ASL, they clearly have the mental capacity for it, even if their lips and throats can't make all the sounds.  Or is it a brain capacity thing?  I probably should research that a bit before I weigh in.

"Solo", on the other hand, has Chewbacca speaking in Shyriiwook, but clearly capable of understanding Basic (English), while other characters like Han do the opposite, speak Basic but somehow understand Shyriiwook.  Han is like most of the apes in reverse, when he does try to speak in Chewbacca's language, it's very broken Shyriiwook, he gets some of the words wrong but he does get his point across, and thus endears himself to the bestial (but very caring) Chewie.  For all other characters, including the audience, they have to figure out what Chewbacca is saying from the tone and the context.  Good luck with that.  "Solo" the movie also resorted to subtitles for Chewbacca for the first time, and "War for the Planet of the Apes" also uses this tool, so in a way the films are similar, even though they generally took different tacks to solve this communication problem.

Anyway, the humans are on the outs in this film, attacking the apes in a last-ditch effort to wipe them out, but at the same time, it appears that the simian flu has mutated, and the latest incarnation is slowly taking away human's ability to speak, or to process language or whatever.  This latest twist sort of brings the saga full circle, because way back in the Charlton Heston original film, he landed on a world where apes could speak and the humans could not.  There are many other shout-outs or callbacks to the original film, because that 1968 film also had a woman named "Nova" in it, and this film bends over backwards to perhaps tell her origin.  But in the end it's unclear if this is definitely the same girl, or if it's all one big coincidence, or just a little something to get the fans wondering.

Harrelson plays The Colonel, a military man who's in charge of an outpost near where the apes live, and he seems to have his own opinions about whether it makes more sense for man to live in harmony with the other primates, or to keep trying to wipe them out.  And somewhere up north there's more military men coming, perhaps to join the Colonel, or perhaps to try to show him the error  of his ways, this also is a little unclear.  But all the apes know is that the Colonel manages to capture the vast majority of them, and he places them in internment camps, treats them like prisoners with very little food and water, and forces them to build a wall.  Clearly this plot must have been in production for several years, so any resemblance to U.S. politics since 2016 is coincidental, but if you want to go ahead and draw connections between the Colonel and our current President, feel free.

It's perhaps easier to draw connections between the Colonel and Brando's Col. Kurtz, since they both have shaved heads - the movie even makes this suggestion for us by showing some graffiti on an underground tunnel that reads "APE-ocalypse Now".  Just in case you couldn't make the connection for yourself.  But when Caesar and a small, ragtag bunch of simians realize that most of their fellow apes are now essentially POW's, that's when their mission turns more into something resembling "The Great Esc-APE".  (Sorry, couldn't resist.).

Once the other humans arrive from the North, it's an all-out battle, with guerrilla warfare vs. umm, GORILLA warfare.  Can the apes survive and get clear of the humans, and travel through the desert to their new homeland?  And if so, will that be the end of the story, or is there still more to tell?

Also starring Amiah Miller, Gabriel Chavarria, and voices/mo-cap performances by Andy Serkis (last seen in "Black Panther"), Steve Zahn (last seen in "The Ridiculous 6"), Terry Notary (last heard in "Avengers: Infinity War"), Karin Konoval (last heard in "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes"), Ty Olsson (last seen in "Godzilla"), Toby Kebbell (last seen in "Ben-Hur"), Michael Adamthwaite, Judy Greer (last seen in "What Women Want"), Sara Canning, Max Lloyd-Jones, Devyn Dalton, Aleks Paunovic, Alessandro Juliani.

RATING: 6 out of 10 apple slices

Solo: A Star Wars Story

Year 10, Day 145 - 5/25/18 - Movie #2,942

BEFORE: I took five days off there, which was both a good thing and a bad thing.  Good because I can link to "Solo" after seeing it on OPENING DAY (a tradition for me with "Star Wars" films going back to at least "Return of the Jedi") and because in those five days, I was able to get some stuff done, like I made a list.  Not that I DID many things on the list, I'm celebrating the fact that I was able to make the list of things that I need to get done.  I did make an appointment with a real eye doctor, not the hack that I've been seeing at the (name of eyewear chain withheld) location near my office.  When your doctors start to look like kids to you, you know you're getting old.  But I also caught up on organizing and reading some comic books, and watching a LOT of television.  I got current on "The Amazing Race", "The Detour", "Survivor", "Marvel's Agents of SHIELD" and nearly current on "Legion" and "Gotham".  Next up: "Westworld" season 2 and "Genius" season 2, then maybe I can finally finish "Stranger Things" season 2.

But it's bad for me because while I wasn't taking films OFF the list, more films kept coming ON the list, and the main list increased from 150 to 155, in just 5 days.  Now I've got to start whittling it down again, by adding only 1 for every 2 that I watch.

But another good thing I was able to do was to come up with a plan for what to watch after July 4, as my current linking chain comes to an end there.  I'll reveal more about my new plan in my next post.

Meanwhile, a new "Star Wars" film is always a reason to celebrate.  If anything, we've been given an embarrassment of riches in the last three and a half years, with FOUR new films - and in the old days, we only got one every three years, and that's if we were lucky.  You kids today are spoiled rotten.

This marks three films in a row for Paul Bettany, who carries over from "Wimbledon", and Jon Favreau carries over also.  (Both actors were also supposed to carry over from "Avengers: Infinity War" but I guess Favreau got cut from that film...)

FOLLOW-UP TO: "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" (Movie #2,491)

THE PLOT: During an adventure into the criminal underworld, Han Solo meets his future co-pilot Chewbacca and encounters Lando Calrissian, years before joining the Rebellion.

AFTER: As an O.G. (original geek) "Star Wars" fan (some would say "superfan"), I can remember what it was like back in the day, skipping out of school early on May 25 in order to get my best friend's mother to drive me to the movie theater, where I could buy 5 or 6 tickets for me and my friends, acting as the point man for the kids who had to stay until the closing bell. (I wasn't a recurring truant, in fact I was an excellent student, and that made it easier to leave early, the principal and the whole school staff trusted me, heh heh.  I probably only missed a couple study halls.). Then when the prequels came out I fulfilled the same role, taking the day off to buy 8 or 10 tickets and hold a place in line for my bosses and co-workers, and everybody benefitted.

Now, of course, tickets are sold on-line and seats are all reserved, so there's no reason to camp out for a week or wait in line for any length of time.  Sure, it's easier, but aren't we missing out on a shared experience this way?  Oh, well, my friend Adam bought two tickets weeks ago, so my place was secured and my streak remains unbroken.  Both of my bosses, meanwhile, saw this film TWO DAYS ago at an Academy screening.  I could have weaseled my way in there, but it didn't seem sporting - plus, as a superfan I knew I could hold out until Opening Day, and my ticket was already bought.

This was going to be the first "Star Wars" film where I could say that I knew the directors, because one of the creators of "The Lego Movie", Chris Miller, who was tapped to direct this Solo film, along with his directing partner, Phil Lord.  Chris was an intern at one of the animation studios I work at, this was back in 2003 or so, and his friend Phil was often hanging around.  I hadn't seen Chris in years, but re-connected with him at San Diego Comic-Con in 2015, and afterwards, I wondered why I hadn't thrown myself at his feet and asked him for a job on a "Star Wars" movie.  When those directors got removed and replaced by Ron Howard, suddenly I stopped second-guessing myself and thought maybe I made the right move by remaining silent.

But my "Star Wars" geekdom runs very deep, from my 110-item autograph collection to my shelf full of every tie-in novel (canonical or not) and every "Star Wars" comic.  Plus I have my enormous memory full of "Star Wars" trivia, my photos taken with both Carrie Fisher AND Natalie Portman, and of course my very true story about how I was invited to visit Skywalker Ranch, but made the unfortunate unavoidable error of trying to arrange a tour in the same week that George Lucas announced his retirement, so the whole place was on lockdown and I was out of luck.  Hey, sometimes you have good luck and sometimes you have bad luck, the franchise gives and the franchise also takes away (especially all the money I spend on collecting autographs).

Fortunately, the new "Solo" movie has a lot to give, and it gives generously.  Without giving away any spoilers, this is a back-to-basics approach that brings the franchise back to where it began, which is essentially as a Western set in space.  (OK, I know the film draws from Kurosawa & other Japanese films, too, but work with me here).  Besides being a hot-shot pilot, Han Solo is great with a blaster - we know this because he got the drop on Greedo in the first film BY SHOOTING FIRST, UNDER THE TABLE and no other scenario is allowable when discussing this plot point.  There are shots in "Solo" that are framed EXACTLY like a duel in a Western town, or when Solo walks into a saloon/cantina to join a high-stakes poker game.

Of course, some of the best Westerns are also "heist" movies, and "Solo" is that too.  When the team's mission is to uncouple a few cars from a mag-lev train, I thought that this whole sequence could easily have come straight from a Western film, a genre where people are always robbing moving trains, and those sequences have become more elaborate in recent Westerns, as movie special effects have advanced.  However, if you prefer to draw comparisons to other heist films, like "Ocean's 11" and its sequels, that's fine, too.  This is "Solo's 6", or perhaps "Beckett's 6" once the characters come together and work out all the details.

It's too bad that Han's time on Corellia, his home planet, is so short in this film.  We spend barely any time there, since he's so eager to get OFF of Corellia - we barely understand why he and Qi'ra want to leave so bad, except that the opening titles told us that the galaxy is basically "lawless" and therefore life everywhere sucks.  So, umm, why do they think their life is going to be any better somewhere else?  I guess once they get a ship of their own, they can at least get from planet to planet and see how badly each one sucks?

But Solo's plan to leave Corellia doesn't exactly go smoothly - does anything?  He vows to return and make things right, but the fastest way out is to join the Empire by enrolling in the Naval Academy as a pilot.  (You'd think spaceships would be more of an Air Force thing, but somehow they count as Imperial Navy, which honestly sounds like it should be made of boats, right?).  But then even THAT doesn't go his way, and he ends up in the infantry instead.  It's a damn shame, because I think I would have preferred to see Han in flight school.  He had to pick up those flying skills somewhere, right?

If I think about it, nothing really goes Han's way at all until he meets Chewbacca.  Who couldn't use an 8-foot 200-year-old loyal-as-hell Wookiee on their side?  So at least we get to see how the best bromance in sci-fi started.  (not to mention how Solo got his traditional blaster, what exactly the Kessel Run is, and how he ended up owning the Millennium Falcon - geez, the movie explains everything except where he bought his first black vest...)

And this is only really a problem for superfans like myself - because between the novels and the comic books I've already SEEN the story of "When Hanny Met Chewie" at least a dozen times.  And we've all heard the story about how he won the Falcon in a game of Sabacc (which I now know is pronounced "suh-BACC", and not "SAB-buc", the way I've heard it in my head.  Oh yeah, and this movie confirms that it's always been "HAHN Solo", as if it almost rhymes with "LAWN" or "GONE" not "HAN" like it rhymes with "STAN".  Except Lando can't seem to get it right, but that totally tracks with the way Billy Dee Williams said it in "Empire".).

Some of the earliest "Star Wars" novel tie-ins were the first Han Solo books, starting with "Han Solo at Stars End" in 1979.  But they were set some time after Han met Chewie and won the Falcon.  In 1983 three books were released featuring Lando Calrissian and his adventures flying the same ship, these were clearly set earlier, and ended with Lando expressing a desire to retire (so maybe he wanted to lose the ship?).  But then in 1997 came a new Han Solo trilogy, starting with "The Paradise Snare", and it tells a similar story to the "Solo" film - how Han got off Corellia, and into the Imperial Academy.  Only ALL of the details are different - this book is one of many that has now been retconned out of the timeline, now that Disney bought Lucasfilm and decided to explore the same territory with a movie.  And the second book in that trilogy, "The Hutt Gambit", detailed how Han met Chewbacca and Lando, and began his career as a smuggler.  (And I believe the third book in the series, "Rebel Dawn", was the first book to explain the Kessel Run, in a manner similar to this film.).

Anyway, I don't want to get bogged down in all these details, differences between the pre-existing novels and the movie, because even though I spent a lot of time and money on those books, they might as well not exist any more - yeah, I'm still kind of upset about that.  But we have to focus on the movies, they have the power to make things more real than the books.  And this movie is a lot of fun, and it goes very far in explaining who Han Solo is as a character, how he got the way he is - and still managed to leave room for a sequel, by suggesting there's a big score waiting on Tatooine, where we all know Han's going to end up working a job for Jabba the Hutt that will go spectacularly wrong, and he'll end up owing Jabba so much money that he'll spend years trying to climb out of that hole.  So look for "Solo II: Another Star Wars Story" if this one really catches on.

But as a fan, I sort of face the same conundrum I did with "Rogue One".  I wonder if this story needed to be told - because not only has it been told before in different forms, every "Star Wars" fan has a version of this story in their heads, and some of those might even be better. (OK, probably not.). But can you fill a tie-in film like this with a bunch of visual references, call-backs and shout-outs to other parts of the original trilogy, and is that enough in the end?  I'm going to tentatively say "yes", but I'm also going to see how I feel about "Solo" after several more viewings, to see if it holds up against the main numbered films.

NITPICK POINT: We've been hearing about the "spice mines of Kessel" since the very first "Star Wars" film in 1977, and we finally get to see them here!  Only Han & company go to Kessel for a very different reason, to get another thing.  Does this make sense?  Why wouldn't they go to Kessel to get spice, since we fans all know that's what gets mined there?  I guess a planet can have more than one resource or thing that it makes, but it does seem just a little off-brand.

Also starring Alden Ehrenreich (last seen in "Rules Don't Apply"), Emilia Clarke (last seen in "Terminator Genisys"), Donald Glover (last seen in "Spider-Man: Homecoming"), Woody Harrelson (last seen in "Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri"), Thandie Newton (last seen in "The Pursuit of Happiness"), Joonas Suotamo (last seen in "Star Wars: The Last Jedi"), Warwick Davis (ditto), Anthony Daniels (ditto), Erin Kellyman, Clint Howard (last seen in "EdTV"), Ian Kenny (last seen in "Sing Street"), Kiran Shah, Ray Park and the voices of Phoebe Waller-Bridge (last seen in "Albert Nobbs"), Linda Hunt (last seen in "The Year of Living Dangerously") and Sam Witwer.

RATING: 8 out of 10 liberated droids

Wimbledon

Year 10, Day 139 - 5/19/18 - Movie #2,941

BEFORE: This might seem a bit out of place here, as it will end up right between two big sci-fi blockbusters of 2018.  But when I put this chain together, I realized I would have to delay my "Avengers: Infinity War" review because it was one of the very few films on my list that could serve as my lead-in for "Solo: A Star Wars Story", which I'm going to see on its first day of release.  So, yeah, after today I'll be on a five-day break to prepare for "Solo".  At this point it's difficult for me to go more than one day without seeing a new movie, so imagine me after five (or the 10-20 days I take off at the end of the year, but at least then I'm busy with the holidays...).

"Avengers" to "Solo" - as originally planned, those films were supposed to share TWO actors, but then I guess they re-edited "Avengers" and changed the IMDB listings, and there was no room for Happy Hogan in that very loaded comic-book film.  But I had Paul Bettany as a back-up, so the chain kept going.  But both of those "Solo" actors (unless something else has changed) are also in THIS film.  So it fits neatly between the two big blockbusters.

Now, I've got more Kirsten Dunst coming up in June, so I COULD have saved this for next month.  But the real-life Wimbledon Championship is in July, so there was no chance of me hitting that spot-on.  And the whole world's eyes are on the U.K. this weekend, because of the Royal Wedding (I just flew back from there myself...for all you know...) so I thought maybe stick with the original plan and play something set in the U.K. for the occasion.

I don't know much about the new Duchess of Sussex - Meghan Markle just hasn't turned up in my countdown much, except for small roles in "Horrible Bosses" and "Get Him to the Greek" - and maybe I saw her on a couple "CSI" episodes, but that's it.  I certainly couldn't be expected to run a film today with her in it, that wasn't in the cards.  But I wish her well, and with everything I know about the royal family, I think it's another one of those Princess Di situations, where the royalty is getting the better of the deal.  But again, not an expert.

THE PLOT: A pro tennis player who has lost his ambition and fallen in rank meets a young player on the women's circuit who helps him recapture his focus for Wimbledon.

AFTER: I played some tennis when I was a kid, so there's a tiny bit of my brain that still remembers the rules and the weird scoring system.  (And of course, you can count on a tennis-based romance film to point out that "Love means nothing in tennis." Ugh, how predictable.)  But I was still hoping for something here that would give some insight into tennis strategies or gameplay - I assure you that was does come through here is minimal.  Why should a screenwriter's lack of understanding of a sport (or relationships, for that matter) prevent them from writing a script about it?  I don't know, maybe devote a day or two, or even a couple hours, to researching the game?  Just a suggestion.

Instead, we're led to believe that tennis is somehow a mental game, and as long as a player can clear his or her mind of negative thoughts, then he'll keep winning the points.  Which is a way to go, if you can't be bothered to do the research, or if you feel like any physical tips won't translate to the audience.  But I'm left with just as many questions as I have after a typical boxing film.  When should a player charge the net?  When should he hit the ball hard, and when should he just tap it?  Is fifty percent of the game "all mental"?

The bits of technical advice that the film does offer don't seem to be very useful - "Just keep winning!" is the advice that Lizzie Bradbury offers to her boyfriend/casual sex partner Peter Colt, who's rapidly aging out of the program.  Oh, sure, why didn't he think of that, just keep winning...  Care to get a little more specific on how to bring this "winning" about?   Another element is brought over from the boxing films, the debate over whether a player should have sex before a big game.  Most training film say no, but Lizzie clearly believes otherwise, and wants to make this part of her routine, despite her father's best efforts to keep all men away from her - so it seems they disagree about what her training should cover.

I should point out that Peter does determine that one of his opponents has a "tell", where if that guy leans back on his foot a certain way, he's going to hit a serve hard and deep, but this barely qualifies as strategy, because 1) I don't believe that tennis functions like poker, 2) aren't ALL tennis serves made hard and deep? 3) this info comes from Lizzie, who once slept with his opponent and I don't see how you learn this about someone from sleeping with them and 4) if Peter is such a good tennis player, why didn't he ever try analyzing his opponents' serves before?

Another thing we learn about tennis players, they're deeply superstitious, so if they do something and then win the next day, they have to do exactly the same things before the next time they play.  (Apparently this works better than exercise or eating right.). So this perhaps explains why Lizzie wants to have sex with people she barely knows, because she must have done it once and won a game shortly after.  I can't decide if this is a step forward for feminism or not.  Because clearly a woman can be in charge of her sexual history, but this also puts her on a par with men who treat women as disposable sexual objects and avoid long-term relationships.  I guess it's a wash?

Peter Colt, on the other hand, enjoys a fling with Lizzie, but then nearly loses the next day.  So having sex before a match is bad, except then he wins on a DQ, so perhaps it's good?  Clearly more research is required - so he seeks out Lizzie to repeat the "training ritual", and goes on to make the semi-finals. Ah, so he's on to something - but then her father shows up to bring her back to her regular training routine, and then he's got to go to greater "comic" lengths to hook up with her again - tracking down her secret address, climbing up a trellis, and other near-devolutions into slapstick comedy.

Meanwhile, he ignores the other superstitions that usually get him through a match - like keeping his parents and brother from attending.  For most of the film, they stick to this routine, since apparently he's never won with his parents and brother in attendance.  Clearly there are some issues there.  So then WHY would he reverse course and give them tickets to the finals?  You don't follow a superstition 99% of the way to a championship, right?  And the brother's got the best deal of all, betting against his brother - if he wins the bet, he gets paid and if he loses the bet, he gets laid. (Because his brother is a tennis champ, and apparently he can parlay this into some luck with the ladies.). So he's a cagey bettor, but a terrible brother.

Look, there's obviously some connection between an athlete's personal life and how they play on the field, but I just don't think it can be this cut and dry.  Success in one arena can't possibly mean success in the other - the Tiger Woods scandal not withstanding, of course.  Because if the game is all about clearing one's mind of all outside influences in order to perform, then that includes the personal life.  This film wants to have it both ways, and that just can't be.  Surely there have been tennis champions who were able to separate their romantic entanglements, or lack thereof, from their performance on the courts, right?

I've still got "Battle of the Sexes" on my list (as an Academy screener, but I'm sure cable will run it eventually).  Perhaps I'll get some more understanding on the mechanics of tennis then.

Also starring Kirsten Dunst (last seen in "Midnight Special"), Sam Neill (last seen in "Thor: Ragnarok"), James McAvoy (last seen in "Atonement"), Bernard Hill (last seen in "True Crime"), Eleanor Bron (last seen in "Alfie" (1966)), Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (last seen in "Gods of Egypt"), Celia Imrie (last seen in "Bridget Jones's Baby"), Austin Nichols, Jon Favreau (last seen in "People Like Us"), John McGlynn, Jonathan Timmins, Barry Jackson, Robert Lindsay, Martin Wimbush, Cecilia Dazzi, Murphy Jensen, Alun Jones, John McEnroe (last seen in "You Don't Mess With the Zohan"), Chris Evert, Vikas Punna, Mary Carillo, John Barrett.

RATING: 5 out of 10 endorsement deals