Left Hanging with Chad

We're past the halfway point for 2012, and approaching he zenith of an exceedingly divisive election season that has called out practically every hot-button topic that exists in its progression. Whether you identify as a Republican, Democrat, or "Other", you have to wonder whether this is the absolute best or absolute worst time for the west coast to send us an R-rated election-themed comedy, and one headlined by two of the more frenetic comedians in movies today to boot.

To be blunt, I'm not that big a fan of the leads in The Campaign. While I did like Zach Galifianakis in the Hangover series, I haven't seen much else, and I'm still not sure the actor can do much more than be an amusing co-star. And while Will Ferrell has had his moments, I cannot say that I find him funny more often than not. A GOOD film with these two would perfectly satirize the electoral process while giving us great laughs in the meantime. A BAD film would be full of scatological "humor", nonsensical leaps of logic and be a complete mockery of the US political system. Hmm, one of the screenwriters co-wrote The Other Guys, but he also wrote Land of the Lost. And the director is Jay Roach, of Austin Powers and Meet the Fockers fame. Things aren't looking good...

It's like I'm watching a John Edwards documentary...

That The Campaign does manage to eek out its fair share of laughs is probably the biggest surprise in this whole show. When Democratic North Carolina Congressman Cam Brady's (Ferrell) campaign for his unopposed fifth term in office is derailed by a scandal, he opens the field to Republican candidate Marty Huggins (Galifianakis). Huggins, an everyman small-town tour guide, has been approached and supported by corporate honchos intent on removing the "embarrassing" Brady from office. What follows is a massive battle, as Brady is as determined to retain the perks that come with his appointment as Huggins is to help the people of his district.

Not quite sure which one could eat the other...

The film is at least partially a commentary on the dirty side of politics, covering everything from smear campaigns, super PACs, negative advertising, and kicking the other guy whenever the opportunity arises. As the battle goes back and forth between Brady and Huggins, it's easy to re-imagine the situation featuring your local leaders. The film even does a fine job of satire in showing the seeming willingness of the loyal voters who more often than not seek inspiring quotes and buzz words over actual job performance. The candidates are shown to be fully aware of this, never promising anything beyond vague positives while pretending they're everybody's best friend. In truth, neither candidate is portrayed as either good or bad; Brady is a jaded career politician who early in his career had actually hoped to help change things, while Huggins wants to fix things now, but is in the pocket of big business.

And this is why you never see candidates near one another besides debates.

Of course, the filmmakers' efforts at satire cross the line a BIT too much, and while there are a few times when it creates the perfectly hilarious moment (as when Brady famously punches that baby in slo-mo), most of the time the result is more uncomfortable than actually being funny. Many of the actions characters take (and the public's response to them) are so flagrantly bizarre that it practically declares the election process a farce. That said, I wonder if there is anyone out there who thinks that the Brady/Huggins campaign looks like business as usual in their district. Suffice it to say, Roach seems to plaster the idea that every politician, no matter their intent, will eventually forget all about the people they're supposed to be representing. It might have seemed like a more humorous idea when written down on paper, but considering how seriously people take politics these days, it might have come off as darker than originally intended.

Don't let this man ever run your political career.

Farrell and Galifianakis are at their best pretty funny, but neither stretches from their standard creative zones here. Farrell is doing his George W. Bush SNL impression throughout the entire film, even using the exact same accent (as though all southerners sound exactly the same). And Galifianakis' relative lack of facial hair doesn't cover up the fact that his sub-intelligent character demeanor is in full effect. Fortunately, the leads have a good enough support cast to keep things interesting, from Jason Sudeikis as Brady's straight-arrow campaign manager to Dylan McDermott as a psycho hired to make Huggins "not suck so much." Dan Ackroyd and John Lithgow are decent as the big business Motch Brothers (a play on the real life Koch Brothers), but don't really get enough to do. And while I wish the film had found a bigger role for Jack McBrayer, they perfectly cast veteran scene-chewer Brian Cox as Huggins' disapproving father.

He looks like something on To Catch a Predator.

I was never all that high on the idea of The Campaign, and the final product pretty much proved my initial beliefs. There are some laughs, and the film as a whole will be more fondly remembered than such fare as The Dictator, or the absolute crap-fest that was last year's Bad Teacher. But while you might get some laughs out of The Campaign's script, this is a title that cannot find that perfect satirical balance. Different leads, or perhaps even better writing, could have made this more than just another mediocre comedic outing, but there's really no reason that justifies seeing this film in the theater. It'll be on DVD before this fall's elections, most likely, and if you're that hard up for a Will Ferrell comedy, there are a few excellent options available (like Stranger Than Fiction or The Other Guys) for rental instead. This won't be one of them.

Rising Tides

There is a moment at about the three-quarters mark of Rise of the Planet of the Apes in which you will be so shocked and moved that you might think you're witnessing one of 2011's best cinema creations, if not Hollywood history's. This is a fleeting moment at best, and while most of this title is indeed an impressive production (and definitely much better than one would expect) this is one of a very few aspects of the film that match that feeling of wonder. As you can imagine, I was among those unimpressed by the idea of yet another Apes film, with the franchise seemingly gone completely overboard with Tim Burton's critically panned remake of the iconic original just ten years ago. A prequel that takes place during the modern day, everything was in place for me to hate this latest entry to the franchise: obvious computer digital effects, a cliched "good science gone bad" plot, and starring roles held by mediocre performers. These things usually add up to mediocre summer fare, but one thing I hadn't counted on was the talent of greenhorn director Rupert Wyatt. The English native made his directorial debut in the 2008 Sundance entry The Escapist, and while not many people actually saw that film (its box office gross tallies around $13,000) it was enough to catch the eyes of producers, who put him in charge of what can only be described as a major opportunity for one so inexperienced.

How many times have I told you NOT to leave the biological hazards within reach of the chimpanzees!?

Will Rodman (James Franco) is a dedicated man, scientist and son. With the intent of curing his father's Alzheimer's and restoring him to his former brilliance, Will has been working for years on a cure to this most confounding disease, only to endure a recent crop of animal testing that carries particularly tragic results. Long story short, Will's reputation is ruined, and he finds himself in possession of a baby chimpanzee whom he calls Caesar. Caesar was the son of one of Will's lab apes, and surprisingly takes on the characteristics of Will's experimental cure, beginning to display signs of increased intelligence, beginning with advanced puzzle-solving and sign language. Any fan of science fiction can tell you exactly where this is going, but the fun part is seeing how Caesar goes from domesticated chimp to battling ape leader.

He's wishing he hadn't waited the extra day to call the exterminator

While the human side of the story is rather lackluster and without an original thought, where the film really stands out is when the story is told from Caesar's point of view. While of course most of the main ape characters are computer generated, this does not turn out to be the problem it had seemed to be in previews. For one, the computer generated models actually allow you to easily identify a major character from the bulk of the ape horde. While these images look less than stellar on paper or still photos, the realistic movement makes more than enough amends for that slight flaw. The motion-capture work done to render the chimps is also amazing, thanks especially to Andy Serkis. Serkis' great work on films like King Kong and the Lord of the Rings trilogy will likely become the definition of his career, and his motion-capture work here is amongst the best I've seen since his rendition of Gollum. It's thanks to him that the ape storyline does so exceptionally well, and that's a good thing because without it, Rise wouldn't be much of the experience it turns out to be.

I seem to remember having more hair in my baby pictures...

If only that pesky human element didn't get in the way so much. James Franco is among my least favorite actors, having shown no inclination to live up those early James Dean comparisons. Here he once again squanders opportunity, with his rat-like appearance leading far too much of the film with his shoddy performance and complete lack of character. He's just the everyman who you're supposed to root for because he's familiar, rather than actually doing anything worth cheering. Slightly better is Freida Pinto as Will's beautiful and brilliant girlfriend who also happens to be a veterinarian. Essentially, her character has no depth beyond being the film's conscience, and she doesn't even do that particularly well. Better are some of the supporting characters played by David Oyelowo, Brian Cox and John Lithgow, but none of them are really used to their full potential. Perhaps it was meant that the animals are the heroes of this film, but those pesky humans couldn't have been worse off than the way this story left them.

I think we all know what comes next...

Most remarkable is the film's ability to feel like an allegory to human slavery, with chimpanzees kidnapped from their native jungles via violent means, transported across oceans for the whims of the white man, oppressed and caged against their will and disposed of when they prove troublesome. Caesar undergoes another familiar theme as he is at one point transferred from the "kind" solitude of living with Will and his father to the more ruthless animal sanctuary where he is abused by his gaolers and fellow apes. As I watch this, I'm reminded of Alex Haley's Roots and that book's remarkable story of slaves in the American South. It would be easy to compare the stories in Roots to what is presented here, and the fact that I can do so comprehensively is difficult to fathom when you consider how the work presented is from such a young director. I'm not certain where Wyatt got his inspiration, but he manages to let us perfectly follow entire scenes and sections of film where no dialogue is included and not be remotely confused by what we witness.

James... he's already a bigger star than you'll ever be

That directorial talent is what lands Rise of the Planet of the Apes at #9 for 2011. While the human characters could have been all but ignored without detriment to the plot, it is the story involving Caesar and his apes that makes this title the near-masterpiece it is. It's far better than you could have ever expected, and may qualify as 2011's biggest surprise. No, it's not perfect and will likely finish up the year outside the Top 10, yet this is probably the best Apes film since the 1968 original, and possibly even better than that Charleton Heston classic. No, I can't believe I'm recommending this title to you either, but the fact that I am means hat any inclination you might have had to see this in the theater must be followed. You'll never really appreciate what comes around three-fourths of the way in otherwise.

Got Some Red on Me

So last week I took the opportunity to catch Red in the theater. Loosely based on the three-issue comic series by DC comics, the action/comedy proved to have an entertaining trailer, and with such a cast as Willis, Freeman, Mirren and Malkovich it seemed to be one of the "can't-miss" films of the year. But would seeing Red make you see red?

The story apparently has little to do with that of the original comic series (which is fine, since I never read it) but centers around a group of retired former wetworks operatives codenamed RED (Retired, Extremely Dangerous) who are temporarily brought out of their relatively listless lives due to C.I.A. hit squads suddenly try to take out retired operative Frank Moses (Bruce Willis), and not in the date sense. In questing to find out why he's being targeted for death, Willis is joined by his former mentor Joe (Morgan Freeman), madman Marvin (John Malkovich), successfully retired S.A.S. agent Victoria (Helen Mirren), and Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker), a benefits worker who Frank has taken a liking to and is therefore also being targeted. The mission takes them to locales around the United States and proves that these folks can still perform like spring chickens when they need to.

Season's greetings!

The story here is a slightly unrealistic one involving conspiracy theories, government cover-ups, unlikely coincidences and unlikely romances. So it has to be held together by a band of characters and actors who can center the attention of the audience on themselves and make the story more palatable than it is. To that effort, it's commendable that this is in fact an amazing cast who work well together, from the big name stars to the lower tiered yet no less talented performers. Willis is usually not known for his pleasant demeanor on-screen. In fact, he does get his "yippie-ki-yay" game face on for much of the film. I don't know if it stems from working with older actors, however, but Willis somehow in Red gains something I've not seen from him in many of his performances: an almost boy-like wonder, especially when he's in scenes with his character's crush, Sarah. For once, he's not the top dog, at least not in all things, and it makes his character and his acting all the better. Malkovich is a hoot as a partially-psychotic former agent first seen hiding out in the Louisiana bayou. The part of Marvin was originally to be played by John C. Reilly, and while I've liked Reilly and can see him being successful in this type of role, he's simply outclassed by Malkovich in all aspects. Playing Marvin as defiant, schizophrenic, and, of course, paranoid of any number of possible conspiracies, Malkovich puts on one of his more memorable performances, certainly a step up from his last major role in the seriously underperforming Changeling. Of course, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you, and so his character turns out to at times be more insightful than he would be otherwise. I simply can't imagine anyone but Malkovich in that role. Mirren is fantastic, with looks that could kill (sorry, I couldn't resist) and the demeanor you would expect from a true secret agent. She really takes to the somewhat humorous role with the same professionalism as she has in her multiple-nominated roles in the films The Queen and The Last Station, not to mention dozens of other similarly-lauded roles over the course of her career. Both the irony of seeing such a serious actress wielding high-caliber machine guns and the perfection of seeing the same thing lend a lot of credence to her ability as an actress. Of the main four, only Morgan Freeman disappoints, as there's simply not enough for him to do with his role, with all the best bits belonging to Willis, Malkovich and Mirren.

Not sure what to make of this scene

I was prepared to dislike Parker in this. Obviously most people know the actress as Nancy Botwin on Showtime's Weeds, but it's easy to forget that she has a long career in film and television preceding this, as I did. Frankly, the only film I've seen her in was Red Dragon, and her role was so small that I had completely forgotten about her not long after the fact. However, she shines here as an initially reluctant sidekick to Frank who gradually gets more and more excited as the terror and thrill of sneaking around and blowing stuff up puts a heavy emphasis on how dull and boring her regular life is. Parker is funny both physically and in her verbal delivery, a dual trait not many can claim to master. Also good though underutilized is Karl Urban as a C.I.A. agent tasked with taking out Frank. Urban has long been under-appreciated by Hollywood, with last year's Star Trek being his biggest and best opportunity to showcase his talents, and damned if he didn't make the best Doc McCoy since Deforest Kelly. Hopefully his role in Red is simply a gateway to bigger things and not a return to more of the same because he's far too talented to keep perpetually on the shelf. Brian Cox makes a surprise appearance as a former Russian agent who Frank goes to for help. I didn't even recognize Cox at first, his transformation so complete that it took me nearly half the film before it struck me who was uttering his lines, and his ability to meld into his part - as well as his charismatic interaction with the other characters, especially Mirren - makes for a great performance. Ernest Borgnine is simply wonderful as a records-keeper at the Agency, and Richard Dreyfus does a good if hammy job in a small but important role as a weapons' dealer and smuggler who is somehow involved with the conspiracy. These supporting performances, in conjunction with the larger star-held roles, mean that there are no weak moments with less-interesting characters pitted throughout the film, and the enjoyment level never dips because of that.

"He's dead, Jim. I killed him."

But great characters can't entirely keep together a plot secured by duct tape and staples. While interesting, the story is barely able to keep momentum throughout the film, and truly falters in the final act, when humor alone seems to be sustaining the plot threads, not suspense or drama, or even suspension of disbelief. We're never under the assumption that Frank and his team won't achieve their objective (though they never really GET an objective until near the end of the film) and that, unfortunately, makes the final payoff much less than it could have been. Also, the humor involving young upstarts calling members of the team "old man" or "grandpa" get old after a few turns, though the heroes' humorous (and often quite violent) responses make up for a lackluster effort by the screenwriters to get a cheap laugh at an older character's expense. It's a shame, but when your director's previous work was the same one who made The Time Traveler's Wife (Robert Schwentke), you have to expect that things won't be as good as you want them to be.

So THAT'S what John Malkovich looks like!

For it's sake, I wish Red had been released earlier this year. If it had, I would have grouped it with several action or comedic films I'd seen this year that rated favorably on my 2010 Top 10 List such as Alice in Wonderland, The Losers, and Date Night, all of which at one point dotted the list. However, all those titles were eventually knocked off the list by better films, and so Red, though it compares favorably with all those films, is denied a it's chance in the sun. It has great characters, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Malkovich get a Golden Globe nom for his performance (though I'd never expect him to win it), but the plot is simply too jumpy and the story poorly told and filled with extremely silly bits. Is it funny? Yes. Did I enjoy it? Indeed. Can I recommend it to people who want a cheap and silly film to see? Sure. Is it one of the best films of the year? A "can't miss"?

Sorry, machine-gun Mirren, no.