Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes

My brother gave me money today because he wanted to take me out to a movie, but since his arm was badly sore, he didn’t want to keep delaying me. So, I went today to check out “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes,” which came out last month. The problem was the route I took had really bad traffic on it because of an accident that they closed off the road and we had to take another exit. I had to put in the theaters address to get to the theater, but I missed about the first 20 minutes of the movie, which I was livid about. I should have checked the map before going to see if there was an alternate route to take, since this is the first time in four years I have gone to this theater due to the pandemic. Enough about all that. Everyone must be wondering what I thought of this latest installment in the reboot franchise.

Advances in facial motion capture are present in this film that makes the talking apes look more like humans than ever before when it comes to facial expressions. One thing about these films that will always be the same is that they require a lot of willing disbelief for the audience to accept it.

Robert Roten said in his review, “I looked in vain for Andy Serkis, the go-to actor for motion capture, in the credits. He played Cesar in “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” (2011) “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” (2014) and in “War for the Planet of the Apes” (2017). Andy's not in this one, but the motion capture looks great, and the faux apes have got a lot of personality.”

Roten continued, “In this story, we find a clan of apes living an ideal existence, noble savages, as it were, in tree houses in a forested land, not unlike the tree dwellers in “Avatar” (2009) and the tree-dwellers of Lothlórien, as seen in “Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” (2001).” The main character is a young ape named Noa, played by Owen Teague.

Noa is trying hard to live up to the example of his father, Koro, played by Neil Sandilands, who is a master of eagles, but the eagles don’t seem to like Noa. Preparing for an opening ritual, Noa gathers eagle eggs from a dangerous, high nest, but on the evening of the ceremony, a scavenging human, Mae, played by Freya Allan, accidentally bumps into him, breaking the precious eggs, without which, he can’t be initiated.

He rides a horse into the night, wanting to find replacement eggs before the ceremony the next day, but finds a raiding army of evil apes. Noa hides from them, but they spot his horse and follow it back to his home, destroying the village and taking his clan members prisoner.

Noa sets out to find his clan and free them. Tracking the raiders, he encounters Mae, and Raka, played by Peter Macon, an orangutan, who follows the teachings of Caesar, a great lawgiver whose teachings have been forgotten. Raka offers Noa a chance to read and learn the teachings of Caesar, but he is set on finding his clan. Mae and Raka decide to follow Noa on his mission.

Mae has been pretending to not be able to speak like most of the savage humans, but Noa and Raka are surprised to find that she can speak and understands their language. Mae tells them she is on her way to the place where Noa’s clan is being held, hoping to find a valuable human artifact there.

Noa and Mae find some adventures and decide to team up to get what they want, but neither one completely trusts the other. In the end, we don’t know if the humans and apes can ever live together in peace. It is also unknown if humans and apes can avoid the mistakes of the previous human civilization, whose leaders desired power, but lacked the wisdom to use it wisely.

The acting is solid and the story is gripping, even if it is unbelievable. William H. Macy is in this movie as a very odd human named Trevathan, living among the apes. Roten noted, “He seems to have divided loyalties, and his place in this story is a bit of a mystery.” The ape leader Proximus Caesar is played by Kevin Durand.

As you might have guessed, this movie is not as good as the previous trilogy. If this is supposed to start another trilogy, then this is a good start, as this reboot series has remained to be consistently good. This film is no exception. The effects still are amazing, there are definitely a lot of slow, dialogue moments, and the action scenes are still engaging. I felt as though I was nodding off at the climax, but that was probably because I was feeling tired from mowing the lawn earlier today. Still, I say check this film out in theaters, if it is still playing near you. Otherwise, wait for it on streaming.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned this Friday for the finale of “Emma Thompson Month.”

Kung Fu Panda 4

Tonight, on Peacock, I saw “Kung Fu Panda 4,” released back in March, but on Peacock three days ago, and now I will let everyone know what I thought about it.

After three great films, the franchise returns for a fourth film in the franchise, 16 years after the release.

In the new sequel, Po (Jack Black) is assigned by Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) to find his replacement as The Dragon Warrior so he can become the Spiritual Leader of the Valley of Peace.

Feeling hesitant on this task, as he knows more about quickly devouring dumplings than he does spiritual leadership, he begins to search. After a sudden fight with a sneaky fox by the name of Zhen (Awkwafina) he finds out about a new enemy, a powerful sorceress named Chameleon (Viola Davis), who can use her magic to transform into whoever and whatever she wants. She also has an obsession with Po’s Staff of Wisdom and, eventually, access to the spirit realm.

Teaming up with Zhen, Po goes to Juniper City to do what he does best – fight villains. Not only that, but he’s joined by a star-studded group of troops, including veteran James Hong as Po’s goose father Mr. Ping, Bryan Cranston as Po’s panda father Li, Key Huy Quan as the leader of the Den of Thieves, Han, Ronny Chieng as Captain Fish, and the return of Ian McShane as the evil Tai Lung.

Andre Eames said in his review, “The storyline is reasonably well thought out with some real belly chuckle gags sprinkled in that will keep both old and young well entertained. However, the sub-plot of the developing relationship between Mr. Ping and Li – Po’s two fathers – seems like an attempt at something deeper in the plotline but instead very much feels like a space filler interlude.” Including a brief cameo appearances from the Furious Five, and there is a type of feeling that “Kung Fu Panda 4” could have been more than it is.

Eames said, “The vocal enthusiasm and killer one-liners of Jack Black, the fast-paced action scenes rich in traditional Chinese colour schemes and of course the return of the Skadoosh, really carry the weight of this film but for what it lacks in plotline it certainly makes up for in feel-good factor.” This isn’t the best of the four films but it still guarantees to keep everyone engaged and be loved by fans throughout.

This may not be better than the previous three, which is quite a surprise to some, but not to others. I didn’t like how predictable Zhen was and how Ping and Li follow Po on his journey. However, the animation is great, the voice acting is still amazing, the action scenes are engaging, the jokes still were funny (some more than others), and I’m glad I saw it. Check it out on Peacock and see for yourself. I think everyone who has seen the previous films should see this one because they will enjoy themselves.

Thank you for reading this review. Stay tuned this Friday for the conclusion of “Emma Thompson Month.”

Nanny McPhee

There is a darkness in a lot of British children’s books, from Roald Dahl to Harry Potter, and it gives both fear and relief: The happy endings arrive via many close calls. Look at “Nanny McPhee,” released in 2006, named for a governess who appears to be closer to Mrs. Doubtfire than Mary Poppins. Roger Ebert described in his review, “Garbed in a black dress that looks stuffed with flour sacks, she has warts on her face, fire in her eyes and a walking stick that sends off sparks when she slams it on the cobblestones, which is a lot.”

Nanny McPhee (Emma Thompson) is the 18^th governess employed in the Brown household after the death of his wife left Cedric Brown (Colin Firth) to raise seven children on his own. These children, who look to have been born about eight years of one another, are a reckless bunch who want to drive away nannies, and we see several of them escaping the house, one of them screaming, “They’ve eaten the baby!”

Cedric starts getting mysterious messages: “What you need is Nanny McPhee.” They are followed by Nanny herself, a tough and threatening presence who seems to yield magical powers and quickly puts the children in shape. She has a set of rules for them to learn, and a frown that scares them, and soon all is well (or maybe uneasy), even at bedtime in the dormitory room the kids all share.

Ebert noted, “The Browns inhabit a big old country house with countless architectural grotesqueries and lots of gardens and staircases; only in fiction could this be the residence of a man facing financial ruin.” Cedric Brown is the local funeral director, in debt and counting on a legacy from his rich Great Aunt Adelaide, played by Angela Lansbury, who has made one condition: He must marry in 30 days.

Ebert mentioned, “There is an obvious candidate for his heart: Evangeline (Kelly MacDonald), the scullery maid, who is beloved by the children and also by Cedric, although he's such a doofus he doesn't realize it. Instead, Cedric seems doomed to marry Mrs. Quickly (Celia Imrie), who is well-named, since like Shakespeare's Mistress Quickly, she seems to be one step removed from a tart, possibly in the wrong direction.”

As plans for the marriage move ahead, Nanny McPhee lovingly improves the behavior of the Brown children, and here’s a funny thing: Every time she succeeds in getting one of her rules enforced, a wart disappears from her face. She also appears to be losing weight. By the end of the movie, she will look like the Emma Thompson we know and love, and not a moment too soon.

Will Cedric marry Mrs. Quickly? Or will he realize Evangeline is his true love? Will the children turn into model kids? Will it snow in August? All of these questions are answered in due time, in a movie that accepts weirdness as a social value.

Ebert admitted, “Watching the movie, I reflected that the difference between American and British children in the movies is that the American kids tend to run their families and the British kids (Harry Potter excepted) tend to require, and deserve, many hard lessons in life. It is also refreshing that British kids do not succeed because they find out they are good at sports (Quidditch excepted).” In American movies, the kids end in victory, throwing their fists into the air and shouting, “yes!” In British movies, they end as well-behaved miniature adults who have come to see the truth of all the wisdom told to them.

All of this is connected somehow with the decision that Cedric Brown makes to admit Nanny McPhee into his house in the first place. Ebert described, “If a formidable and terrifying female, dressed in black and banging a lethal walking stick, should arrive at an American door all covered with warts, the residents would push the panic button on their security systems.” Only in this realm (based on the Nurse Matilda books by Christianna Brand) would such a person be welcomed.

Ebert asked, “Will kids like the movie? I suspect they will. Kids like to see other kids learning the rules even if they don't much want to learn them themselves. Here is the Brown family, teetering on the brink of poverty and yet living in a house rich American kids could only envy.” Lots of staircases, lots of hiding places, lots of gardens, and even a bit kitchen with a red-faced cook, Mrs. Blatherwick, played by Imelda Staunton, in charge, who throws things at them but always seems to have a few chickens in a pot in case anyone should want sandwiches.

I saw this movie in the theaters with my sister and a few cousins. We loved this movie, and I think everyone else who watches this will too. Check it out. If you’re not familiar with the books, I think you can watch this fine, because I have never heard of them either before this film came out. Just see the movie and enjoy yourselves.

Next week, we will end “Emma Thompson Month” with the Nanny McPhee sequel.

Junior

The hilarity is not that Arnold Schwarzenegger plays a pregnant person in “Junior,” released in 1994, but that he plays one so well. He has a strange idea of what will and won’t work, and since you watch this expecting almost nothing to work, the result is a sort of deliverance. As an actor with big muscles and a think Austrian accent, you’d think he would be limited, and yet he knows himself so well that it gives him freedom: Is a pregnant Arnold any harder to believe, really, than Arnold as Conan the Barbarian? Roger Ebert said in his review, “He begins in "Junior" as a scientist named Hesse, with no charm and no personality, an automaton whose only reaction, when his research funding is yanked, is to pack his bags and head back to Europe.” Even his partner, another researcher named Arbogast, played by Danny DeVito, doesn’t like him (“You have all the warmth and charm of a wall-eyed pike”). However, Arbogast is convinced they’re going to make a fertility drug that will make millions, and as a last resort, he persuades Hesse to experiment by trying the drug on himself.

This is a doubtful procedure, because Arnold must first have a fertilized human egg inserted into him – unusual for a woman, unheard of for a man. Ebert credited, “It's a good thing Arbogast is a persuasive talker; DeVito plays him with a conspiratorial charm, talking about the "beauty of the plan" as if it's something anyone would be lucky to participate in.” The two doctors borrow an egg, Arnold donates the sperm, they inject the result into his body, and Arnold starts taking daily doses of their miracle drug.

The experiment is not only a success, but Schwarzenegger actually becomes pregnant. Ebert said, “The movie wisely never even attempts to explain how this is possible in a person without a womb; hard science is not the strong point here.” The movie’s comedy, and some other scenes that are sort of touching, all come out of the man’s experience as he begins to feel motherly towards his unborn child.

Ebert credited, “I know this sounds odd, but Schwarzenegger is perfect for the role. Observe his acting carefully in "Junior," and you'll see skills that many "serious" actors could only envy. He never reaches for an effect. He never grabs for a joke. He never wrings an emotion out of reluctant material. He plays the role absolutely straight, trusting the material to make the points and get the laughs.” This is probably the only way this story could have worked, but not every actor would have known that.

Ebert mentioned, “Schwarzenegger is helped mightily by being flanked by three superb comic actors:” DeVito, whose crazy enthusiasm makes the outline almost halfway convincing, Emma Thompson, as the scientist who takes over Schwarzenegger’s old lab and makes an unexpected contribution to the experiment, and Pamela Reed, as DeVito’s ex-wife, who is pregnant herself, maybe by a member of Aerosmith.

Ebert said, “DeVito and Thompson turn their scenes into a seminar for the study and exercise of the double take; the way they react to developments is funnier than the developments themselves.” One of Thompson’s gifts, which is nice here, is a way of happily making the best of obviously terrible situations.

The movie’s plot is more or less destined by the progress of a pregnancy. We follow Arnold through morning sickness, cramps, visits to the ultrasound lab and natural childbirth classes, all given a spin by the need to keep his condition as secret as possible.

The writers, Kevin Wade and Chris Conrad, are continuously inventive with explanations: When the director of an expectant moms’ center, played by Judy Collins, finds it odd that her newest client is a 6-foot bodybuilder, Arnold hesitantly reveals that he is an East German athlete, victimized by illegal hormone treatments.

The most unexpected thing about the movie is not that it’s funny, which we expect, but that it’s sweet. It’s one of those films you sit through continuously smiling. It’s silly and ridiculous and outrageous, and yet it makes you feel good, and there is something weirdly heartwarming about looking at a bodybuilder filled with feelings of protectiveness and maternal concern. The scenes with the Thompson character have a nice feel, too, because in a complicated way, both of these characters have to work both sides of the emotional spectrum.

“Junior” was directed by Ivan Reitman, who also directed two other Schwarzenegger comedies, “Kindergarten Cop” and “Twins.” They make a good team. They both understand that in movie acting, what matters more than range, sometimes, is accuracy. There may be a lot of roles Arnold Schwarzenegger could not play. However, there are also roles no one else could play, and they don’t all involve a guy shooting missiles at a skyscraper. A lot of actors can hold large machine guns and stand convincingly in front of special effects and explosions. Not many can stand in front of a camera and be nine months pregnant, and actually make us care.

In an unexpected way, “Junior” is a good family movie, for parents and adolescents to see together, and then to discuss in ways of male and female roles and responsibilities.

I first heard of this movie by watching Nostalgia Critic’s review of it. He was saying that it was boring because it was being treated like an actual pregnancy and no comedy was in there. However, my cousin said that the movie was good. After hearing these two opinions, I decided to check it out, and I was laughing throughout the movie. I don’t see how this is a boring film. The very thought of having a comedy about a pregnant man, let alone that man being played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, the comedy writes itself. This is not in any way bad, in my opinion, so I would say to check this out and decide for yourself. I believe a lot of people, if they just sit back and carefully watch, will see just how funny of a film this is.

Next week, we will be reviewing a film that is based off of Nurse Matilda in “Emma Thompson Month.”

Much Ado About Nothing

For this month, I thought that I would review certain movies that star one of the greatest British actresses of all time, Emma Thompson. Let’s get started with the 1993 adaptation of the one of William Shakespeare’s comedy plays, “Much Ado About Nothing.”

After going so much astray with two contemporary films, Kenneth Branagh returns to his peak and, for him, safe area of Shakespeare with “Much Ado About Nothing,” a spirited, successfully acted adaptation of one of the playwrights most popular comedies. Todd McCarthy said in his review, “Pitched to the widest possible audience for a classic through its shrewdly selected Anglo-American cast, clarion-clear enunciation of the witty dialogue and warm-hearted expression of the piece’s exalted romantic themes, this rambunctious production should find favor with most viewers disposed to attending a Shakespeare film.”

Openness was clearly the main concern for Branagh in adapting one of the playwright’s more comedic plays. Branagh with to great lengths to make sure that nothing is left unclear, and to make every scene as physical, playful and loud as possible.

McCarthy said, “Result is a film that is continuously enjoyable from its action-filled opening to the dazzling final shot, one that offers a very generous welcome to newcomers to the play, and reminds those familiar with it of its heady pleasures. Only real drawback, and not an insignificant one, is pic’s visual quality, which is unaccountably undistinguished, even ugly, especially considering the sun-drenched Tuscan location.”

Looking outside, Branagh inserts this take of irrationality, betrayal, and excellent love with a refreshing vulgarity. As a group of victorious soldiers returns from war on their horses, the love between men and their waiting women becomes intense as they prepare for the evening’s festivities.

All should be well with Leonato (Richard Briers): the righteous Don Pedro (Denzel Washington) helps young Claudio (Robert Sean Leonard) pursue and win Leonato’s lovely daughter Hero (Kate Beckinsale, in her film debut), while the proudly bachelor Benedick (Branagh) and the feisty Beatrice (Emma Thompson) trade insults and points with such enthusiasm and skill that they must unavoidably become a team.

McCarthy said, “But the fly in the ointment is the sulky, jealous Don John, who hatches a scheme that convinces Claudio of Hero’s unfaithfulness on the eve of their wedding, resulting in a chain reaction of insults, renunciations, misunderstandings, deceptions and physical assaults that take most of the tale’s second half to resolve.”

Playing a huge part in making things right is the eccentric sergeant Dogberry (Michael Keaton), who, with his motley band of deputies, manages to execute justice through the most unlikely of ways.

McCarthy notes, “Setting most of the action in and around a sprawling hillside villa baked by the heat of summer and passion, Branagh sends the actors spinning through the play’s intricate paces at an almost breathless clip, but with diction so clear that very little of the verbiage will be lost on anyone.”

McCarthy continues, “To cement the connection, temperature of the characters’ bodily fluids has been raised to quite a high level, giving the proceedings a lubricious tone that could end up making this “Much Ado” a good date movie.”

In the context, it’s sad that more care was not put into the film’s graphic quality. McCarthy noted, “Although Branagh’s physical staging is exemplary, the visual approach is strictly utilitarian.”

McCarthy continued, “Still, the day is more than carried by the talented thespians and Branagh’s infectious, energetic enthusiasm. Branagh and Thompson bring appealing intelligence and verbal snap to their ongoing sparring.”

McCarthy compared, “Looking almost as weird as Beetlejuice, Keaton delivers a very alert, surprising turn as the malapropping constable, reminding in the process that he should never stay away from comedy for too long.”

Washington is pleasingly determined as Don Pedro, while Robert Sean Leonard is very capable in the main role of Claudio. For those who might have grunted at Keanu Reeves playing Shakespeare when looking at his performance in “My Own Private Idaho” and his unconvincing period work in “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” his Don John comfortingly announces early on that “I am not of many words.” He ends up keeping his promise and does a convincingly evil person.

Richard Briers and Brian Blessed are amazing as the elders of the community.

McCarthy ended his review by noting, “It all wraps up in wondrous fashion, as the climactic Steadicam shot dashes across a courtyard, though a house and into a garden before soaring high up above dozens of dancing, cavorting merrymakers to the accompaniment of Patrick Doyle’s movinglycelebrator music.”

I believe I had started watching this on one of the movie channels, but I didn’t go back to watch it until it was available for free On Demand. This is a good Shakespeare adaptation. I would recommend everyone to check it out because the set is beautiful, the casting is great, the characters are nice, and the performances are believable. You will laugh at this movie, as it is a funny adaptation. Check it out and see for yourself.

Stay tuned next week when I review another comedy in “Emma Thompson Month.”