Oops...

How weird...I could have sworn I wrote a post about two movies I watched...I must have written it, left it, and then forgot to actually hit "post." Oh well...I just watched a new movie since then so I'll write about all three. :)

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (James Franco, Freida Pinto, John Lithgow) - Having never seen Planet of the Apes, I can't definitively say whether this keeps the "feeling" or "answers" all the questions from the movie; however, I can say that I enjoyed the movie for itself. In addition, knowing OF the original does, for me, answer the question of how Earth became ruled by apes. So, I suppose it does achieve that big question. Although the motion capture (thanks to Andy Serkis again) is great and the story is good, I found the lack of a consistent "enemy" disruptive to the movie. Sure, Tom Felton's character is pretty nasty and you don't really like the head of the laboratory either, but what do you do when that creature you cared for and rooted for to be treated well suddenly becomes more dominate than a human? I will say, the apes, more-or-less, didn't actively try to kill someone and it wasn't exactly their fault that the human population dwindles to almost nothing (blame that on the reason why they all became smart), but still. It's a little disconcerting! Also doesn't help when the apes break out that you do feel for them too and the way they were mistreated. So, it's a mixed bag of emotions as you watch, but it's a good film. If you've got nothing else really to do and want to watch an action film and prequel to Planet of the Apes, I'd recommend it. I don't think I'd actively say "go see it," though. Grade: B

Snow Flower and the Secret Fan - This is actually an Australian film, which makes sense as to why Hugh Jackman gets a small role in the film as the, well, Australian male interest for one of the girls (he's in it for about 10 minutes?). I really enjoyed the film and it even put the desire to read the book (by the same title) in me, which is kind of amazing. Most times I watch movie adaptations and don't have that feeling, but this one managed to do it for me. As much as I liked the film, I do think part of the reason I want to read the book is the name confusion. The book starts in the 20th century (1980's?), but flashes back to China of old (19th century?). In other words, it's kind of a story within a story. The main characters of the story are Nina and Sophia who are best friends. Not an issue, but it starts off with them as adults and then it flashes back to when they are teenagers. So in the first 10-15 minutes of the movie you're trying to establish who-is-who in the two "modern" time frames (from adults to teens and back). Then...one of the girls ends up in a coma in the hospital and the other girl finds out she (the one in the coma) wrote a story in 19th century China about a similar friendship they had. So you see them in modern times and then it flashes to the 19th century China and the story her friend wrote. So, once again, you need to establish who-is-who (played by the same actresses). You think that wouldn't be so hard, but the story starts off when they're young girls and finishes when they're older. So, again, you need to establish which girl is which and the girls switch economic roles (poor to rich and rich to poor) after they marry. So, I think I spent half the movie trying to remember the names and connecting them to their modern, past, or 19th century China versions. It was rather confusing for a while. Once I got that all established, it was pretty smooth sailing from there. I enjoyed the acting and the story a lot, but I have a feeling the book (given how popular it is) probably is far better. Grade: B/B- (mostly for the name issue)

Ides of March (Ryan Gosling, George Clooney) - Huh. Movie was not what I expected it to be. The trailer is, basically, the premise of the movie (Gosling's character really believes in his candidate, Clooney, but something happens so he questions his beliefs in Clooney), but it's the situation and how it plays out that was surprising to me. First off, if you're watching this because it's a political campaign movie and you like politics, don't watch it for that reason. It's not West Wing; however, it is an interesting snapshot of the political promises and maneuvers that are done to get ahead in a campaign. The movie, though, revolves around Gosling and something he finds out about Clooney and the aftermath of that information. He tries to work around it, but events start spinning out of control (from another blunder) and, in a lot of ways, he becomes what he didn't want to become to save himself. So, perhaps this was me, but I felt a little sad at the end of the movie because, in many ways, he compromised his beliefs, became a person who got down in the mud with the others, and, basically, thought only of his career. The acting was good and Gosling does a good "serious" face that's always just slightly showing what he's feeling (wariness, mirth, anger, sadness, etc), but the movie definitely was not what I expected it to be. It's almost like it has a hint of a "thriller" feeling in it and it's not strictly the drama-like film I thought it would be. So, would I recommend it? I don't think so unless you think it's something you'd like to see, but it is a good film. I will say, if you do see it, remember that the politics are subtle and the movie really is more about a person's character. It also drops the f-bomb and other foul language quite a lot (Gosling, I have heard more swear words from you than any other actor lately!) Grade: C/C+

Next up? Not sure. Abduction and Dolphin Tale are out, so maybe. First, though, I really need to finish Downton Abbey (plugging away on season 1) and start researching for the Aquarium.