Godzilla Resurgence / Shin Gojira (2016)

Plot summary (story synopsis): A large sea monster suddenly attacks Tokyo. The Japanese government's bureaucracy swings into action to deal with the unprecedented threat. 

***

I had high hopes for this movie. We've seen what the Americans do with Godzilla. Now let's see the Japanese, the guys who created Godzilla, do it right. Will they go all philosophical and meta? Or all cheesy fun? The answer is, neither.

Godzilla Resurgence is one helluva mess. Most of the movie is about bureaucratic wrangling inside the Japanese government. We are treated to endless meetings and dozens of government officials. Yup, it's all about the bureaucrats. Not the military, not some plucky civilian. No cute kids or dogs either. Bureaucrats. And the pacing and sensibility feels distinctly 1970s.

SPOILERS WARNING

I usually try to avoid going too much into plot details, preferring to look at movies from a higher level of abstraction. But there's nothing much to analyze here except for the plot.

Of course, there's a mad scientist subplot, but it doesn't really develop into anything much. Except origami molecular biology and a plan to coagulate Godzilla's blood with thousands of gallons of chemicals.

There's also another subplot with a half-Japanese American lady diplomat (who can barely speak English) which made no sense to me so I won't try to explain it.

It is only after about an hour that the action really starts, with the Japanese military blasting away with helicopter gunships, tanks and artillery. All to no effect, of course. I mean, a tank's armor-piercing round can penetrate over a meter of steel so of course it can't harm anything organic, right?

After the brief battle, it's back to the bureaucrats. The American military also gets into the act and bombs Godzilla using B2 stealth bombers. But surprise! Godzilla has built-in phased-array radar that can detect stealth aircraft and shoots down a B2 with its laser. Oh, and he shoots down the Prime Minister's helicopter too, killing him.

Godzilla then goes into hibernation right in the middle of Tokyo, for a couple of days. He's a sitting duck. Hit him again. But nope, everyone is so freaked out that all they can think of now is nukes.

The UN Security Council passes a resolution to nuke Godzilla with a US-led coalition of countries. But the gutsy Japanese manage to outsmart the stupid, evil Americans. They use cement pump trucks to pump the blood coagulant into Godzilla's mouth, causing him to turn into stone.

Don't judge me but my favorite Godzilla is still the Roland Emmerich version.

Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (2015)

Plot summary (story synopsis): Thomas (Dylan O'Brien) and his pals have been rescued from the glade/maze by men in helicopters, led by Janson (Aidan Gillen - Little Finger in Game of Thrones).

They are taken to Janson's headquarters with promises of a better life. But Thomas discovers a sinister secret about Janson. He and his friends break out into a hostile world where they face scorching heat and zombies, with Janson hot on their trail.

***

Scorch Trials is the second movie in the Maze Runner series. It's a repetitive mix of people running and getting into gunfights. There are maybe 5 separate incidents such as this.

We've seen it before. Zombies (three percent of the movies released in the past decade), ruthless scientists experimenting on an immune hero to find a cure for an epidemic (Resident Evil), a collapsed skyscraper leaning over (Transformers, Cloverfield), teenagers being drugged to stop them from their quest (Labyrinth), people crawling in air ducts (twelve percent of all thrillers), teens sleeping together in barracks (Divergent, Kingsman), a captive population being fooled that they will be chosen to go to a better place (The Island).

But the fundamental problem with the Maze Runner series is that we don't care about the characters. There are too many secondary characters. So much so that we don't care if any of them get killed.

There is no sense of danger or urgency. But it's not just the supporting cast. We don't even care about Thomas. We know that he's the hero and therefore in no physical danger. The Hunger Games gets around this problem by putting Katniss in psychological danger. There is no equivalent for Thomas.

Its basic scenario also sucks. Like Resident Evil, the movie naively assumes that the ruined and depopulated world can maintain its fancy equipment - helicopters, computers, medical equipment, long distance video links.

The time and resources poured into building the massive movable maze. All for what? How does that help them find a cure for the virus?

This lack of realism extends to the details of the plot. Instead of creatively extrapolating a believable plot from its basic premise (no matter how dumb it might be), action cliches are dreamed up and a plot is made to accommodate the cliches.

The pacing is fast though. There's never a dull moment. If only we had something worth cheering for.

Terminator Genisys (2015)

Plot summary (story synopsis): Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney - A Good Day to Die Hard) is sent back to 1984 by resistance leader John Connor (Jason Clarke) to save John's mother Sarah (Emilia Clarke - Daenerys in Game of Thrones) from a T-800 Terminator. Kyle arrives in 1984 and finds that it is not the 1984 that John told him to expect. Sarah knows that he is coming, and has an aging T-800 Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) that she calls Pops, protecting her. The three of them have to fight off a T-1000 liquid metal Terminator (Byung-hun Lee) but that's just the start of their problems. 

***

It's instructive to compare Genisys (T5) with Jurassic World (JP4). Both are blockbuster sequels, with a good number of years since the last movie in the franchise. TLDR version - Genisys is the better sequel.

Jurassic World succeeded by evoking the nostalgia of the first movie. There were references to the first movie (the cartoon DNA character, the motorized binocular helmets, the field of flocking dinosaurs) as well as franchise-specific tropes (such as a dinosaur trying to eat people in a car, the T-Rex saving the day). Adding to the nostalgia was the fact that 14 years had passed since the last Jurassic Park movie (JP3).

Unfortunately there was little continuity with the characters. The main or only repeat was a minor character - chief scientist Dr. Henry Wu (BD Wong). Even worse, the plot was a repeat. Perhaps there's only so much that you can do with a franchise about a dinosaur theme park. Jurassic Park's storytelling DNA is an evolutionary dead end. Jurassic World is a fun movie, a heckuva ride, but not much more. I'm guessing that it was the nostalgia factor that pushed Jurassic World's box office gross to over $1 billion. 

In contrast, Genisys ticks off all the items on the sequel checklist, and then some.

On the nostalgia front, the last Terminator movie (T4 - the awful Terminator Salvation) was 6 years ago but Arnold wasn't really in it. For a real Arnold Terminator movie, you have to go back 12 years to T3 (Rise of the Machines), close to the 14 years between JP3 and Jurassic World. If you want to look at the first movie in the franchise, JP1 was 22 years ago, T1 was 31 years ago. So going in, Genisys has a slight edge in nostalgia.

But wait, there's more. Like Back to the Future II, in Genisys we get to see some events of the first movie, but from an alternate viewpoint. (In Back to the Future II, the events are the same. In Genisys, the events are slightly altered.) So that ups Genisys's nostalgia factor.

Add to that Schwarzenegger providing a sense of continuity that Jurassic World lacked (as mentioned earlier, only BD Wong), and it's easily hello $1 billion dollars too. 

Schwarzenegger plays the aging Terminator with slightly more expressiveness and humanity, than in the previous movies. For example when an exasperated Sarah tells him to "bite me," he doesn't take it literally. He understands that it is a figure of speech and chides her for being immature.

It makes sense because in the Genisys timeline, the Terminator has been protecting Sarah since she was 9 years-old, giving her years to humanize him (compared to John having days in T2 and T3). Adding to the emotional punch is our realization that Schwarzenegger now really is that old. It's like watching Stallone grow old in the Rocky series, Bruce Willis in the Die Hard series.  

Thematically, the Terminator movies are richer than the Jurassic Parks. T1, the first movie asked, Can the future be changed? T2, the second movie said, Yes it can. The third movie said, You can change some things but other things - such as Judgment Day - are inevitable. T5, Genisys says, You can change things, and it's even possible for one person to remember two different timelines. 

T4, the fourth movie? It didn't say anything except that John doesn't grow up to be a great military leader. He becomes a selfish, arrogant glory-hound. It's a horrible aberration that Genisys has thankfully ignored. Genisys treats T3 with more reverence. The ICBM launches of Judgment Day, the scene of the future John making a speech to his soldiers, look the same in Genisys as they did in T3. The scars on John's face? That's from T3.

There's even something for fans of the Sarah Connor Chronicles TV series. The scene where a naked Kyle and Sarah appear at night in the middle of a busy highway, is an obvious nod to it.

But it is with T2 that Genisys's heart really lies. The details of the liquid metal T-1000 are lovingly recreated (the bullet hole through the eye, the blob dropping off and then being reabsorbed, the transformation of arms into metal spikes, walking out unscathed from a fire, hiding as part of a room).

In Genisys, Sarah's relationship with the Terminator is a mirror image of John's relationship with the Terminator in T2. Genisys has an interesting development of Sarah and Kyle's relationship. They are realistically awkward about their predestined fate as the parents of John (and like in T3 with John and Kate, the Terminator makes funny boneheaded remarks about it), even though they have just met. But Sarah's father-daughter relationship with the Terminator is the emotional core of Genisys.

In terms of character development, T1 was about Sarah coming to terms with the unbelievable idea that her unborn son was going to be the savior of the human race. T2 had the most interesting extrapolation - the pressure turns Sarah into a psycho bitch, and John realizes that his mother wasn't totally crazy after all. T3 was about John refusing his destiny because the path to his heroic destiny was paved with billions of dead bodies. T5 doesn't have as strong a take on Sarah or Kyle's character but does show Sarah as accepting her fate, and convincing Kyle to accept his.

Plot-wise, there's enough going on in Genisys to keep you interested. You can't always guess what is going to happen next. After T1, copycat time travel movies explored all kinds of scenarios and paradoxes, until time travel became a cliche. Genisys still manages to keep it fresh (even if it means stealing from 12 Monkeys). 

So in this box-office battle of the blockbuster sequels, of dinosaurs versus Terminators, I see it as special effects versus storytelling. Sure, there are special effects in Genisys too, but they are there to support the story. In Jurassic World, the special effects - the dinosaurs - are the main attraction.

I hope the robots win.

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Plot summary (story synopsis): Mad Max (Tom Hardy) is kidnapped by Immortan Joe's (Hugh Keays-Byrne) band of crazy war boys. He is taken back to their rock fortress in the middle of the desert and used as a living blood bag to provide nourishment to their warriors. 

Immortan Joe's trusted lieutenant Furiosa (Charlize Theron) leads a routine raid to steal petrol but has other plans. Hidden in her empty tanker are Immortan Joe's slave wives. Furiosa plans to save them, and their unborn children from becoming Immortan Joe's future war boys.

Immortan Joe goes all out to catch Furiosa, leading the chase vehicles himself. Nux (Nicholas Hoult), one of the war boys, aims to catch Furiosa and claim glory and immortal life from Immortan Joe.

Nux takes Max as his blood bag and chains him to the front of his car. The ridiculous convoy of scrap-yard Frankenstein vehicles chases Furiosa down Fury Road. 

***

Fury Road looks like a shallow action movie but it's much more than that. The schoolboy-glee with which writer/director George Miller lovingly plays with the crazy souped-up vehicles, their medieval contraptions, and the crazy action stunts, hides a more serious intent.

Fury road is a millieu movie, not a plot or character movie. The star is its post-apocalyptic world, the various quirky bands of people (and their quirkier vehicles) living out in the desert in a fallen world. Especially Immortan Joe's militarized dictatorship and the religion he created around the old Norse legend of Valhalla, to keep his war boys loyal to him.

After the second Mad Max movie (the first wasn't a big hit, the one with Tina Turner is the third movie), the term Mad Max (or Road Warrior) was used to describe a specific type of post-apocalyptic scenario, so much did the movies define our vision of violent gangs taking over after civilizational collapse. 

And what a millieu it is. The wacky warriors and their vehicles are fleshed out in loving detail. And they don't just look good, they work well too. The movie is maybe 60 percent running battles between the war boys and Furiosa and Max. We see how their medieval punk weaponry works in glorious state-of-the-art stunt live-action. 

We do get numb to all the flat-out action after a while. The action sequences should have been edited down more ruthlessly. But overall they are a raging success.  

Hidden amongst all the action is a subtle show-don't-tell exploration of Immortan Joe's Valhalla religion through the exploits of Nux. The movie is more about him than about Max or Furiosa. Though he looks like a comedic sidekick, he actually has the best character arc in the whole movie.

Furiosa and Max are the heroes but they don't change much. They are only there to drive the action. Max's flashbacks about not saving the kids, are an obviously contrived device to give his character some depth.

Max disappears at the end of the movie. In victory, he leaves Furiosa and goes on alone to his next adventure in the next episode of the Mad Max franchise. He is the enigmatic reluctant hero, the faceless man. The Mad Max movies are not about Mad Max. As explained earlier, the term Mad Max in popular culture refers to Max's post-apocalyptic world, not Max. This is world-building at its finest.

Witness!

Jupiter Ascending (2015)

Plot summary (story synopsis): Chamber maid Jupiter Jone's (Mila Kunis) ordinary life is thrown into chaos when space aliens come to kill her. Hired gun Caine Wise (Channing Tatum) saves her and continues to protect her as she journeys to claim her inheritance as owner of Earth, fighting off her evil relatives Balem (Eddie Redmayne) and Titus (Douglas Booth) along the way.

***

Jupiter Ascending is an odd mix of gorgeous visuals (production design, lighting and special effects are pretty), conventional space opera (decadent, incestuous galactic empire royalty) and kiddie cartoon. With Mila Kunis and Channing Tatum in the lead roles, I was expecting the filmmakers to target the same audience as Hunger Games and Divergent. I gave the Hollywood MBAs too much credit. 

Yes, the movie's main failing is that its story is written for 12-year-olds. It's a mismatch. Older teens will not be impressed while kids will not be interested in the Jupiter-Caine romance. Hardcore Star Wars fans (Star Wars is space opera) will look down on its consistently kiddie feel.

Think I'm exaggerating? Sean Bean doesn't die in this movie (he plays Stinger, Caine's friend). This conclusively proves that this is a kiddie movie.

It's possible for a kiddie movie to interest adults too. Just look at Frozen. But Jupiter Ascending has the cliched plot of a Saturday morning cartoon episode. No original ideas, no satire or jokes for the adults.

There are bits of Terminator (you almost expect Caine to tell Jupiter, Come with me if you want to live), Men in Black (aliens secretly on Earth), V (aliens harvesting humans), Brazil (bureaucracy) and maybe Stargate. But these don't come off as fun tributes, just lazy copycatting.

And ugh, there's the politics too. Jupiter Jones is an illegal immigrant. Way to bang the amnesty drum, guys.

Written and directed by the Wachowski siblings (who used to be brothers but are now brother and sister), this is in no way close to the quality of their The Matrix. The action sequences here are muddled and too long. The first gun fight involving Caine is confused - it's hard to know who is doing what to whom.

Some of the other fights are better (there's a beautiful aerial dogfight over Chicago) but still lack impact.

Like Michael Mann's Blackhat, Jupiter Ascending is a reminder that all directors are fallible. I wish I didn't care so much about movies. 

The Giver (2014)

Plot summary (story synopsis): In the future, a small society lives in peaceful isolation atop a mountain plateau. There is no war, crime or even bad behavior. This is partly maintained by having everyone receive a daily injection of medicine that mutes their emotions. Drones patrol the skies, looking out for misbehavior. A council of Elders makes decisions for everyone. Including what clothes they wear, what time they have to be at home, their occupation and whether or not they receive babies.

Teenager Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) is assigned to be the new Keeper of Memories at his coming-of-age ceremony. Unlike everyone else, he will be exposed to Earth's rich, wonderful, and violent history; so that he can advise the Elders. He receives one-on-one training from The Giver (Jeff Bridges).

Alternately delighted, shocked and overwhelmed by the history of mankind, he illegally shares his knowledge of fun with friend Fiona (Odeya Rush) and sister Lilly (Emma Tremblay). This worries his father (Alexander Skarsgård), mother (a no longer baby-faced Katie Holmes), and Chief Elder (Meryl Streep).

Jonas then realizes the horrific truth behind his ostensibly peaceful society, and decides to leave.

***

The Giver is a decent but unremarkable mix of THX-1138 (medicated, docile population) and Pleasantville (young rebel brings emotions to repressed Stepford Wives society). You can also throw in Logan's Run - secret euthanasia, and a reverse of The Village - high tech instead low tech road to paradise. Unfortunately The Giver is inferior to all of these movies.

Its plot is linear, with no major surprises - you can pretty much guess what is going to happen next, including the ending. Worse, its futuristic society is badly thought out and does not withstand serious scrutiny.

Based on the Young Adult novel by Lois Lowry, the movie has a target teen audience that probably won't mind. But it lacks the star power and action of Hunger Games or even Divergent. It probably isn't going to pull in much of a crowd. I have seen zero marketing for it. The first I heard of it was when a friend recommended it to me. Looks like the Weinstein Company isn't betting heavily on it.

The Giver's schmaltzy emotionalism and shallow social commentary is worthy of Andrew Niccol (Gattaca, The Host) but lacks Niccol's refined touch and glossy visuals. It looks more like a TV movie.

The cast is not the problem, with Brenton Thwaites and Odeya Rush looking good on screen and managing to gain the audience's sympathy. Jeff Bridges is convincing as the troubled, gentle and wise Giver. It's the sort of role he can play in his sleep. Meryl Streep is a bit understated as the evil Chief Elder, but then she usually is.

Verisimilitude and the voluntary suspension of disbelief, are big deals to me. The Giver fails in this because little thought was spent on designing a realistic scenario for its future society.

It falls into the common science fiction trap of having all sorts of cool futuristic gadgets, but lacks a population that is large enough to sustain the industries necessary to produce them. From the aerial shot of the settlement, there are at most 100,000 people (probably closer to 10,000) living in isolation. Yet they have electric bikes, drones, holographic projectors, solar panels - all the normal cliches of a futuristic society.

They also live in seemingly self-sufficient economic autarky, not needing to trade with anyone for raw materials or food.

SPOILERS AHEAD

Okay, let's accept the society as a given. Even then, the plot is full of holes. Why does passing the Border of Memory, automatically zap people with emotions and mankind's lost memories? Especially since they are still on medication? Why haven't any outsiders ventured into the border, or even right up to the settlement?

The best stories work because they are believable. Force-fitting a morality play onto an arbitrary science fiction future world isn't going to cut it. Director Phillip Noyce (Salt, Patriot Games, Rabbit-Proof Fence) should have passed on the script.

Lucy (2014)

Plot summary (story synopsis): White trash Lucy (Scarlett Johansson) is living in Taipei. She is forced to become a drug mule (smuggler) and ends up being overdosed with the new experimental drug that was sewn into her stomach.

The drug gives her extraordinary mental and physical powers, including telekinesis and Jedi mind-tricks. She uses her new powers to exact revenge on the Korean criminals, led by Mr. Jang (Min-sik Choi), who forced her to become their drug mule.

She tracks down the world expert on brain enhancement - Professor Norman (Morgan Freeman) - in Paris, and arranges for the French police to intercept the other drug mules and bring their packets of drugs to Paris. This is because she needs more of the drugs to further enhance her powers.

Mr. Jang comes to Paris and a massive fight breaks out between his thugs, Lucy, and the Paris police.

***

Lucy is an odd mix of action-adventure, noir (doomed, poisoned protagonist) and science fiction. It's entertaining enough but is technically unconvincing, causing writer/director Luc Besson's reach to exceed his grasp.

At least with Luc Besson, you know that you're not going to get some unoriginal run-of-the-mill by-the-numbers actioneer.

The movie starts off promisingly enough. Luc Besson has always been good with introductions and this one is a doozy. I won't spoil it for you by revealing any details here.

However it begins to go off the rails when Lucy magically develops superpowers such as telekinesis, and medical diagnosis skills out of thin air (she doesn't do any reading or research before being able to diagnose a terminal patient from his x-rays alone).

Verisimilitude and the voluntary suspension of disbelief, are critical for getting the audience to buy into a story. Luc Besson usually aces it but he should stay away from science fiction (Fifth Element was science fantasy). He does not have the technical judgment to pull it off.

But wait, there's more! Lucy conveniently leaves the bad guys alive after disabling them, so that they can stick around for the final confrontation. It's not like she is squeamish about killing. She cold-bloodedly kills the Chinese criminals who held her captive.

So there goes the remaining bits of the audience's voluntary suspension of disbelief. And to make sure it is fully gone, Luc Besson stomps on it even more. Lucy can control people's mind, like a Jedi, but doesn't use it to disable the bad guys (don't give me that only works on the weak-minded crap). She can also telepathically knock them unconscious, levitate them in the air, but she doesn't lift a finger to help the police who are protecting her from the bad guys. So there's a massive gunfight at the end of the movie, which she could have easily won single-handedly.

And to top it all off, the movie's basic premise, that humans use only 10 percent of their brain, is flat out wrong. There are other objections - the fossil Lucy was not the world's first woman, only the earliest known fossil - but I don't want to go on like some geek. (Lucy sees radio waves, and can send TV signals from Taipei to Paris using her brainpower alone.)

Stylistically, the movie is flawed too. The cuts to documentary footage (we see a cheetah stalking its prey when Lucy is being cornered by the bad guys) are clunky and throw you out of the movie.

In other visuals, Luc Besson seems to being paying homages to Akira (organic quick-grow tentacles), The Time Machine (it's obvious when you see it), Kick-Ass (camera work showing the armed thugs in the passageway), The Matrix (white room), and I-kid-you-not Star Wars (bad guy shoots at Lucy but she disappears, leaving her empty clothes behind). Heck, I'd even throw 2001: A Space Odyssey into the mix (evolution of man into a super being). It's all very distracting.

All in all, I'd consider this an honorable failure.

Space Pirate Captain Harlock (2013)

Plot summary (story synopsis): Renegade captain Harlock is on the run from the Gaia Sanction that rules over Earth and the human diaspora that has spread out across the galaxy. He travels in his spaceship Arcadia, which runs on alien dark matter technology.

Harlock plans to set off 100 bombs at different parts of the galaxy to reverse time and fix the problems caused by the Gaia Sanction. Yama, brother of Isola (an important member of Gaia Sanction), infiltrates Harlock's crew and tries to stop him.

***

Space Pirate is a visually impressive but grandiosely nonsensical science fiction anime movie. It's okay to have a technically ridiculous premise, as long as you make the audience want to believe in the story - through good storytelling or engaging characters.

However, Space Pirate doesn't give you any reason to overlook its badly-imagined space opera world. It lacks the world-building integrity and rich character development of TV anime series such as Escaflowne or Neon Genesis Evangelion. Heck, even the Final Fantasies are better.

For one thing, Harlock himself doesn't get much screen time, appearing more as a shadowy enigma - a supporting character - than as the main protagonist. That role falls to Yama, who comes across as a cardboard character too.

Isola is the designated bad guy (complete with cliched physical disability - he can't walk). Unfortunately, he is literally a cartoon bad guy. And his soap opera relationship with Yama is painfully melodramatic.

Harlock's crew are also cardboard cliches. There's a super-confident hot blond in a tight-fitting suit (who looks like Heather Locklear) and a crude, salty cigar-chomping sergeant (not really a sergeant, and I might have imagined the cigar, but you get the idea).

The visuals are good. The overall design is some kind of steampunk tech that we've seen before but still looks interesting. Lighting is dramatic high contrast, a bit like the lighting in Underworld. I'm not a clothes guy but the baroque costumes look good. Each major character has his own signature design, with realistically rendered fabric textures.

The characters do move a bit like robots but you quickly get used to this and barely notice after a while. Facial expressions could be better but are good enough.

Unfortunately the space battles are unimaginative Star Trek-style visual-range laser fights between lumbering space battleships. Heck, the Gaia Sanction troops look like Stormtroopers.

Space Pirate is advertised with a breathless endorsement from James Cameron. I can't imagine what he must have been smoking.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)

Plot summary (story synopsis): It has been 10 years since Caesar (Andy Serkis - Gollum in The Lord of the Rings) led the ape revolt against humans. The apes are now peacefully settled in the forest. A virus, part of the experiment conducted on Caesar and designed to cure Alzheimer's disease, has wiped out most of the humans. Some resistant humans have survived and have banded together in a fortified group of buildings in the city, led by Dreyfus (Gary Oldman).

The humans are running low on fuel. Malcolm (Jason Clarke) leads an expedition into the forest to restart a hydroelectric power generator. They stumble onto some apes and shoot one out of fear. An enraged Caesar lets them go but warns them to never come back.

Desperate for electricity, Malcolm returns and manages to convince Caesar to allow the humans to restart the power generator. Koba (Toby Kebbell) still hates the humans from his years in captivity, and tries to convince Caesar to stop cooperating with the humans. Caesar refuses to change his mind, causing Koba to take matters into his own hands.

***

Dawn is an entertaining but ultimately shallow sequel to 2011's Rise of the Planet of the Apes. The characters are just as rich and sympathetic as Rise's, making it an engaging drama, but not much more.

There's a new director - Matt Reeves (Cloverfield, Let Me In, Felicity) replaces Rupert Wyatt. But Rise's writers Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver, together with new writer Mark Bomback (Live Free or Die Hard), worked on Dawn too. This probably accounts for the continuity in feel from the first movie. If you liked Rise, you'll like Dawn.

Most people would classify Dawn as a science fiction action/adventure but it's more of a drama. It's about Caesar as the non-violent leader, reluctantly dragged into war. It's a character study. It's a good character study, but that doesn't change the fact that the movie is not really about apes.

One test of a "real" science fiction story, is to take out the science fiction element and then see if the story still works. Dawn still works as a story if the apes were replaced by an oppressed racial minority. That's because the story doesn't explore the consequences of intelligent apes - for example how apes come to terms with human technology, or how apes regard their less intelligent predecessors, or how apes relate to their former masters (Dawn touches on this shallowly), or how presumably inferior apes could defeat humans (the two sides fight, but again, the apes could be replaced by a racial minority and the story would be the same).

Like too many movies, Dawn uses its post-apocalyptic premise mainly as cool background. It doesn't think through its ramifications and the scenarios are not convincing:

• They need electricity mainly to power their radio, to contact other survivors. You need at most a few kilowatts for that. You can get that from a single car engine - which they do have. You don't need a freaking hydroelectric dam. That's megawatts.
• You can't so easily restart a hydroelectric power station that has been abandoned for 10 years. It's not just the power station. The electrical distribution system to the city will also be a complicated mess.
• They can't run their cars on methanol or ethanol? Sure, ethanol corrodes some engine parts, but this is fixable. Or at least address this option in the story.
• The human survivors are shown crowded in a few large buildings. They aren't out in the fields, growing food or hunting animals or scavenging for leftover technology?
• The apes are shown to easily start using guns, even out-shooting the humans. All without any training. In reality, even untrained humans will have difficulty shooting straight and keeping their guns working. Yet Koba is shown expertly shooting his automatic rifle in short bursts (without being startled by the sound or recoil), and switching to single-shot (semi automatic) mode when necessary.

It's not just this lack of science fiction and technical rigor that makes Dawn feel shallow. There is no arc for the characters. The good guys (both ape and human) are consistently good, and the bad guys (both ape and human) are consistently bad. Even Dreyfus, who acts more unexpectedly than the other characters, doesn't change in the course of the movie.

Call it a formula if you will, but this lack of a character arc makes Dawn feel like a kiddie movie. Caesar is an interesting character. The audience is kept wondering whether or not he will turn to the dark side. But in the end Caesar's big insight is that apes are too much like humans - they can be evil and violent too. That's trite.

I'm not saying that Caesar should have turned to the dark side. I'm saying that at least one of the characters should have changed.

Don't get me wrong. This is an entertaining movie. But it mainly engages your heart, not your head.

Visuals from Director of Photography Michael Seresin (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Mercury Rising) and Production Designer James Chinlund (The Avengers) are good - the ruined buildings where the humans hide out, the apes' peaceful hillside village.

Andy Serkis is fun to watch as the brooding Caesar. Jason Clarke is also convincing as the decent, brave, pacifist Malcolm. But he's too plain vanilla. He's like some mild-mannered TV sitcom dad. Too unbelievably nice.

Dawn is mainly about these two and their relationship of trust. Keri Russell (Felicity) makes an appearance as Malcolm's girlfriend, but she's barely supporting cast. Gary Oldman, also in a small role, is as good as always but he doesn't have much to do.

Rise was released 3 years ago. I liked it, but I'll have to admit that I don't remember the details. Did the apes ride horses at the end? I can't remember. They do ride horses in Dawn, which is cool because one of the strongest images from the old Charlton Heston Planet of the Apes movie, is apes riding on horses.