I have a confession to make. I have never seen any of the previous movies in the Planet of the Apes saga. But I know the story and frankly, as an individual movie, Rise of the Planet of the Apes stands out as the finest revival film I have ever seen.

It is in part based on the fourth movie, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, although it does not fit into that continuity. A genetically altered ape named Caesar is born in an animal testing laboratory that is working on a drug to cure Alzheimer’s disease. When the testing phase goes horribly wrong, a scientist named Will Rodman (James Franco) takes the baby ape home to live with him and his aging father (John Lithgow) who is suffering from dementia.

Will is marveled by Caesar’s advancing intellect, and he continues to study him over the next eight or so years. Meanwhile, when Rodman smuggles the drug home to test on his diseased father, there are amazing results!  So amazing that the drug development continues. But little do they know that they are toying with the destruction of his species.

This descriptive prequel answers some of the important questions that have been left unanswered for decades. And it does a very good job of it. The smooth way the camera moves combined with magnificent CGI makes this a very interesting picture. It took the motion capture technology from 2010’s Avatar and applied it to the chimps. Actor Andy Serkis, who played Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, could be up for an Oscar for his great portrayal of Caesar!

I think the key point this movie makes is to show the events from the ape’s perspective. It isn’t like a monster movie where all you see are people running from mad creatures. You can sympathize with the apes even though they don’t speak.

By the way, don’t rush out of the cinema at the end of the movie. Make sure you stay to watch the end credits.

Age Recommendation: The movie may be a little distressing to some, as although the most gore this film has is people sneezing blood.  There are some intense ape attacks and a lot of shooting and war scenes, not to mention an entire race dying out. Still, I’d say it isn’t too bad. Maybe parents should see the movie first to judge whether it’s ok for their kids. 9+.

Final Verdict: Bravo. 10/10.

Check out the pictures from the world premiere in Hollywood.

Cowboys & Aliens is a strange movie. Directed by Jon Favreau (Iron Man), the film tries to be a western flick, but at the same time, it tries to be a sci-fi alien flick. Note the word I used there – “tries”.  It doesn’t necessarily succeed.

A man (Daniel Craig) wakes up in the middle of the desert and doesn’t remember who he is, with no clues except a mysterious technological bracelet on his arm. After successfully fighting off a group of bandits on horseback, he rides into a small town and meets its residents. Rivalries stir, friendships are made, and a story appears to be set. You know, if it continued along this line, it would actually have been much better.

But in come the alien invaders. Let’s think of this split away from the cowboy storyline. Now you’ve got aliens coming to a civilization, and people running around and trying to destroy them and… the whole thing starts to sound a little like Independence Day.

Now bring the two genres together. You’re left with a jumbled up mess trying to construct a wild west storyline in an environment not meant for it. They are two lines not meant to be crossed. Really, it isn’t even about the aliens. It’s Cowboys with Aliens. The alleged “aliens” are basically replaceable with bandits. They even come to Earth for the people’s gold.

I’m surprised that big names even bothered to take part in it. The movie stars Daniel Craig (Casino Royale), with supporting roles by Harrison Ford and Olivia Wilde.

Age Recommendation: As for if this is kid friendly, well, even I was wincing, with all the fake blood splattering everywhere. 11+.

Final Verdict: All in all, it could have worked as a cowboy film, but the aliens screwed it up. 5/10

I, for one, began Super 8 without even knowing what on earth it was about. I mean, the billboards all had models climbing on them, and the trailers I saw were vague at best. My best guess was… Eight kids find a magical meteor thing and gain superpowers? I’m rarely one up for another one of those cliché pictures.

Fortunately, it wasn’t one of those cliché pictures. The movie is actually set in a small Ohio steel town in the 1970s and is about a group of six kids that make home movies as a hobby. (The title “Super 8” is actually the name of an old film format). They are at the local train station, preparing to shoot a nighttime scene.  As a freight train thunders past, a man suddenly drives a truck onto the rails and causes a massive crash! (In, might I add, an action packed sequence of special effects explosions and fire.)  The children run for their lives and, thankfully, they all survive, but the camera keeps running. They got something on film that shouldn’t have been there…

Following the crash, there are a number of disappearances and strange power outages, and the Air Force starts searching the town.  The characters have to deal with keeping what they know to themselves… Then there’s some kind of monster, and… I suppose it is partly cliché…

The movie is written and directed by J.J. Abrams (director of Star Trek, Mission Impossible III and the pilot for the TV series Lost). Produced by the famous Steven Spielberg, you can see that he had a huge influence in Super 8. The movie has strong echoes of Spielberg’s E.T., Jurassic Park and the Indiana Jones movies. It is a dark, even scary movie that brings thrills, chills and sentimentality.

As with the “Spielberg Feel”, even though a lot of his movies are aimed at general audiences, they often terrify the younger members of the audience. Clearly, Steven Spielberg is the Alfred Hitchcock of our time.

Age Recommendation: 11 or older, as with all of these such creations.

Final Verdict: 7/10. The movie’s premise was great, but the latter portion left me unsatisfied.

Well, here we are. It’s finally time to bid The Boy Who Lived adieu.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two is the thrilling conclusion of the Harry Potter film franchise. Harry Potter now continues to seek out and destroy the final pieces of Voldemort’s soul, or the horcruxes. As he does, he hopes to put an end to this homicidal killer once and for all.

This movie is just as riveting as its predecessor, but in different ways. Unlike the previous movie, most of this sequel takes place inside Hogwarts. Being there, you can really see how the characters have matured. One of the biggest themes in the movie is how the entire cast seems to come back into play for one last Harry Potter experience, including Harry, Ron, and Hermione (Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson respectively), as well as Neville Longbottom (Matthew Lewis), Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch), Severus Snape (Alan Rickman), Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton), and many more!

The movie continues right where the previous movie left off, with Harry and the gang pulling a heist to get a horcrux from a vault in Gringotts, the wizard bank. That having been said, it is not made to be friendly to newcomers. Come to think of it, why would a newcomer be watching the last part of the movie adaptation of the last book in the series? I’d say that anyone who wishes to view this film should have previously viewed the other seven, or at least read the books.

One of the things that gave me a small, cheeky grin was that on several occasions, moments passed that in the book were incredibly touching. They would have looked great on camera, but couldn’t be used because they referenced a part of another book that a previous film had cut. Nonetheless, the movie was a fair retelling of the seventh book, and the perfect companion to its predecessor.

Much like the previous movie, this picture is much darker than the others, so small children may be discomforted. (Coming from me, that’s a nice way of putting terrified.) But as always, it depends on the child.

Age Recommendation: The audience is supposed to age with the films, but I’d say that, here especially, some little kids may be crying while others may be grinning full on. It really is up to their maturity.

Final Verdict: 10/10. A fitting conclusion to the series.

The original Arthur, released in 1981, is an absolutely wonderful film. It is a beautiful mix of comedy and story. The prospect of a billionaire who actually uses his money purely for enjoyment is something to be amazed by. And enjoying the movie so much, I had to at least evaluate the new Arthur, starring Russell Brand and Helen Mirren, which opened in the USA last week.

The core idea of Arthur remains… Arthur Bach (Dudley Moore / Russell Brand) has never had to work a day in his life. All of his wealth is pre-determined. He therefore drinks a lot and occupies himself with fun, without any reason to look presentable. Eventually, the family wants to merge fortunes with another. So Arthur is forced to partake in an arranged marriage with Susan Johnson (Jill Eikenberry / Jennifer Garner) Naturally, it is then that he happens to meet the love of his life. So he is left to wrestle with his money and love.

The similarities stop there. In the original film, Arthur’s love, Linda Marolla (Liza Minnelli) is a poor woman who lives with her dad and has to resort to stealing ties for his birthday. They meet, fall in love, and the story moves on.

In the remake, a LOT has changed. Firstly, Linda is now Naomi (Greta Gerwig), her father plays a far more minor role, and the only crime Naomi has to commit is “being an unregistered tour guide”. The chauffeur, Bitterman (Ted Ross / Luis Guzman) is given a much bigger role, but is delivered as “the silly weird driver”. And Hobson the butler (John Gielgud – who won an Oscar for his role) has had a sex change! Helen Mirren (who won an Oscar for The Queen) plays Hobson the long-suffering nanny. Not that that affects anything. Personally, I think Helen handled the character quite well.

I think the main issue between the two movies is that the original focused on purely his love story, whereas the remake focused on other things, such as Arthur’s alcoholism and his inability to work. That is too much to focus on in one film. Those plots were dealt with in the sequel to the original movie, Arthur 2: On the Rocks, but even that movie was poorly acclaimed.

The original Arthur was pretty okay for kids. It’s worst part was probably when he hired a prostitute, but even then, the joke is that he takes her out to dinner (lol), and it goes right over young children’s heads. The remake is much more testy, with raunchy humor galore.

Age Recommendation: The original is pretty okay for younger kids, but the remake has a little less of that innocence so is more suitable for slightly older kids.

Final Verdict: The original Arthur, with Dudley Moore, was a hilarious movie with a good plot. 10/10.  The remake, with Russell Brand… was just a remake. An attempt to recapture a work of art. 6/10.