Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Review by Matt Finley

Precisely as powerful, and twice as fun as THE DARK KNIGHT, DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES is the best summer sequel in ages. Having admirably tackled most of the series’ clumsiest expositional burdens (that pesky ape-smartening, human-killing wonder drug) in 2011’s RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, writers Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver, joined here by THE WOLVERINE scribe Mark Bomback and director Matt Reeves (LET ME IN), are able to swing effortlessly into the post-ape-ocalyptic future, where a single gunshot fired by a cowardly plague survivor sets off a profound and devastating series of events, upsetting the tenuous balance between a human civilization in decline and the rising empire of the apes.

Burke and Hare (November 27th and 28th at the Cleveland Cinematheque)

[BURKE AND HARE screens Sunday November 27th at 6:30 pm and Monday November 28th at 8:45 pm at the Cleveland Cinematheque.]

Review by Bob Ignizio

The place is Scotland, the year is 1828. As our narrator, an affable executioner (Bill Bailey), informs us, the locale is in the midst of something of a medical renaissance. Even faster progress might be made in the pursuit of medical knowledge if only there were more cadavers to dissect, but alas only the bodies of executed criminals may be used for medical study, and there just aren't enough people being executed of late. That trickle all but dries up for Dr. Knox (Tom Wilkinson) after his rival Dr. Monro (Tim Curry) finds a way to get all the corpses for himself. Stepping in to meet the demand are a couple of Irish scam artists by the name of William Burke (Simon Pegg) and Willaim Hare (Andy Serkis). The first corpse the pair sells died of natural causes, but when finding another fresh subject proves difficult, the pair resorts to murder with little hesitation.

BURKE AND HARE begins with the statement that, “This is a true story. Except for the parts that are not.” That's usually the case with any film that purports to be “based on a true story”, but I do admire the filmmakers' forthrightness in this case. And indeed, a great many of the factual details have been changed. I just don't quite understand why. Normally if you're going to tinker with a true story, it's to juice up the action, make the story flow better, and/or emphasize particular themes and ideas the director wants to focus on. The changes co-writers Piers Ashworth and Nick Moorcroft have made, however, feel arbitrary.