So The Guard is one of those movies that is well written, well shot, well paced (and I cannot ever emphasize how important this is in a film) everyone in it acquits themselves well but, nonetheless, the entire film could go down in flames based on the performance of one actor.

In this case that actor is Brendan Gleeson. Every other person in this film could be replaced by a long list of actors--and some of them are fine actors--and it wouldn't matter a whit. Gleeson, by the very nature of this film has to load it on his shoulders and carry it. And he does.

Usually when one actor has to carry a film it doesn't bode well for a movie. Think of all the Robin William's vehicles of years past...brr...brrrrr...BRRRRRR. I am going to need a couple of shots now.  Sure, Williams, has done some good work but when a movie was laid on him? What do you wind up with? Good Morning Vietnam or that one where he plays a robot.

There are other examples of this and it usually means, at best, a mediocre movie. In this case all that surrounds Gleeson IS good and the dialog is unrelentingly witty. Often the lead actor is the key to a film but a film can still be good with them being mediocre. Any number of Ben Affleck films bear this out.

What makes this all the more remarkable is that Gleeson's character is shown less via what he says and more by his expression (and how he behaves). What comes out of his mouth in the film is often just "taking the piss out " of people. His character goads people and pokes at them. Don Cheadle's character (and I paraphrase) says "I am not sure if you are an idiot or a genius".

This is a very funny film. That has to be said and should have been said earlier. It is a comedy and rare are the actors who can be funny like this. Few are the actors who can pull of a role like this.

It has hints of films such as Snatch and also other "rural" Irish comedies. But, it never gets "precious." Go to see it, it will likely be out of theaters soon. If you miss it there be sure to put it in your Netflix cue.

So this is late. Shockingly, I went to see a "Planet of the Apes" related movie two weeks or so after it was released. I have no excuse. But it does give me an out on the trap I hoped to avoid when I first began this movie section here.I wanted to avoid reviewing movies. Of course, essentially that is what I have done.

No apologies, not to any of the films I hated or the dumbass who really liked that dull-witted Another Earth movie (seriously....who would leave a COMMENT on a website asking for my "credentials" over such a mundane lifeless piece of shit). See? Already you can tell this isn't a review. But damn, it seems like a BLOG now.

I had hoped to avoid that too. I hate blogs; "Here is what I ate today" or "I am so blessed." That's all great I am only mocking a little but I don't want to do that (I did have some awesome Chinese noodles I bought at an Asian Grocery store on Kimball Ave by the highway in Chicago and I am blessed with incredible good looks).

What I wanted to write about is perception and movies. Usually when people do this they are writing about some tedious Godard film (I admit. Most of the time, I hate Godard). But it doesn't need to be high brow. We perceive the low brow every day. I sometimes get up early enough to watch morning talk shows. I once watched part of that Ozzy Osbourne reality show thing.

The first two opinions I had of Rise of the Planet of the Apes came from professional journalists, writing for a major newspaper. I saw their interaction on Facebook. One reviewed the movie. The other wrote an excellent "history" of the previous "apes" efforts. The latter liked the movie while the former disliked it.

But let's look at this movie, this film of the rise of the apes.

It is about an hyper intelligent ape who becomes that way via testing for a drug aimed at defeating Alzheimers. This is Citizen Kane plot-wise compared to ANY film in the previous series. This could almost HAPPEN. They also make you FEEL something for a CGI ape. It isn't even Roddy McDowell in an ape costume. Who didn't love Roddy McDowell?

The film also make sense within its own parameters. There are no real red herrings. The performances are all, at worst, tolerable. Tom Felton (Harry Potter's Drago Malfoy) is basically used as a device to toss references to the old movies in but that is hardly his fault. John Lithgow delivers a fine performance in a small role, understated but real. James Franciscus...oh wait...he isn't in this. James Franco, is fine. He doesn't get to show his skill as he did in 127 Hours (another Best Actor Oscar robbery, King's Speech my ass) but he is fine. And stop whining about him on the Oscars. He was fine there too. No one is ever really GOOD doing that. Awards shows blow.

So what is to HATE? I get not liking it as a matter of taste. But hate?

I suspect there are a lot of things going on when we hate something that isn't THAT bad. We might have expectations that are unreasonably high. Previews might stoke us up for a film that was never really made. The best bits might ALL be in the previews. The people who edited the previews often seem more adept editors than those who edit the films. If I hit the lottery the preview editors will be editing the entire first Patrick Ogle produced film. I want the ghost of Erik Von Stroheim or Billy Bob Thornton--someone nuts and on a career suicide trajectory--to direct. In this expectation mode we walk in expecting a GREAT film and find a GOOD film and it pisses us off. It makes us HATE the movie.

Sometimes you see a film again and reassess it. But then what does that mean? Did you like it better when you saw it on cable because you perceived merits you missed? Or did you not have to pay $10 to get in and $8 for popcorn (and god forbid it is in 3D because you really get clipped on that).But regardless of the reason you do reassess. I am sure were I too see that horrible Resident Evil IV movie again I could relax and just stare at Milla Jovovich.

It can maybe be chalked up to environment when the shift is only from HATE to mild dislike (theater vs. home). I could discuss LOVING a film like Rise of the Planet of the Apes too, which is equally irrational and possibly based on blind fanboyness, How the fuck did anyone sit through any of that second set of Star Wars films? I wanted to poke out my eyes watching the first one.

Fanboy or Fangirlness are explanation one

But this love could also be based on wildly LOW expectations. Like when I saw 2012, the disaster movie. I had similar expectations to what most people would have watching a 7 hour documentary on Soviet farm collectives made under Stalin. But in 2012 as long as shit was blowing up or Woody Harrelson was on screen? I was tolerant. Harrelson should be in every movie by the way.

An example of where I realized something I thought SUCKED but not only didn't SUCK but was pretty close to great, was Terry Gilliam's 12 Monkeys.  I saw it in the theater and hated it like poison. HATED it. Then, years later a friend who I hadn't seen in awhile busted it out and said; "Hey this is really good, want to watch it?" I didn't feel like being rude.

And after the second viewing? I thought it was pretty close to a great movie. What happened? Was I just in a piss poor mood at first viewing? I do not recall that. It wasn't that MANY years between viewings. I was an adult in both situations with my tastes pretty well set. I mean I loved Every Which Way But Loose when I was 11 but my opinion was wildly different at 16.

There are no conclusions I can come to on this. It is more a starting point for discussion and thought. It may also just be an excuse to mention Godard and Every Which Way But Loose in the same piece.

Another Earth is proof that not every small film, not every indie film, is a brilliant masterpiece. Some of them are mundane drudgery. It isn't the worst film ever made and that is the best thing you can say about it.  It is professionally shot, it is paced reasonably and it has a basic premise that is interesting.

But, those things alone don't make a watchable film or a film where you won't hear audience members groaning and guffawing at various points (especially the predictable, eye-roller of an ending).

Why do indie films go wrong?

It is often  the same reason better-funded films stink up the screen; someone comes up with an idea but never bother to craft a story beyond that idea. With Blockbusters sometimes they decide to make up for lack of content with explosions. Indies often do it with pretension.

Another Earth has an interesting premise. Another world appears in the sky, apparently inhabitable. As this news is breaking a young woman, Rhoda, played by Brit Marling (who co-wrote this mess with director Mike Cahill), does something terrible throwing her life away and ruining another life in the process. But that is it. There is nothing much else to it. The idea of parallel worlds is given short shrift. The idea of redemption is made to seem as mundane as buying a Big Mac, fries and a Coke.

As the movie moves forward this other world figuratively and literally (it gets bigger in the sky) moves nearer. And the main character, Rhoda enters a contest to fly to this other world. I won't give away more details but, be aware, there are not many more to give away.

The problem here isn't the sci-fi. It is everything else. The most believable thing about the film is that this other, identical earth appears in the sky. Most of the dialog is forced and a great deal of the story is told via voice over "news coverage."  The people just don't do or say what you would expect people to do or say in these situations. The writers, at least, make an effort to explain the most ludicrous part of the plot but it still doesn't fly. How does someone not know who it was that killed his family? A lame explanation is given but it doesn't withstand much scrutiny.

The writing is stilted, the acting so robotic that it is difficult to tell if they are good actors or not (William Mapother was fine on Lost!). Every word out of Rhoda's brother's mouth sounds like it was written for a reality show (until the last words out of his mouth which ring more true).

This is a film that it is difficult to even come up with something to say about it; it is just so mediocre. It is a waste of effort and a waste of time to watch. You will feel nothing watching it and you won't think about it ten seconds after you leave the theater except to say "Damn, maybe I should have gone to see Captain America."

Another irksome thing about the film is that it really thinks it is profound. It oozes self-regard. It is not profound. There is no depth to the concepts approached. It has no charm and I challenge you to give a rat's ass about any character in the film (should you be unfortunate enough to see it).

I think the reason I wrote about this at all, because I take no joy in writing negatively about modest movies, is that I take issue with those who laud every movie that isn't about a super hero. Or any movie that can be labeled as "independent." I have seen a lot of such films in the past five years and their rate of failure is as high as Hollywood. They are not all good, many are mediocre and many will make you want to poke out your eyes (this one isn't quite that bad). The real question is why does this film get the distribution other, much better, films never see? I have seen great films, GREAT ones, that only made it into the dingiest big city art house theaters. How does Another Earth get the exposure they deserve?