Planet of the Apes (1968)

I recently bought a copy of the original Planet of the Apes on DVD and the satirical look at humanity is just about as fresh as ever, particularly considering the religious right's war on science.
The look and special effects of the movie may be somewhat dated (the 2001 version by Tim Burton has much more real looking make up and costuming) and it's a little distracting to see how little the mouths move as the apes are talking, but the story is just as enjoyable and compelling as it ever was, as are the little twists of story and direction that make the movie watching experience so much fun.
The story starts as a crew of astronauts, led by George Taylor (Charleton Heston), land on a planet's wasteland and begin to explore their brave new world. At first heartened by the discovery of a primative human culture, they are shocked to learn that the world's masters are anthropomorphized apes who hunt humans for sport. Taylor is captured and, while his throat heals from an injury, learns a little about the society. Gorillas are violent soldiers, chimps are pacifist technicians and scholars, and orangutans are priests/leaders. He attracts the curiosity of one chimp animal psychologist, Zira (Kim Hunter) , due to his displays of intelligence and they begin to form a bond both intellectual and emotional.
When Taylor is sufficiently healed and reveals that he can, in fact, speak intelligently, he becomes an object of fear as well as study. There are some particularly nice scenes with Dr. Zaius, a powerful orangutan, and debates about the nature of man and truth. In the end, both Dr. Zaius and Taylor prove something of their points because it becomes clear that Dr. Zaius has some fear of humanity and is covering up the truth, yet it also becomes clear that there are reasons why the cover-up exists as it does.
Some of the dialogue might come across as being a bit hackneyed in this cynical day in age and I doubt Heston really believed in the things he said (being a conservative in a pro-counterculture movie), but he still acts with conviction. Kudos for being such a professional.

I love the movie and give it an A-.

The Illusionist

The Illusionist is a tale of mystery, minor political intrigue, and romance set in turn-of-the-century Vienna, Austria-Hungarian Empire. Inspector Uhl, played by Paul Giamatti narrates the story of the stage magician Eisenheim, played by Ed Norton, and his conflict with the Austrian crown prince and illicit love of a duchess.
The illusionist is the son of a carpenter who, as a youth, loves far above his station. When the duchess is taken away from him, he travels the world, learning the secrets of stage magic. He returns to a Vienna stage and, in a twist of fate, is reacquainted with the duchess, now betrothed to the crown prince. Their secret meetings bring in the involvement of the police as the illusionist's performances seem to become increasingly seditious against the prince.
The movie is visually stunning with scene composition and color. The acting is excellent and the story keeps you guessing. Is the illusionist directly challenging the prince? Is the inspector in the prince's pocket or will he pursue a murderer beyond his reach? Will the illusionist and duchess be able to escape the prince's reach? As the plot runs, each of these questions comes up and it takes a while to figure out whether or not they're actually answered.

The movie was well reviewed by critics and received a well-deserved Oscar nomination.
Letter grade: A

The Da Vinci Code

I'll come right out and say I'm not that big a fan of Dan Brown's book. The writing is fairly pedestrian and it all struck me as a light-reading version of Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. But, when translated to celluloid, The Da Vinci Code works better as a movie than it does as a book. The scenes that seemed too facile in the book, such as the argument between Langdon and Teabing (played by Tom Hanks and Sir Ian McKellen, respectively) about Teabing's Holy Grail theories, are given more life and credibility by well-directed and skillful actors.
Brown's book, in many ways, reads like a novelization of a movie more than a full-blown novel so it's not surprising that the story works a bit better as a movie than it does as a book. The pacing and action are pretty good, though I think the story rushes to a bit of a conclusion and could stand a little slowing down to give it gravity.
Letter grade: B