web
counter
 

Rise of the Planet of the Apes Review: Suck On This, Superheroes

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (76)



rise_of_the_planet_of_the_apes_bridge_2011_a_l.jpg

It didn’t come until the tail end, but in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the summer finally got its first taste of Nolan. For all the lip service that’s paid to the idea of “darker, edgier” action films in Hollywood, few movies have had the courage to follow through on those promises. Rise is not only the darkest, most heavily thematic action film of the summer, but as director Rupert Wyatt promised, it achieves what Batman Begins set out to do: It brings in a new audience while also satisfying existing fans of the Apes franchise, at least those who aren’t stubbornly resistant to the idea of a film that only plants the seeds to the animal-vs.-man themes that would dominate the ‘68 franchise. It’s also the rare origins movie that’s actually worth a damn.

Incorporating some elements of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes, Rise nevertheless is an original movie that acts as a prequel to the 1968 film (and disrupts the continuity of the series). It’s set in the not-too-distant future, a time when man is embarking on its first flight to Mars, and where a genetic scientist, Will Rodman (James Franco), is working on a cure for Alzheimer’s disease. Tested on apes first, the cure not only regenerates brain cells, it makes the subject smarter, as we find out with Chimp #9. Because of a heightened protective instinct, however, Chimp #9 meets her maker, but not before leaving behind her offspring, Ceasar, who had the cure passed along to him genetically.

Rodman ends up taking Ceasar home and raising him, less as a pet and more as a child, as Ceasar displays more intelligence than similarly-aged children. Rodman also sneaks out vials of the Alzheimer’s cure — which had not yet been tested on humans — to administer to his father, resulting in a miraculous recovery. All is well until years later, when Ceasar’s protective instincts are triggered and he assaults a man. He’s put into court-ordered captivity along with dozens of other apes (and a vicious gorilla) and it is there — where Ceasar is pitted against his tormenting captors — that the stage is set for events that would unfold and ultimately lead to the situation we are met with in Planet of the Apes.

Besides heavier themes and the foreboding nature of the film, Rise of the Planet of the Apes also shares its rating with The Dark Knight. Both are PG-13 films that play like R-rated action movies, not because of language or violence, but because the level of tension and apprehension feels positively adult. The fear of violence that pervades Apes is far more unsettling than any amount of blood. Moreover, the fact that Rise is a prequel also works to its advantage: Ceasar is initially a playful, loving ape, but because you know where the events will ultimately lead, the anticipation of that turning point weighs heavy, keeping us edgy and anxious.

The real star of Rise, of course, are the apes, Ceasar in particular. The CGI is astounding, even for someone who slumbers in the anti-CGI camp. The special effects are simply captivating; you can feel every bit of sadness and love and hate in just the eyes of these computer creations. The viewer rarely gets the sense that these animals were created on a Mac. It hardly needs be said, either, that Serkis — as Ceasar — is phenomenal, perhaps the most fully-dimensional character of the blockbuster season despite the two strikes working against him: He’s both computer animated and a goddamn animal.

Their human counterparts don’t perform as well, but then, it’s hard to measure up to the magnificent CGI. Franco is in stoic Oscar-hosting mode, and though he’s onscreen for most of the film, you never develop much feeling for his character, even less so for his girlfriend (Freida Pinto), who is asked of very little. John Lithgow, as the Alzheimer’s afflicted father, fares better, but the only human character you feel much for is one of the evil captors, played by Tom Felton. That feeling is spite. Pure fucking hate. Felton is actually not a very good actor, yet he’s easy to dislike, not just because of what he does to the apes, but because he’s like a walking sneer that you want to wipe off the face of the Earth.

Granted, Rise is packed full of stock characters (an evil big pharma guy, for instance), and the script is at times wobbly and creaks during a middle patch. I’m also not sure how Rupert Wyatt — whose only film of note was the decent-but-not-spectacular prison escape flick, The Escapist — landed the director’s gig, but he certainly knows how to bring a CGI-animal to life. He also does an impeccable job with the action sequences, which are impressively eye-popping but never excessive.

The themes don’t resonate as loudly as those in the original Planet of the Apes, and the moral is muddled and unclear. Yet, Wyatt manages to salvage the franchise wreckage that Tim Burton left behind with his earlier remake and give new life to a series of films for which this generation has never had much affection. Indeeed, for all the faults with Rick Jaffa’s screenplay, the awkward title, and some of the uninspired acting on display, it’s the Apes that truly do rise above in the prequel, elevating the film to easily the best — and darkest — blockbuster action flick of the summer.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Jeff Bridges Likes Being Called "The Dude" And Boning His Wife A Lot? That's Almost Enough To Make Me Forget Tron: Legacy ... Almost. | The Help Presents: The Most Powerful Villain in All of Movie History









Comments

After all the super hero fodder lately, I was really looking forward to this one to cleans the pallet. Now, should I take my 12 year old daughter with me? Hmmmmm...

Posted by: admin at August 5, 2011 11:39 AM

Holy crap! Someone actually effectively used CGI in a live action movie? Isn't that one of the horsemen of something?

I actually kind of liked the trailers, but continued to be skeptical because of where the series had gone recently. I may need to check this out now.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at August 5, 2011 11:43 AM

Yessss! I really wanted this to be good. I never get popcorn at movies but this one might call for it.

Posted by: Amy at August 5, 2011 11:46 AM

I never would have thought, after seeing the first trailers, that I would end up more interested in a Planet of the Apes prequel than in Cowboys and Aliens. Go figure.

Posted by: Wonkey The Monkey at August 5, 2011 11:56 AM

Well color me surprised. I really thought this was going to be a trainwreck, but I'm happy to hear it's worth watching. I never really liked any of the Ape movies, but always because the apes just looked pretty stupid to me, like really expensive Halloween costumes. CGI is a pretty smart way to go and I'm glad to hear it works.

I don't know how to feel for Andy Serkis. On the one hand I feel kind of sorry that he's never actually himself in movies. On the other hand, the guy is incredibly successful not being himself in movies. I think I'm landing on the side of "damn fine job, Gollum"

Posted by: Figgy at August 5, 2011 12:05 PM

What does it say about me that I'm going to actively be cheering for the apes in this one?

Posted by: dmbmeg at August 5, 2011 12:12 PM

Wow. I did not have high hopes for this at all. The trailers looked somewhat interesting but seemed like they gave away the entire movie. I'm ok with being wrong as long as it means a good flick.

Posted by: Paultera at August 5, 2011 12:13 PM

continuity was screwed long before this.

(just sayin)

Posted by: gp at August 5, 2011 12:16 PM

I had no interest at all in this, but maybe now I'll see it. Do they explain why people don't just shoot the apes once they start revolting, though?

Posted by: Todd at August 5, 2011 12:25 PM

Posted by: THRILLHO at August 5, 2011 12:36 PM

delurking to be smug. oh ye pajibans of little faith: toldja so. this is a nice redemption, since most folk were trashing this movie since it was announced.

pfffffttthhhhh!

ape does a little happy dance.

Posted by: idleprimate at August 5, 2011 12:42 PM

Meh...just kidding! Man, this is a pleasant surprise. I always look forward to the big popcorn movies each summer, and then the studios go and piss in my popcorn. This was definitely not on my "go to" list before the summer began. Frankly, I thought the CGI in the trailer looked half-baked. Maybe, it was.

I'm probably among the few here who actually saw the original in the theater when it was released. Loved it. I can still feel the chills when Heston rode around the bluff and there was the half-sunken Statue of Liberty. It was awesome.

Posted by: James S at August 5, 2011 1:29 PM

So my snide Project X remarks were unfounded, eh? This is turning into the summer where I saw absolutely nothing at the theater. I don't think this will get me out of the house either, but I'll remember to give it a shot on the TV in a few months.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at August 5, 2011 1:40 PM

As a youngster, I loved the original movie, enough to buy the full set of trading cards. As I grew older, my love for it dimmed as I came to realize that it had a lot of faults.
I had high hopes for this prequel and am pleased that I have reason to see it in a theater.

Posted by: Spender at August 5, 2011 1:46 PM

Here's what I don't get:

It's clear by the events of Planet of the Apes that humanity blew itself up. ("You maniacs! You maniacs! You blew it up!") I'd always been under the impression that humanity had engaged in its long-expected nuclear war and that, from the ashes of that war, the apes and other monkeys arose and, through years of evolution, became the dominant species on the planet.

This movie seems to present the alternate theory that humanity got into a war with the apes and that, from that war, the apes arose as the HSIC (head species in charge).

So where did the nukes and the blowing up come from? Don't tell me the apes got nukes now.

Posted by: Fredo at August 5, 2011 2:12 PM

REALLY!?

wow. ok. i'll go see it then. i had written this off entirely.

REALLY!?

Posted by: stopthemadness aka Angry Black Lady aka Imani ABL at August 5, 2011 2:13 PM

My problem with the franchise is bases on the unbelievable premise that the small number of apes, gorillas, monkeys etc in the world could take over a planet with nearly 7 billion humans on it.

(I don't want to give anything away, but the there's a logical explanation, and if there are sequels to the prequel, we'll see how the logic plays out. -- DR)

Posted by: Ghosthound at August 5, 2011 2:13 PM

It has to be said:

One night the original "Planet of the Apes" was on the tube, and I vaguely remembered seeing it in my stripling youth, and I knew it was a "classic," so I made ,daughter watch it with me as part of her filmic education, and it was ...

It was ...

It was awful, as cheesy and stupid ("get your paws off me ...") as it is possible to be, barely redeemed by the supposed shocker ending.

I apologized to ,daughter for putting her through it.

Posted by: , at August 5, 2011 2:13 PM

I see now that this puts me in league with Spender.

And I'm fine with that.

*fist bumps Spender*

Posted by: , at August 5, 2011 2:15 PM

Did not see dat coming. No Siree!

The CGI is astounding, even for someone who slumbers in the anti-CGI camp.

the apes looked washed out like those "vamps" in I Am Legend in the trailers so looks like they fixed it after all. or did they?

Posted by: haplo at August 5, 2011 2:20 PM

I had the same reaction as Fredo. Smart apes resulted from evolution, not a "smart drug." Humans were killed off by humans, not by apes. We jumped off the top of the evolutionary ladder, we were not pushed off by apes.

Posted by: jollies at August 5, 2011 2:22 PM

It's clear by the events of Planet of the Apes that humanity blew itself up.

Well, not necessarily. That's just what Heston's character said. How would he know (though, I agree that is supposed to be the moral)? However, it is possible that the humans still nuked a lot of the planet in a war with the apes. But none of that explains why humans went backward in intelligence.

And none of this explains why I'm critically thinking about Planet of the Apes right now. I'll probably see this, but the pissed off neighbor should've died when attacked by Caesar. An ape even half of your size would ruin your shit.

Posted by: pissant at August 5, 2011 2:33 PM

Also...

jollies,
A smart drug seems to me to make more sense than apes evolving naturally. Why do the apes speak English? Where did they learn that? The biggest need for a smart evolution MacGuffin is the Statue of Liberty itself. It would take, what, hundreds of thousands if not millions of years for apes to evolve to where they could be able to speak and create language? However long it would take, the statue would be dust or completely buried by that time. However, in the movie, its head is sticking out of the ground and still very recognizable.

Scratch that, good ol' Wikipedia says the crew from the original crash land after a 2006 year journey. No way the apes evolved that much in 2006 years.

This is all assuming that this is part of the whole apes canon (even though continuity may be fucked).

Posted by: pissant at August 5, 2011 2:44 PM

Welp, I disliked The Dark Knight myself because a movie of that variety shouldn't try to be so realistic and serious, so I'll pass on this one.

Posted by: googergieger at August 5, 2011 2:57 PM

googergieger,
Thanks for that.

Posted by: pissant at August 5, 2011 3:09 PM

Dear Dustin,

We will NOT suck on your apes, thank you very much.


Signed,
-Green Lantern
(on behalf of the other superheroes)

Posted by: Green Lantern at August 5, 2011 3:31 PM

I have been excited about this one for months. I loved the preview with the ape and it's extremely human eyes. Cannot wait!

Posted by: daria at August 5, 2011 3:59 PM

I hate every ape I see, from chimpan-a to chimpanzee. No, you'll never make a monkey out of me...

Posted by: Leftylad at August 5, 2011 4:18 PM

As long as Ceasar doesn't have sex with Rodman's girlfriend and then turn into a chick and sex Rodman, I'm in. (You can never be too careful with this "raises lab experiment as their own" movies.)

Posted by: Pinky McLadybits at August 5, 2011 4:35 PM

Really well written review Dustin.

Is it bad that I wanted this movie to be horrible because I dislike James Franco? I mean, the trailer looked AWFUL...like a terrible, terrible mess. Seriously one of the worst cut trailers ever.

So, I'm shocked. And I think this means I should give it a chance.

Posted by: citizen_cris at August 5, 2011 4:43 PM

I aims to please, pissant. I aims......to please.

Posted by: googergieger at August 5, 2011 4:50 PM

googergieger,
OK, you don't like certain movies that try to be realistic because you think they shouldn't. I don't understand that, but that's cool. However, how do you make that distinction for a Planet of the Apes film? I've only seen the original and the Tim Burton remake, so I don't know the series very well. But I don't recall the first one being funny or goofy or lighthearted. Any humor most likely comes from them working with the makeup and effects they had at the time. So, what do you find wrong with a serious and realistic apes movie? That seems to describe the original pretty well (unless you're against the original,as well).

Posted by: pissant at August 5, 2011 5:05 PM

/reads review/
/checks calendar/
Not April 1st.
/scratches head/

Posted by: Scott at August 5, 2011 5:22 PM

I guess you had to be around when the originals came out to appreciate how amazing the makeup was at the time. I believe they even won an Oscar for it. Looking at them now, sure, it's easy to say the makeup looks cheezy.

As for the CG in this, it's still the eyes, even though they portray emotion, or maybe because they portray so much emotion, that throw the whole thing under the bus for me. Chimp eyes are brown pools of alien nothingness, not the expressive eyes of humans, which is what they gave these CG chimps and what has always looked wrong in all the promos.

Posted by: Protoguy at August 5, 2011 5:34 PM

I haven't seen it, obviously, but the CGI doesn't look good enough in the TV spots I've seen. Kinda like those zombie/vampires in "I Am Legend." I've seen the TV spot numerous times now, and the apes looked fake from the get-go.

I understand it would be impossible to make a movie like this without the CGI and the CGI people do the best they can, it's not their fault, but the apes don't look astonishingly realistic. They look like CGI.

Posted by: Slash at August 5, 2011 6:06 PM

Thank you Dustin. I knew this was going to be good. I may just try to see this in the theaters. My hope is slowly coming back alive.

Posted by: Candy at August 5, 2011 6:18 PM

How the fk in all this mockery did I never know Andy Serkis was in this? Well, there's your answer, that's why it may be even half-way decent. The dude's seriously one of the top five actors ON THE PLANET yet beyond Gollum he's never recognised.

Some might say it's because he only ever does CGI characters. Well shut your yaps, do yourselves a favour, watch Deathwatch, then Sex & Drugs & Rock and Roll, fit in Einstein and Eddington, then dust off 13 Going on 13 (don't lie, you KNOW you have it on your little shelf), and you STILL don't think the guy could literally walk off the street and infiltrate your life by taking it over pretending to be you, then just bend over and just put your lips on your little ass pucker.

I'm seeing this.

Posted by: Laurie at August 5, 2011 6:33 PM

pissant, that would make kinda sense. It explains the English spoken by the apes when Heston or Wahlberg arrive. It explains why they'd be apprehensive against humans.

It doesn't necessarily explain why the world has been blown up though. Last I checked radiation is as bad for them as it is for us.

That said, if we're being fully realistic, wouldn't the fact we have no more manned space flights affect the future presence of astronauts in the future?

Posted by: Fredo at August 5, 2011 8:53 PM

Fredo,
I can't believe we're still dissecting this. But, hey, let's keep going. I see what you're saying about radiation. Who knows what happens, though? Maybe some crazy dude a la Jack D. Ripper launches nukes at major cities to wipe out both the apes and us (possibly coming up with a mineshaft plan along the way). So, level playing field for both sides on a crippled Mad Max type planet, except the apes presumably have equal intelligence by that time and superhuman strength. And, depending on when this happens, these could be apes that didn't start out smart, so they have better survival/foraging skills than humans who've been living in cities for a long time. Of course, the apes in the original did seem a little primitive with their buildings, clothes, and beliefs. So, who knows how smart they are?

Or who says in the future we don't have awesomely destructive weapons that aren't nuclear? I mean, at this point you're assuming you know what happened in the interim based on the assumptions of a character who wasn't on the planet during the interim. Though, as I said already, I do believe that nuclear destruction is implied.

That said, if we're being fully realistic, wouldn't the fact we have no more manned space flights affect the future presence of astronauts in the future?

Wait, are you merging current events in the real world with the apes universe? OK...as far as I understand it, we could very well (and I can only believe/hope) have manned space flight in the future. We just retired the shuttle program for the moment. Surely the USA will have manned space flight at some point in the next five hundred years (assuming it's still around).

Eh, fuck it, this is fun.

Posted by: pissant at August 5, 2011 10:14 PM

The original is pretty shite as well. I have no problem with movies that are "realistic" though really, most ones aren't. As long as the movies follow their own rules, I tend to be alright.

My problem with Dark Knight and going on this review, the monkey movies is this....

End of the day it is a guy in a rubber suit, or something close to it. End of the day it is costumed up. I mean forget about the law enforcement and other crap, someone could be a dick about. Forget about all that. He is wearing a fucking bat suit. If the movie and the movie's fans weren't so far up their arse about it, I could see it being good. I mean not great. Nolan is still an obvious amateur film maker given big budgets, but good at least.

With that said. It is monkeys. How serious and realistic can you make that?

"Mr. President super smart monkeys are attacking a city/town/whatever and could possibly spread across the country if they aren't stopped"

"Oh my god, do they have guns?!"

"No, Mr. president they don't really know how to use them. Even if they did, they lack opposable thumbs to use them in any sort of real capacity."

"Oh. Do we still have guns?"

"Yes."

"Then why the hell are you bothering me about it? Send ten people with shotguns over there."

I mean look at Iron Sky. There is something that seems to be playing itself straight and letting the comedy happen from the idiot premise.

Posted by: googergieger at August 5, 2011 10:25 PM

Considering the number of superhero and other sci-fi films covered extensively on Pajiba, I'm not sure why you would even want to hang here, googergieger. Doesn't seem to be your thing, and in fact, I don't recall you being positive about anything posted on the site. Why bother?

Posted by: Uriah Creep at August 5, 2011 10:43 PM

I love scifi. 4400 I dug. I really liked Taken(miniseries). I liked Farscape. Big fan of Serenity/Firefly. Etc. I like plenty of super hero things. Do you not understand the difference between a movie following it's own rules and a movie trying to place itself into our universe with our rules?

I say plenty of positive things. I can't wait for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. I can't wait for Dexter. In fact when people were bad mouthing the season that followed the trinity killer I was the first and I think only one that defended it. Oh but sorry, I'm sure you had a point.

What was that again? Me bad mouthing two movies that took a b movie plot and inserted it into our universe with our rules, failing because of it, is apparently me hating every thing scifi and super hero oriented. Well your point is stupid. You should feel bad for bringing that up.

Posted by: googergieger at August 5, 2011 11:08 PM

I saw this today, and was entertained if not engrossed. The apes are very well rendered, and while Franco was fairly inert, Lithgow, Pinto and Oyewolo were adequate. As always, Serkis is the king of the motion-capture actors.

Felton's American accent was a bit shaky, but I thought he was fine -- and a better actor than he's generally thought. I've seen him in a couple of British TV productions, and he was excellent in both. He's one of those actors who's only as good as his director and his script: phenomenal when the part is well-written and the director is spot-on, not so good when he lacks guidance.

Posted by: PDamian at August 6, 2011 12:22 AM

Really? Hmmmm the CGI on the tv commercials doesn't look that good to me. Maybe it's better on the big screen....

Posted by: logan at August 6, 2011 10:02 AM

Looking forward to seeing it then. Also looking forward to some John Lithgow.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at August 6, 2011 4:00 PM

I don't necessarily agree with everything Googergeiger has said but I share his sentiment about realism in film. Keeping things believable. I just saw a western recently called "The Last Rites of Ransom Pride." It stars Dwight Yoakam and Cote de Pablo. It's batshit crazy and ridiculous. But there are no rubber suits or CGI to be found. The film goes forward through plot and suspense more than fancy effects or gadgets. It's not the best movie in the world but it at least was down to earth, literally. It was a welcome change from what I see at most of the cineplexes where I live.

Posted by: mr.West at August 6, 2011 4:43 PM

You should feel bad for bringing that up.

Posted by: googergieger at August 5, 2011 11:08 PM

Rereading my post, it may seem like an attack on your taste, and for that I do feel bad and apologise. I really just wondered what you do like, and now I know. Cool.

Posted by: Uriah Creep at August 6, 2011 5:03 PM

Going to see this on Monday. Team Apes.

Posted by: Snrub at August 6, 2011 5:59 PM

googergieger, I think you're making too many assumptions about the plot of this movie. From the trailers and some of the plot description my guess is that this movie is just about a local rebellion of some lab apes with enhanced intelligence, not some kind of large-scale uprising of apes that would require a call to the President or involve whole armies facing off against the apes. They're likely just trying to set up the very beginning of the human/ape antagonism, not trying to show how apes actually took over the world (the original movie pretty strongly suggested this only happened after a WWIII between humans, anyway...maybe if this movie does well they'll show that war in some future sequels).

Posted by: Jesse M. at August 6, 2011 7:34 PM

Okay.

Governor! There are a lot of monkeys attacking people.

Oh my god do they have guns?!

No. In fact even if they did, I doubt they can use them.

Oh. Alright, well then just shoot them or something.

And, scene.

Posted by: googergieger at August 6, 2011 8:29 PM

Don't take the kids to see this! Wife and I walked out as it is brutal.
We couldn't get beyond the 1st hour. Horrible violence even in the start.

Posted by: abe at August 6, 2011 9:17 PM

so googergieger, you think in the real world there are never riots which aren't so easy for the authorities to squelch immediately, even if the rioters don't have guns? Of course you could say "well, authorities can't go around carelessly shooting human rioters, but they would do so with apes". But what if the apes are in crowded areas, what about the risk of killing human bystanders? Also since neither of us have seen the movie, we know nothing about the timing of the ape violence, maybe it happens quickly enough that there isn't time to get large numbers of cops or national guard there. Or maybe those gorillas are doing quick guerilla strikes and then retreating into hiding somewhere. The point is, without actually seeing how things play out in the movie (or reading a detailed review with lots of spoilers) it doesn't make much say that it's unrealistic that the apes get away with whatever they get away with, when you don't even know what the movie shows them getting away with.

Posted by: Jesse M. at August 6, 2011 10:04 PM

Have you read the entire comments I left before you replied?

According to you though, talking monkeys is a movie that begs to be played seriously and realistically. That much like Dark Knight is a movie that benefits from no sense of humor. That is what the review told me, that is what I am basing my replies on. That and people constantly missing the point.

But alright, Air Bud done as a realistic and serious movie would not only make sense but be beloved by the fauxhipsters of the world. When do B movie ideas done in a realistic and serious matter stop getting praise?

Posted by: googergieger at August 7, 2011 2:12 AM

According to you though, talking monkeys is a movie that begs to be played seriously and realistically.

Nope, I never said it "begs to be" played that way, I think it could work either as a fairly serious movie or as a campy one. (Are you taking the position that basically all sci-fi premises that aren't based on plausible near-future scenarios can only work as camp, never taken seriously? "2001" has some apes that suddenly get smarter because they touch a giant black slab from outer space, do you think that movie would have been better played as camp?) But your specific criticism seemed to be that you thought it was unrealistic that humans couldn't squelch the ape uprising easily (since both your imaginary dialogues focused on that one issue), you never made clear that your objection was to the very idea of a movie about genetically-engineered apes that took the premise relatively seriously, regardless of what actually happened when the apes tried to rebel.

Posted by: Jesse M. at August 7, 2011 2:52 AM

I think the argument has already been made, but elsewhere on Pajiba. It's like the Cracked argument about one technology being ignored simply so the movie could be propelled further.

In all the previews I see a lot of cars being destroyed by apes throwing shit but I never saw a single gun. I'm pretty sure gun still trumps spear or manhole. That and the fact that some gas still won't give you opposable thumbs, which I think are kinda required for throwing spears with any accuracy.

It's kinda like Captain America. All these guy did have guns, but they insisted on running with them until they were 2 feet from Cap, just so he could kick them in the throat.

Posted by: Protoguy at August 7, 2011 5:47 AM

Okay. The Police/National Guard/Army/Locals are on the firing line as the Ape Forces come loping up. Their leader, Field Marshal Chim-Chim, gives the order:

"Apes! Crap in - Hand!"
"THROW!"

Yeah, we don't stand a chance.

Posted by: The Wanderer at August 7, 2011 8:27 AM

What a nice surprise! I sort of had this pegged as a stinker but I felt compelled to read the review when my friend told me he really liked it. Huh.

Posted by: Erin is Scrumtulescent at August 7, 2011 10:22 AM

Guns, hell, just drop a load of bananas for them. Even smart apes gotta eat SOMEtime. Then while they're busy chewing and slipping on all the peels and shit ... napalm the motherfuckers.

Posted by: , at August 7, 2011 10:43 AM

In all the previews I see a lot of cars being destroyed by apes throwing shit but I never saw a single gun. I'm pretty sure gun still trumps spear or manhole. That and the fact that some gas still won't give you opposable thumbs, which I think are kinda required for throwing spears with any accuracy.

Aaaaand again, what makes you think the scenes in the previews are supposed to be part of a long-term uprising, as opposed to just a sudden attack that the police haven't had time to respond to? It's really silly to criticize plot holes of a movie if all you know about it is some scenes in the trailer.

Posted by: Jesse M. at August 7, 2011 11:43 AM

Believe me, it makes a lot more sense in the movie. Mainly because the police trying to suppress them make certain assumptions about how they're going to act, because they're trained to know how humans will act/are capable of in a riot situation. The apes exploit this to the fullest and its awesome.

Posted by: chato at August 7, 2011 12:11 PM

"But your specific criticism seemed to be that you thought it was unrealistic that humans couldn't squelch the ape uprising easily (since both your imaginary dialogues focused on that one issue), you never made clear that your objection was to the very idea of a movie about genetically-engineered apes that took the premise relatively seriously, regardless of what actually happened when the apes tried to rebel."

Alright, I'm tired of repeating myself. Read all my comments in this comments section. If I still have to repeat myself after that, well a monkey movie placing itself into our universe with our rules and being championed for it, is the least of our worries.

Posted by: googergieger at August 7, 2011 1:18 PM

googergieger, yes I have read all your comments, the earlier comments didn't change the fact that when you made the two comments about the President and the Governor, it looked like you had a specific issue with it being unrealistic that the humans couldn't easily suppress the apes, if that one issue didn't really matter to you then you weren't communicating very clearly. And I did address your more general issue that movies of this "variety" shouldn't be treated realistically, that's why I said:

Nope, I never said it "begs to be" played that way, I think it could work either as a fairly serious movie or as a campy one. (Are you taking the position that basically all sci-fi premises that aren't based on plausible near-future scenarios can only work as camp, never taken seriously? "2001" has some apes that suddenly get smarter because they touch a giant black slab from outer space, do you think that movie would have been better played as camp?)

Any comment on this? Do you in fact think Kubrick was an idiot to try to make a movie with a realistic tone that revolved around far-fetched notions like apes suddenly becoming intelligent, psychopathic computers and alien artifacts? If not, how do you decide which sci-fi movies are stupid for treating a given crazy premise "realistically" and which are OK, without actually having seen them?

Posted by: Jesse M. at August 7, 2011 1:29 PM

THIS IS NOT YOUR PARENTS' "Planet of the Apes" MOVIE! (And, also NOT one for the kids -- and I let my kid see "T3" at age 4...)
I'd wanted to see this since I saw the trailer in the theatre, but was kind of put off by the TV ads (they are awful). Neither does this movie justice...
I freaking LOVED this flick. The only thing that would have made it better might have been to render all the humans (save Lithgow, who was brilliant, as usual) in CGI as well -- the "acting" was almost laughable (Franco couldn't act his way out of a box -- e'en with a pocketknife).
Liked the references to the old flicks (LOVED that the big Circus Orangutan was named "Maurice") as they weren't "in-your-face" and cheesy.
I honestly cannot remembre the last time I've seen a flick and was still thinking about it 12 hours later. And, I did sense somewhat of a "moral" but won't say more (maybe spoiler-ish).
If you can, go see this movie in the theatre. As a major "anti-CGI" person (especially when mixed with live-action), I must say that if they can do computer-generated-images that look (and ACT) like this (Mr. Serkis is amazing as usual), then maybe CGI isn't so bad.


Posted by: China Cat at August 7, 2011 1:59 PM

Caesar, not Ceasar.

Posted by: PaulB at August 7, 2011 2:08 PM

So far, all the reviews I've read have been positive. Except for one from Television Without Pity, where the reviewer panned the film because "the message is depressing" and "the comic relief is non-existent". No wonder people there cling to blowhard Jacob as their intellectual savior.

Posted by: Craig at August 7, 2011 4:06 PM

Don't take the kids to see this! Wife and I walked out as it is brutal.
We couldn't get beyond the 1st hour. Horrible violence even in the start.

Really? I was just commenting to the DH that it was so nice to see a movie that wasn't dripping with gratuitous blood and gore.

Posted by: QueBarbara at August 7, 2011 7:02 PM

Most of the violence is actually meted out by the humans. I didn't think it was that gory but too intense emotionally for kids.

Posted by: China Cat at August 7, 2011 7:46 PM

I leave for a few days and the poo really gets tossed around!

Posted by: Fredo at August 7, 2011 10:34 PM

saw it last night. five comments (warning, some spoilers below):

1) it's not a "masterpiece" (Medved's evaluation), because there are 2-3 completely implausible plot points so key to the overall story that one can't just ignore them but which are too implausible to accept. and funny enough, none of these involve "but wait, apes can't talk!"

2) the CGI is the best i've seen in any movie, although the non-chimps (orangutans and gorillas) are much more realistic-looking (by the final scenes, Caesar is the same height and posture as Franco, which isn't very chimp-like)

3) one scene makes the movie worth the price of admission. henceforth, it should simply be called the "No!" scene. chill-bumps inducing powerful. even the teenagers sitting next to me who up to that point had been chatting as if they were in the school cafeteria got stone-silent. Serkis' ability to give such life and personality to Caesar is Oscar-worthy.

4) the violence isn't gory, but is VERY intense. and certain scenes have no real violence, yet the emotional effects are like a punch to the gut. due to the excellent CGI, Caesar is very easy to relate to as a real character. and watching his reactions in certain moments is truly heart-wrenching. the movie - whether intentional or not - also highlights just how cruel humans are to non-human animals. it's impossible to watch this movie and not end up rooting for the apes to beat the ever-loving shit out of all the humans (save Lithgow).

5) as for the "but why couldn't the humans use guns" criticisms, i would argue this movie deals with that issue better than any previous PoA movie i've seen. i figured it had to be a biological agent that decimated humanity, but the way the movie includes that part of the story makes reasonable sense. in the end, apes have better immune systems.

Posted by: Mike at August 8, 2011 3:44 PM

"My problem with the franchise is bases on the unbelievable premise that the small number of apes, gorillas, monkeys etc in the world could take over a planet with nearly 7 billion humans on it."

Ghosthound, like Dustin said there is a logical explanation for how that happens and a very nice hat tip to a movie we all love. Let's just say it works

Posted by: Colombo at August 9, 2011 3:09 AM

Re: Mike's comment

1) there are 2-3 completely implausible plot points so key to the overall story that one can't just ignore them but which are too implausible to accept. and funny enough, none of these involve "but wait, apes can't talk!"

I enjoyed the movie overall (especially the "No!" scene), but I have to agree with this. [Possible SPOILER ahead]

Boyfriend's first comment when film was done: "What kind of chimp handler or scientist would fail to notice Chimp #9's pregnancy if they are getting paid to monitor the animal daily?"

Posted by: LibraryChick at August 14, 2011 1:40 PM

Why would you bring your kids to a movie that's clearly about apes rising up and taking over the planet? Did you not see the trailers? Did you think this was Curious George Goes to San Francisco? Didn't the scenes with screaming gorillas throwing manhole covers at police vehicles somehow clue you in that there would be a little violence? Even that one single image of the lead chimp glaring sideways all evil monkey-like should have been a clear sign that it's a little too intense for children.

Posted by: Protoguy at August 20, 2011 1:55 PM

My kids, who are new teens, describe Rise of the Planet of the Apes as "bad-ass."

If you're looking for meaning, you can probably read into the movie anything you want. As I sat there watching, I tried to figure out what the writers meant to convey. Is it a story about man's inhumanity to...apes? Is it that if apes were as smart as humans, they'd still be just as badly behaved? Is it that you can appear in a multi-gazillion dollar movie franchise, but that's no guarantee of later getting a decent role? Maybe it's a commentary on brutality and cultural paternalism. Maybe it's about building a personal identity in the face of adversity. Or maybe it's just a completely absurd action flick.

Whatever the message, I call it "the feel-good movie of the year."

Posted by: bluebird at September 6, 2011 1:45 PM

I can write better than the average person (not that that is saying much these days) and I have strong opinions on various subjects. I don't have experience as a journalist or technical writer, but what does a person need to start blogging and who pays, if the blogger gets picked up as a writer?.

Posted by: 3rsdfrofl at September 14, 2011 10:18 AM

Amazing! You did a great job. You should write a lot!

Posted by: thomson holidays 2011 at October 7, 2011 3:04 AM