How do I put this lightly. . . . I loathe this movie with the entirety of my being.
This isn't a Planet of the Apes movie. I can't just turn off my brain and enjoy a mindless "re-imagination" of one of the most thoughtful movies I've ever seen. Watching this movie made me feel physically sick. Writing about it made me feel physically sick. I was literally on the floor. I can't handle this movie. That being said, this movie isn't necessarily an assaulting kind of bad. Some will find entertainment value in it, at least it has a plot, and (generally) it has a nice aesthetic quality. But it's still bad.
Tim Burton is someone who I have a lot of respect for. I think he's a fantastic filmmaker, and more blame belongs to the writers than anyone else on this project. Burton's hands however still aren't clean, and he's committed his fair share of offenses here. On the commentary he actually explains that apes make him uncomfortable (which would explain the apes' performances), and he gave the impression that he didn't want to direct the film in the first place. It shows.
This is one of his weakest efforts in terms of direction. For example, we actually don't get to see all that much of the Ape City--only dimly lit, claustrophobic sets and homogenous formations can really be observed (though what we do see looks pretty good). We get a few wide shots, usually attached to other sets like the forest, adding a kind of close-knitness that detracts from its sense of scale. Making that issue worse, relatively little time is dedicated to travel, so even the military camps and the set from the battle scene don't feel very distant. This simply isn't the best effort Burton could have given, but was maybe the best we could've hoped for given the script.
The screenplay for this film was written by William Broyles Jr., Lawrence Konner, & Mark Rosenthal, the last two of whom worked on such hits as Superman IV! Now, to the writers' credit, at least there's a plot for the most part, but that's about all I can praise them on (if that indeed counts as praise). I'm not really quite sure where to begin with the flaws actually. As I watched the film I started making a list of questions regarding anything that disregarded logic or broke my suspension of disbelief. I can only use so many words, so I guess I'll just post the list:
Why send a baby chimpanzee into space? Or a chimp at all? Humans pulling the carriage instead of horses? Wild humans have the time and resources to curl and dye their hair? Where'd she get that 20th century hair dye? What's with the stoner apes? He's feisty? He just grabbed your leg on accident and looked at Thade all confused- like. Where were the doors in the houses? Why won't the humans talk? They're not mute so. . . . Why'd the one human signal not to talk, then? Do the apes not know they can talk somehow? They didn't seem surprised. If humans are lower on the evolutionary chain than monkeys, why can humans talk but not the monkeys? Are there talking monkeys we don't know about? Were there even any monkeys on the ship they came on? Considering the ship's population, they'd be really inbred by now right? How were the apes in that blast only stunned? Did they see the 1968 film? Did they even read the book? It's closer to the book, but still nowhere near it. Should have just called the movie something else, like: "Inbreeding: The Movie".
A few other points: There's some almost-commentary on religion, but nothing that pans out. Any allegorical content is an afterthought at best. It's tonally unsure of itself: half wants to be taken seriously, half cartoon. Mark Wahlberg's character really just doesn't care, and is too blank to be relatable. The apes might be talking about something expository or of their interest, and then Leo just mentions something unrelated that pertains only to him. It's almost pleading you to assume character depth for it, but you don't because there isn't any. The apes in this movie are completely cartoonish, including their preposterous fear of water (maybe they can't swim because their prosthetics will fall off, as my sister observed).
Mark Wahlberg and the Chimp are pretty damn cute, I'll give it that. Otherwise, Tim Roth is a cartoon. Paul Giamatti is a cartoon. Helena Bonham Carter is a cartoon. The humans are all bland. I suppose the actors are into it enough to pass as flamboyant caracachures. They sell it, but it's for the wrong movie. And I love Paul Giamatti. He doesn't belong in this movie, but I love him.
The wirework is pretty bad. The CGI is fine. Though the sets and colors are nice. If there's one thing I can give Burton credit for it's for making a (generally) good-looking movie. The prosthetics for the most part actually look pretty good, sometimes as good as Chambers' work from the 1968 film. Some of the makeups look out-of-proportion or bizarre though, like stuff conceived on mutations or not-to-be-named perversions-- genuinely concerning designs.
The score by Danny Elfman is simply fine. It's inoffensive, maybe slightly better than the average modern-age film score, but that's not really saying much. At least there's actually a melody (even if somewhat derivative of his Spider-Man score), and as bombastic and obnoxious as the drums are at least they have personality, though it's a far-cry from Elfman's best.
This is not a Planet of the Apes film. It's a movie with apes in it, completely unrelated to Planet of the Apes. If you're a die-hard Planet of the Apes fan, maybe watch it once. Otherwise, seek out the 1968 film. Don't bother with this.
Score: 3/10
This isn't a Planet of the Apes movie. I can't just turn off my brain and enjoy a mindless "re-imagination" of one of the most thoughtful movies I've ever seen. Watching this movie made me feel physically sick. Writing about it made me feel physically sick. I was literally on the floor. I can't handle this movie. That being said, this movie isn't necessarily an assaulting kind of bad. Some will find entertainment value in it, at least it has a plot, and (generally) it has a nice aesthetic quality. But it's still bad.
Tim Burton is someone who I have a lot of respect for. I think he's a fantastic filmmaker, and more blame belongs to the writers than anyone else on this project. Burton's hands however still aren't clean, and he's committed his fair share of offenses here. On the commentary he actually explains that apes make him uncomfortable (which would explain the apes' performances), and he gave the impression that he didn't want to direct the film in the first place. It shows.
This is one of his weakest efforts in terms of direction. For example, we actually don't get to see all that much of the Ape City--only dimly lit, claustrophobic sets and homogenous formations can really be observed (though what we do see looks pretty good). We get a few wide shots, usually attached to other sets like the forest, adding a kind of close-knitness that detracts from its sense of scale. Making that issue worse, relatively little time is dedicated to travel, so even the military camps and the set from the battle scene don't feel very distant. This simply isn't the best effort Burton could have given, but was maybe the best we could've hoped for given the script.
The screenplay for this film was written by William Broyles Jr., Lawrence Konner, & Mark Rosenthal, the last two of whom worked on such hits as Superman IV! Now, to the writers' credit, at least there's a plot for the most part, but that's about all I can praise them on (if that indeed counts as praise). I'm not really quite sure where to begin with the flaws actually. As I watched the film I started making a list of questions regarding anything that disregarded logic or broke my suspension of disbelief. I can only use so many words, so I guess I'll just post the list:
Why send a baby chimpanzee into space? Or a chimp at all? Humans pulling the carriage instead of horses? Wild humans have the time and resources to curl and dye their hair? Where'd she get that 20th century hair dye? What's with the stoner apes? He's feisty? He just grabbed your leg on accident and looked at Thade all confused- like. Where were the doors in the houses? Why won't the humans talk? They're not mute so. . . . Why'd the one human signal not to talk, then? Do the apes not know they can talk somehow? They didn't seem surprised. If humans are lower on the evolutionary chain than monkeys, why can humans talk but not the monkeys? Are there talking monkeys we don't know about? Were there even any monkeys on the ship they came on? Considering the ship's population, they'd be really inbred by now right? How were the apes in that blast only stunned? Did they see the 1968 film? Did they even read the book? It's closer to the book, but still nowhere near it. Should have just called the movie something else, like: "Inbreeding: The Movie".
A few other points: There's some almost-commentary on religion, but nothing that pans out. Any allegorical content is an afterthought at best. It's tonally unsure of itself: half wants to be taken seriously, half cartoon. Mark Wahlberg's character really just doesn't care, and is too blank to be relatable. The apes might be talking about something expository or of their interest, and then Leo just mentions something unrelated that pertains only to him. It's almost pleading you to assume character depth for it, but you don't because there isn't any. The apes in this movie are completely cartoonish, including their preposterous fear of water (maybe they can't swim because their prosthetics will fall off, as my sister observed).
Mark Wahlberg and the Chimp are pretty damn cute, I'll give it that. Otherwise, Tim Roth is a cartoon. Paul Giamatti is a cartoon. Helena Bonham Carter is a cartoon. The humans are all bland. I suppose the actors are into it enough to pass as flamboyant caracachures. They sell it, but it's for the wrong movie. And I love Paul Giamatti. He doesn't belong in this movie, but I love him.
The wirework is pretty bad. The CGI is fine. Though the sets and colors are nice. If there's one thing I can give Burton credit for it's for making a (generally) good-looking movie. The prosthetics for the most part actually look pretty good, sometimes as good as Chambers' work from the 1968 film. Some of the makeups look out-of-proportion or bizarre though, like stuff conceived on mutations or not-to-be-named perversions-- genuinely concerning designs.
The score by Danny Elfman is simply fine. It's inoffensive, maybe slightly better than the average modern-age film score, but that's not really saying much. At least there's actually a melody (even if somewhat derivative of his Spider-Man score), and as bombastic and obnoxious as the drums are at least they have personality, though it's a far-cry from Elfman's best.
This is not a Planet of the Apes film. It's a movie with apes in it, completely unrelated to Planet of the Apes. If you're a die-hard Planet of the Apes fan, maybe watch it once. Otherwise, seek out the 1968 film. Don't bother with this.
Score: 3/10