Reviews: Planet of the Apes

[JoBlo]

JoBlo's 7/10 review of PLANET OF THE APES can be found here: http://www.joblo.com/planetoftheapes.htm
Your past movie reviews from May 1998 - November 2001 can be found there as well.

And what did you think of the movie? Add your comments below.

GUIDELINES: CONSTRUCTIVE REVIEWS ONLY!

1) If you haven't seen the movie, don't post here, because it will be deleted.
2) If you add two-bit comments like "it rocked" or "it sucked the big one" or just a grade, it will be deleted.
3) If you insult anyone from the board in your post, it will be deleted and you will receive a warning from the board. A second warning and you will be banned altogether. You can disagree with others all you want but no putdowns are necessary to make your points.

In order for others to know whether or not you would recommend the movie, please click on the desired icon of your choice when posting:

Recommended = http://www.joblo.com/ubb/icons/icon7.gif
Not recommended = http://www.joblo.com/ubb/icons/icon8.gif
In the middle = http://www.joblo.com/ubb/icons/icon9.gif

[urbanlegend23]

Planet of the Apes (2001)

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0133152/fcs_j23_2_004.jpg

Being a huge fan of the original, I went along to Planet of the Apes expecting an entertaining, if not brilliant film. That is exactly what you get with this movie. This movie isn’t about build-up and a perfect script, it’s about having fun and being entertained. On that surface, Planet of the Apes definitely succeeded.

That’s not saying it doesn’t have flaws or anything, because this “re-imagining” of the hugely popular and classical 1968 movie does have problems. For starters, the whole mystery and atmosphere of the island is gone with this film. In the 1968 film the atmospheric tension and mysterious moodiness of Planet of the Apes is what brought it most vividly alive. In this movie, it’s more about showing off the latest designing techniques and special effect mountains, not about the tension in the air. That was especially the case with the whole "ape city” part of the movie. I thought that was really quite laughable, not because it looked bad or anything, but because the apes just are amusing in the wrong way. In the 1968 movie (excuse all these comparisons) the apes are funny because they are like human replicas, treating humans like dogs. I liked that perspective of the first film. The 2001 version has the apes just seeming…funny, and completely stupid.

I also disagreed – along with many – about the casting of Mark Wahlberg. I really like the guy as an actor, but in the leading performance Markie Mark just suffered. He made the character looked cold and not at all stressed or surprised that he was surrounded by a bunch of mute people and apes who can talk. Okay, so we all know he wasn’t going to be a new Mr. Heston, but his performance as Leo remains very unsatisfying and his dullest to date.

Despite those couple of flaws, I no doubt enjoyed myself in the action sequences, loved the makeup, thought the scenery was gorgeous and I thoroughly (with the excuse of Wahlberg) enjoyed some of the performances. Tim Roth was especially menacing, power-hungry and amazingly ape-like in the role he was born to play. Roth may come off funny to some viewers, but hey, are apes funny? Roth was perfect casting. Another perfect casting was Helena Bonham Carter, who is known well for her continuous quality performances. In this movie she plays the most delicate and developed character and her acting helped the character become more vivid, memorable and strong. Well done there.

Another thing I loved about the movie is it never slows down. Sure, I was quite bored during the development of the apes world, but the action and sense of old-fashioned adventure make this movie amazing appealing. The movie is always on its toes, always moving, and we always have something to look at.

One thing that disappointed me about the movie is – and I can’t believe I’m saying this – Tim Burton’s directing. He just doesn’t make the film as moody or atmospheric as his previous productions. Tim does outline what he wants to do well and how he wants it done extremely well, but he could’ve put more effort into the way the movie looks in terms of techniques and editing, considering his previous efforts like Edward Scissorhands and Sleepy Hollow are works of atmospheric joy.

However, Tim makes sure the movie starts with a bang and ends with a bang, and that’s what I was interested in with Planet of the Apes. It’s not perfect, but it remains one of the most eye-catching and fun movies of summer 2001.

7/10

[This message has been edited by urbanlegend23 (edited 01-25-2002).]

[Benny]

"Planet of the Apes" was blasted by many critics this summer. However, I happened to like this movie for the most part. First of all there were a few things that disappointed me. First, the casting of Mark Wahlberg in the lead. He did not have enough emotion and was too flat in the role. Like Russell Crowe, Marky Mark is not built to be an action star and should stick to roles like "Boogie Nights", which he was very good in. Also, like many people, I disliked the ending and found in to be terribly unreal and stupid.

But there were many things which I enjoyed about this movie. Once again, director Tim Burton created another great set and does good work behind the camera. The rest of the actors, especially Bonham Carter, do well in their supporting roles. And the action scenes are very good also. The two hours pass by quickly and the movie has fun along the way. So pass the large popcorn, and enjoy this good summer flick which is almost as good as the original! 7/10

[janesworld]

Being a HUGE fan of the original Planet of the Apes, I was apprehensive about this movie. The original Planet of the Apes is a movie I watch over and over and never seem to grow tired of. In fact, as I sit at my computer writing this, I am looking at my General Urko mouse pad.

I say all this to give some context to my review. From the start I realized my fears were unfounded. The movie blew me away from the start. I quickly realized it really wasn't a remake, rather a re-interpretation. The movie's makers didn't fall into the same trap others have fallen in (Psycho). In addition, I really appreciated the references to the original movie sprinkled throughout.

The action is non-stop. The make-up is the best I've seen and should win an Oscar. The comedic moments really fit the movie. Most of the acting was great. Mark Wahlberg was solid. Helena Bonham Carter was wonderful. Tim Roth proved again (as in Rob Roy) what a wonderful villian he can play.

I did, however, have two problems with the movie. First, the human characters were weak. Second, it was a stretch for me to believe that Mark Wahlberg's character seemed to show no real surprise in the fact he had crash landed on a planet with TALKING apes.

Can't wait until the DVD comes out - 8/10.

[idealdiscountdude]

The remake of Planet Of The Apes looked promising from the trailers and of course since Tim Burton directed I figured that it would have to be a good film. Well I was very disappointed. Planet Of The Apes was merely O.K.

The screenplay was practically non-existent with practically no character development whatsoever. The only character I cared about was "Human rights activist" Aki, the rebellious female ape whom aids the humans from the hands of the apes. Helena Bonham Carter was the lone stand out in the cast as Aki, she did a brilliant job and deserves kudos for making an interesting character out of a shitty screenplay. Mark Wahlberg who has been great as of late seemed bored in his role.
The makeup and visuals were stunning in this film and the cinematography is perfect.

With all of this said however, without character development or a decent screenplay, Planet Of The Apes is reduced to brainless fluff. I did enjoy the film to a degree however it could have been so much better.

6/10

[This message has been edited by idealdiscountdude (edited 11-24-2001).]

[James Logan]

I don't really know what to think about this movie. First of all, I though making a new POTA was a great idea, and that letting Tim Burton direct it was as great.

But when I saw the movie I gotta admit I was a bit disappointed. I mean, the make-up is excellent, the special effects too, and the acting definitely is top-notch (especially the apes and Estella Warren's tits). The few action there was at the start and end was amazing.
Problem is, I didn't really like the plot. The guy crashes, makes buddy-buddy with apes and human slaves, and goes back to find a new ship. Ok, that's what POTA is all about, but it didn't really interest me. And number two, it wasn't enough of a Tim Burton to me. The colours were dark, the style was definitely Burton's, but it didn't have that special feel SLEEPY HOLLOW or the two BATMANS had. It wasn't crazy like BEETLEJUICE. It just wasn't Burton...

6.5/10

[This message has been edited by James Logan (edited 11-24-2001).]

[kardon24]

WARNING: DO NOT READ BECAUSE OF SPOILERS.

Anyway, I'm a bit bias on this film for the specific reason that I'm such a big fan of the originals. If I had never seen them, maybe I would have like this one better. MAYBE.
Fist off, Mark Walhberg, who is usually better, was downright boring and lame. I mean, did he or his character know they were even PART of an ensemble cast? His whole attitude was like "Okay, you guys create a diversion, I'll escape." At least Taylor cared about his comrades.
Then there was the Apes. Half of them acted more human than the lead (the discussion at dinner, and the other acted like they were still the apes of the day: Grunting, throwing fits, etc... While I understand the want for realism, they were supposed to be evolved from the primates of today, but for the most part, they were just monkeys in clothes.
Which brings me to my next point: While I don't mind a little political commentary in a film, the dinner sequence was just WAY too strong, as well as stereotypical. If you've seen the movie, then I won't bore you here with it again.
Moving on... Okay, I understand the whole role reversal thing (duh, seen the originals), but what I don't get is why Burton felt the need to have most of Taylors memorable lines from the original being recited by the apes. Kinda of defeats the meanings of the lines, and looks like nothing more than attempts at cheap pops.
Thon (or is it Thom?) was a decent villain, if not, IMO, overacted. Though his final fate was disappointing and down right stupid. I mean, to be trapped in a room that ricochets his gun shots? And was he that stupid that he couldn't tell the shots were bouncing all over the place, so he keeps on shooting? This is the best military mind of the apes? And they never even tell you whether he dies or not. What the heck was Burton thinking with that? Cripes, he had the perfect setup for Thom's fate: The monkey arrives, and Thom attacks it. Now this monkey is the Apes god, yet Thom's second sees the battered monkey lying half dead, knows what Thom did, yet he does nothing? Ya think he might go primal and attack Thom for this? No, he just stands there. Apparently, he's the only gorilla that's evolved on this planet enough to control his rage.

Since when are apes afraid of water? Don't know how true this is, but it seemed rather stupid for the movie.

That "kid". What was his point in the motive outer than kiddie factor? (And he was too old for that!)
"OK, junior, you stay back here." "No, I wanna go for no other reason than to trip, so you can come and get me even though there'll be five other people closer to me than you." Yeah...Right...

Thom's daddy (Charleton Heston? Or just a good monkey look-alike?) gives him a gun that was passed down through generations. Thom is like "cool", then promptly forgets he ever has it. Was there a point to this other than Charlton Heston?

Riddle me this? I'm discreetly trying to escape a village full of apes. Why am I running through every monkeys bedroom in the village? Also, I'm dragging an orangutan with me so he doesn't tell the gorillas where I am, yet I'm running through a gorilla post. Why don't I just leave the leech at the post?

Talking humans. Bad idea. They live in the jungles. They can barely clothe themselves (Damn MPAA! LOL). Are too stupid to move away from the apes. Can't read, write, or utilize basic tools. But they speak perfect English.

Okay, good points (there are a few!)
Costumes: 8/10. Would've scored higher but I'm partial to the originals http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

FX: 8/10. Good, but nothing haven't been seen before.

Acting: 6/10. Was that Mark W? OR Johnny Depp???

Story: 3/10. There was one?

Characters: Thom 7/10...the rest 3/10 (on a stretch. Oh, wait, the genetically engineered chimp gets a 10/10. Best of the bunch...Too bad he's only there for about 5 minutes!

Ending: 1/10 (being nice here)

Overall, I wouldn't recommend unless you were bored. Better yet, rent the originals. The costumes may not be as good as this one (hey, it was 30+ years ago!), but Taylor, and Nova are better. And there's no replacing Zera and Cornelius.

[bskutle]

"Planet of the Apes"- A
Make no mistake- this is the smart, intriguing, and exciting sci-fi adventure we've been promised from films as varied as the fascinating "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" to the disappointing "Titan A.E." to even the God-awful "Battlefield Earth"; however, Tim Burton's "re-imagining" of the 1968 sci-fi classic- from the novel by Pierre Boulle- is the only one to deliver completely on all levels. From the striking opening credits and notes of Danny Elfman's excellent score, I knew I would be seeing a work from the Burton who is responsible for "Batman" and "Sleepy Hollow," and not the Burton of "Mars Attacks!". An effective Mark Wahlberg is the astronaut who gets stranded on a planet where humans are subordinate to apes, though Charlton Heston does show up in a cameo as a chimpanzee. Tim Roth is a menacing presence as Thade, the general of the ape army, while Helena Bonham Carter (as a chimp human rights activist), Paul Giamatti (as an orangutan human slave trader) and Michael Clarke Duncan (as Thade's right hand gorilla) are equally impressive in their roles. Estella Warren is the human love interest for Wahlberg, though she's given little to do.

But hey, acting- even solid acting- is usually second to story, action, and the vision presented in sci-fi, and on all counts, Burton- aided immesurably by long-time editor Chris Lebonzon, production designer Rick Heinrichs, cinematographer Philippe Rousselot, and makeup designer Rick Baker (who should easily be in line for another Oscar for his astonishing work here)- succeeds with a visionary's skill and passion. The story doesn't deal as much with the rich possibilities for social commentary as the original film (and four sequels) did, but the action scenes (not to mention the apes terrific leaping ability) and concepts presented in this story are every bit as compelling as in the 1968 film in their own ambitious, original way. "Apes" is still a conversation piece royale, with twists and a shocker of an ending that- while it doesn't match the original's (still one of the best ever)- will undoubtedly leave you talking. Is it as good as the 1968 classic? Not quite; the original still has a sense of mystery and old-fashioned adventure and fun that can't be topped. But I do know this- I want sequels to Burton's "re-imagining," helmed by the reinventor of "Batman" himself. The ending leaves room for at least one, and I'd love to see where Burton's new direction leads the "Apes" concept.

[Cyclonus]

Well, if Tim Burton hadn't directed, I might have liked POTA better, as it is, I can't help but think he was the victim of studio politics. Look at the quirkiness of is other works (Batman Returns, Beetlejuice, Ed Wood). His latest film doesn't have that distinctive touch to it. If I didn't know better I'd think it was the work of some competent hack. It's a decent action movie, technically well-made, but little more.

6/10.

[The1TrueFrog]

Planet Of The Apes - 4/10.

http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/twentieth_century_fox/planet_of_the_apes/_group_photos/mark_wahlberg1.jpg

I like the original sooo much better. In the days of modern technology, you would think that we could do better than this. It seems exactly the same as the first one to me. Except, how could they leave out "damn you! damn you all to hell!" What were they thinking? Ah, well, give me some beer and crackers and I'll probably watch anything.

[Snowboy]

Ha! I was so skeptical about watching this film, and now that I finally have for the first time, I must say it was a blast!! Wahlberg was solid as usual, but his character seemed a little too one-dimensional. Helena Bonham-Carter did an amazing job, I think I really connected more with her character. I really dug her a lot. The other family lead was hot, but that's about it. Tim Roth, wow, he never ceases to amaze me. Awesome job as the bad guy. And who can't LOVE Michael Duncan Clarke?? He is one hell of an actor. He's one bad dude! The makeup--WOWZERS that was friggin awesome!

Problems: Aside from Wahlberg's one-dimensional character (which doesn't mean he's a bad actor, he's not), I thought the other female human lead was..well dull. The kid I could have also done without. There were a few scenes where I rolled my eyes.
Other than that, I found it to be a really really fun movie, and I HIGHLY recommend it if that's the kind of film you dig. 7/10

[herculeez]

A movie that proves hype is not all what it lives up to be.
From my recollection POTA was everywhere, the were TV spots between every other programme trailer were in all cinemas, it engulfed all magazines, papers were writing reports on it and what happened? It turned out to be an attrocity!
The movie was extremely boring.
The script was purposefully writen so that your average 8 year old could understand everything going on.
It is Burtons worst attempt i have ever seen, i have never seen him stoop so low as this and it proved to be kinda risky taking on this remake and in my opinion it didn't come off to the best for him.
The orignial proved to be so much better, with better actng, more entertaining throughout and most of all a better twist which the audience could comprehend.
The remake was simply dreadful, the acting in it was over dramatisied throughout the entire production to try and make everything seem so epic, which it didn't achieve. It lacked the ability to attain the credit the first one had and worst of all the tried out another twist...and got it all wrong.
I say they got it wrong simply becuase the audience did not understand it...I didn't understand it! They tried to use some scientifical explantion using worm holes, lapsing over time and so forth and inevitably confused everyone leaving them with a feeling of unfulfilment. But the twist at the end was not exactly a new twist...they wanted to keep it a secret for as long as they could simply becuase it was a new reverb on the old film and when we finally came around to seeing it, it turned out that it wasn't a new twist at all...it was just a twist on the original twist!
From Statue Of Liberty to Abe Lincoln!
Wow!
Inadequate film, heavily slughtered...BY ME!!!

4/10

[thompsoncory]

I don't understand why this movie didn't recieve good buzz. There wasn't anything wrong with it, besides Mark Wahlberg's inability to act. The makeup and stunts were fantastic and the ending was a shocker. Overall this movie gets an 8/10 from me.

[movieDUDE68686]

Runner up for worst movie of the year to Glitter. I just was very suprised how awful this was. I really was not expecting much, but I love Tim Burton (edward scissorhands <my 3rd favorite movie of all time!> )
and this was just horrible. The acting was the worst of all the films flaws. I can just not think of one single thing good about this movie.....beside's estella warden. 1/10! (D-)

[Spoiledrichkid]

Well first off I think I should say I never saw the original,so I didnt know if I would get the plot,but it was pretty...straight-forward.

There was alot of action so the movie at least kept my attention.The dialogue was GREAT,with memorable lines like "I'm going to get my monkey back" and "Ooh aah eee ooh eee!"Notice my SARCHASM.The acting by Roth was great,he was born to play a sinister, campy,over-dramatic ape.As for Wahlberg...well,you would think a planet of TALKING APES would surprise him a little,but apparantly,the only facial expression he could show was intense concentration.My theory is he was cast in the lead so the apes wouldn't look stupid by comparison.

My real beef was the movie's ending,which was unbelievably trite and stupid.I hope Timothy is proud of himself.
To borrow from a great movie site,The Editing Room:

YOUR CHILHOOD MEMORIES OF POTA
Ow!Tim Burton is raping me hard!Oh God make it stop!There is nothing sacred!




[This message has been edited by Spoiledrichkid (edited 03-07-2002).]

[The Other]

PLANET OF THE APES (2001) Rating: 7/10

For about 45 minutes of the movie it wasn't looking so good, because of the character of Leo and his cliché. The characters were kind of a problem. They were old and tired. Ari posses the most heart, though. Also, a love triangle emerges between Ari, Leo, and Daena... The film seems scared, though, to take on the subject of "inner-species" dating. It doesn't, until about the last 30 minutes, give us anything we've already seen before. Except great make-up.

But the thing about it is, it's a lot of fun. I picked up the problems I listed above, but really didn't care. Tim Burton, personally, is one of my favorite directors. He has yet to make a bad film. He has a certain style that is dark and ominous, Here, it is muddled and doesn't show up until about the last 30 minutes. You can sense it's there but it doesn't show up until then.

"Planet" has one of the greatest endings of the year, which is the high point of the movie. It's also got some other neat twists in it along the way.

So, despite it's many problems, "Planet" is an enjoyable, often funny, often scary, summer movie.

Note: Pay attention to Danny Elfman's tremendous score. He had done most of Burton's films and each score is terrific. I don't feel he gets enough recognition, so I thought I'd mention it.

[Maya Rupert]

Disclaimer: I LOVED the original Planet of the Apes. It was entertaining, but it was also an insightful social comentary that was beautiful in the same way real life is beautiful: it wasn't simple. There was no "good/bad" dichotomy that was easily identified and even more easily dismissed. The original Planet of the Apes showed us complex storylines and asked us to identify with humans and apes alike. The new Planet of the Apes traded this complexity for cool ape make-up, kick-ass special effects, and a handful of magic beans.

So let's talk actors. Mark Wahlberg had all the personality of a day old eclair, and why shouldn't he? He's MARK WALHBERG (read: Marky-Mark). Huge shocker there. Yes, he sucked to a whole new level; I'm over it. My question is why he was cast at all, but apparently Burton's secret recipe for movie success calls for a poor lead actor, bring him to a boil, and let him stew in his own shoddy performance for an hour and 58 minutes. Tim Roth played EVIL quite welll, though a little over-the-top at times. Happily, Helena Bohnam Carter delivered a good performance, and with hokey lines like, "Some day they'll tell a story about a human that fell from the stars and changed our world..." that ain't an easy task.

Now about the characters...There NEEDS to be something about characters that people can connect with. Otherwise, why do we care what happens to them? I'm not a film major or a critic, just drawing on common sense here. Bad guys can't just be bad, unless of course you're only planning on appealing to an audience of 3-year-olds. Now I ask you: WHO was supposed to identify with Thade? Oh, right, Satan. Ari is quite well developed, but you start to wonder what she finds so appealing about Leo, who, even disregarding Wahlberg's dismal performance is no one to phone home about. Actually, you get the feeling that her favorite thing about Leo is the chance to piss off her father and Thade.

Like I said, I'll grant this movie the wonders of modern technology. It WAS visually brilliant. But war scenes and costumes do not a movie make. Why could the humans speak? And they spoke ENGLISH, no less. If humans and apes both speak the same language, it takes a pretty evil race of beings to enslave the other. This robs the movie of that sense of divided loyalty. There is nothing about the ape civilization that makes their cruelty to humans understandable. The original movie offered two viewpoints and didn't let you accept one completely. It was smart and...good, up until the very last chilling scene that offered an unforgettable caveat about war and its effects. This movie...wasn't. I really think Burton missed the point. In fact, I'd put money on it, wait, i did, $7.50. the sequel? um, yeah, I think I'll pass

[rockerbaby604]

I enjoyed Planet Of The Apes by Tim Burton. All the actors played thier parts well. They include..
Mark Wahlberg
Tim Roth
Helena Bonham Carter- she played her part very well, she showed her emotions well threw make-up.
Michael Clark Duncan
Paul Giamatti- He was very funny.
Estella Warren

The only thing I did not like about Planet Of The Apes was the ending. It just made me mad. But other than the ending it was a entertaining film. Not as good as the original though.

[Backstabba]

This was a entertaining movie. Acting was solid, the F/X was pretty damn good. I liked this movie, I didn't have expectations for this movie cause I only Saw it because It was on fox, I was bored, and the trailer made it look like a very good film. But like always a trailer makes a movie look better than it is, One of the major flaws were....the ending.. it was just a horrible ending. Overall: 7/10