Personally, I thought the film stunk to high heaven. A real waste of some colossal talent.

Mark Wahlberg turned in the single most bland action hero in recent memory. He was a zero, a cypher... his empty speech to the crowd of human slaves made me embarassed for the poor guy. But I guess he did it to himself.

Helena Bonham Carter... hmmm. Worst makeup, but the most accomplished performance.

Tim Roth had the physical thing down. But there was nothing else going on there at all. Just a lot of hissy fits and shenanigans.

And of course, the coup de grace... Estella Warren was throughly atrocious playing a freakin' human, for God's sake. How hard can that be to pull off? You can practically see the splices where they systematically excised her awful performance from the film.

And even worse, they buried Elfman's score... easily the strongest thing about the film.

I'd really like to see what Tim Burton might have done with this material. Oh, wait. Damn. Correction: I'd like to see what the real Tim Burton would do with this material.

So much more to say, but it's sooo late... more tomorrow.

Although this thread would probably belong in the JUST MOVIES section, I thought I'd give it a reply, seeing as I watched this horrible piece of wasted celluloid yesterday. I did order the score, which I thought was enjoyable in the movie, but highly muffled (maybe it was the speakers in the theater). Also, I thought too many scenes were scored, and it diminished some of the impact of a couple of scenes... those that had an impact, anyway. The THADE GOES APE scene was great, especially with the music. But enough with Elfman's percussive venture; the movie was baaad.

I haven't seen the original, nor have I read the novel, so this is coming from Burton's film only, no comparison possible here.

THE ACTING:

Oh my God.... Was there acting in there? Tim Roth did a marvelous job, although his speech was sometimes hard to decipher because of his grinded teeth, and Bonham Carter was wonderfully charming and "human" as Ari; other than that, there was no acting. Mark Wahlberg did nothing to make us believe in a character that was nothing to begin with. Hard to blame the guy, but then again.... The humans, oh the humans! I think the CGI mice in CATS AND DOGS were more Oscar-worthy than Kris and that blonde bimbo who didn't say anything in the entire movie but kissed Wahlberg in the end because... well, because it was mandatory, even though there was no love there in the first place.

THE CHARACTERS:

Leo Davidson, the "hero", is probably one of the worst characters in recent Hollywood movies. He does not change. The main character of any story has to change in some way for the story to have any impact. A movie is about change. A story is about change. Leo doesn't change. He has no emotions, no drives, no personality, he's brain-dead, and he can't experience any surprise out of hearing apes talk and act like humans. The only thing he wants is to go back home. That's it. That's his whole credo. He doesn't take the humans in pity, he doesn't turn into a savior for the slaves (like Col. O'Neil, from STARGATE, whose character is what Wahlberg's character should have been like); he just wants to go back home. Screw the planet, screw Ari, he leaves them in the end to do their thing. He never changes. A pitiful, pitiful dredge of a lead character....

Tim Roth's Thade is the only character, along with Ari, with somewhat believable motivations, but the rest of the cast is just way too stereotypical and underdeveloped for any moviegoer to care about.

THE STORY:

Oh, my Lord, what a massacre. So many plot holes, so little time. And an ending that doesn't make any sense. I just took an hour of my time to read talkbacks about speculations regarding the ending, none of them making sense. The ending is simply a cheap, Hollywoodian, "let's make it like The Sixth Sense" but with no purpose, vaguely Twilight-Zonish twist that simply is not possible. And before you say it's just like in the original, two words people: two suns.

'Nuff said.

THE VISUALS:

Incredibly gorgeous. Visually, it's a Burton film, it looks neat, the make-up is great, but not that great. Clarke's Attar is stiff and unconvincing, but Roth's Thade is magnificent in its realism. The costumes are all beautifully designed, the action sequences are neat, although you know, it is Burton directing action sequences... can't be that good.

So, personally, I didn't really like the movie. I mean, after coming out of the theater, I'd have given it a 5; but the more I thought about it, the more I realized it was really worse than my initial thoughts. It's the same thing that happened, for me anyways, with STAR WARS: EPISODE 1 - THE PHANTOM MENACE: the visuals are incredible, but when you get right down to it, it sucked big time.

Just my two cents :)

Kosh

(Qualifier: Not that he intended to do so originally, but still, he went home. Davidson wasn't sent to the planet on a suicide mission.)

Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, one of my favorite underrated actors, gives a very dignified performance, as always. Guess he made it into two summer blockbusters, (or as the post predecessors might prefer, "summer stinkpots"...)

Honestly (and respectfully), I don't know what they're expecting in a movie. If one prefers Cats and Dogs to Apes, well, one is welcome to spend their money where one is wont. For those who have to pick and choose, the substance is probably more with Apes. Not that I don't enjoy a good (designedly) juvenile flick every now and again, though for matinee prices, I can catch computer-animated talking pets in any televised Meow Mix/Kibbles & Bits commercial....

Substantially, I feel it was pretty decent. There have been worse "remakes", though this doesn't quite fall under that title so easily. The ending is confounding and enigmatic, whereas in the original, one was left with a realization of what had happened to Earth, the missing history of Apes 2001 is a little more cliffhanger-esque...(What did happen? Did the humans overpower the apes? Thade escaped? What happened to the "good" apes?)

The music was quite good, but if it had been any louder, it might have overpowered the film's atmosphere. In my observation, the "scariest" thing about the apes isn't their make-up, it's the sounds they make. A sudden high-pitched screech will make you jump in your seat more than Tim Roth (+ ape make-up) sneering at you.

On a brighter side, me and my friends caught the last half of Howard the Duck on the day after I saw POTA... What used to be a childhood favorite easily ranks as one of the worst films I've ever seen now, and makes POTA look like a masterpiece.

As for Howard the Duck- 4.5 out of 5
I like Howard a lot, don't understand why everyone thinks it's so terrible. It's flawless for just being an entertaining comedy-adventure(in my opinion), not to mention excellent in the departments for music score and stop-motion animation (the dark overlord monster always puts me in awe and amazment). The only thing about it that is a bit corny in my opinion is Lea Thompson always saying "Yeah" in kind of a childish and trying-to-be-serious/threatening tone. BTW-I think Tim Robbins is excellent in this film (as Phil) and delivers a fine comedic performance.

Hasta, did my statement above put you on the floor laughing again?

If you're like Kinsinger, you probably saw Planet of the Apes when it hit theaters in 1968. The movie then was fresh. The ideas were magnificent, and to see the reality of such a society on film (perhaps the closest thing to "reality" next to the real thing happening) was totally engrossing. Talk to people who saw it in 1968. They all say this, and more.

If you're like Splbg, you saw the original film in 1993. Dry sound effects, dry visual effects, the story... ho-hum. In 1993, we've seen weirder societies portrayed on film since 1968.

Ok, ok. Burton and company want to update the film for today's demanding audiences? Obviously, the only thing at work here is marketing. The film was horrible... nothing we haven't seen before. The effects may be better, but good effects make not a good film. There wasn't any "Burton" in the film. In the end, the new film made 70 million for Fox. Is this really what matters?

Let's get on with the show, guys. Stop remaking the classics. Remakes may mean big bucks with the right marketing, but we're stealing time from people like Tim Burton and Danny Elfman... time they could use to really challenge themselves with something fresh and new.

Oh, and one more thing. I saw POTA for the first time in 1994 not 93. Hehehe.

loved it.

didn't expect a masterpiece.

did expect an entertainment commensurate with the playstation2 generation.

it delivers.