Rise of the Planet of the Apes [** SPOILERS FROM POST 185 ONWARD **]

madds

Mickeroo wrote: »

If she doesn't like it I'll eat your hat.

She loved it...as did I. Very enjoyable.

One part where I thought there was a convenient slip was when

Franklin's mask is knocked off his face and it's several seconds before he manages to put it back on again...surely he would have been placed in quarantine or taken for some sort of medical attention after being exposed to the retrovirus? Just too convenient as a way of introducing the virus I thought

Mellor

Fysh wrote: »

That's fine, but my point is that the apes we were shown in captivity were comparatively easily intimidated and backed down from working together as a group, whereas in the big final conflict where they were fighting armed humans and in some cases horse-mounted humans none of those "normal" apes panicked or broke ranks.

I'm clearly putting more thought into this than I was expected to, but nonetheless...



In fairness, after heading to the labs and rescuing the test apes a whole load of them are shown easily smashing through what would be reinforced glass five stories up and then landing unharmed on a concrete floor. There's "oh, they're enhanced" and "oh, they're invincible uber-apes from your worst dystopian nightmare", and the closing act of the film fell very much in the latter camp.

I think you are really over analysing it. I thought it was lower than 5 stories, but it's not important. it wouldn't of been reinforced galss btw, it would of been safety galss, so wouldn't on smashed like that. Whoops!

Normal physics doesn't apply in hollywood.
Batman survived a much bigger fall in TKD.
You know when a bad guy gets blasted with a big gun and gets blown a few feet, that's impossible. These stupid thing happen in all movies, ignore them imo.

There are jsut there for dramatic effect, like Ceasar was the same height as Franco when he stood up at the end, even for a tall chimp, that's way too tall maybe a foot too much. But was necessary to establish the Ape = Human connection

blodvyn

I find it hilarious that people scrutinize every movie about plot lines this, slip ups that.

yet star trek, star wars, alien, the matrix all are wonderful movie with VERY believable story lines.

I'm not bashing those movies btw, they're amongst my top movies. I'm just stating call a spade a spade.

Fysh

Mellor wrote: »

I think you are really over analysing it. I thought it was lower than 5 stories, but it's not important. it wouldn't of been reinforced galss btw, it would of been safety galss, so wouldn't on smashed like that. Whoops!

blodvyn wrote: »

I find it hilarious that people scrutinize every movie about plot lines this, slip ups that.

This isn't a case of going home, thinking about it and then saying "Waitaminnit, that could never have happened! I've been ripped off!" - this was stuff that I (and the two friends with whom I saw the film) were thinking of as we watched the film and which we all agreed knackered any chance of being properly immersed in the story.

Yes, it's a personal-mileage thing. It doesn't make me wrong for finding that certain elements of lazy screenwriting detracted from an otherwise passable popcorn no-brainer. But as others have said above, being a good popcorn film doesn't require being a no-brainer.

That being said, given the number of people posting who seem to treat the cinema as a place for "cinema experiences" rather than as just another venue to watch films in their normal way, maybe I'm just not the target audience for this stuff. To quote Hayley Smith, "enjoy your crapfest" :P

minotour

in anticiapation of "Rise" I managed to watch all 5 of the originals over the last week (yes, there were 5, who knew!) It was a struggle as they were not great movies, good stories badly told at best.

But Im glad i did as there were lots of references to the originals that i wouldnt have other wise caught, great movie, best of the year easily.

ITS A MADHOUSE, A MADHOUSE

Duke Leonal Felmet

blodvyn wrote: »

I find it hilarious that people scrutinize every movie about plot lines this, slip ups that.

yet star trek, star wars, alien, the matrix all are wonderful movie with VERY believable story lines.

I'm not bashing those movies btw, they're amongst my top movies. I'm just stating call a spade a spade.

Yeah, I agree. I wonder, those people who say they were 'not immersed in the storyline' because of these issues, however did they manage to get immersed in said sci-fi classics? In fact, how do they manage with most films, as surely the majority of (action/adventure) films are not believeable.

CerebralCortex

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

It's just a film, guys.

Guess what, The Matrix wasn't real either...

Consistency is important. The Matrix too is guilty of many inconsistencies.

Handsome Bob

madds wrote: »

She loved it...as did I. Very enjoyable.

One part where I thought there was a convenient slip was when

Franklin's mask is knocked off his face and it's several seconds before he manages to put it back on again...surely he would have been placed in quarantine or taken for some sort of medical attention after being exposed to the retrovirus? Just too convenient as a way of introducing the virus I thought

I think they were still quite ignorant at this stage though, they didn't know that exposure to the latest version of the "cure" would be lethal to humans.

Mark Hamill

blodvyn wrote: »

I find it hilarious that people scrutinize every movie about plot lines this, slip ups that.

yet star trek, star wars, alien, the matrix all are wonderful movie with VERY believable story lines.

I'm not bashing those movies btw, they're amongst my top movies. I'm just stating call a spade a spade.

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Yeah, I agree. I wonder, those people who say they were 'not immersed in the storyline' because of these issues, however did they manage to get immersed in said sci-fi classics? In fact, how do they manage with most films, as surely the majority of (action/adventure) films are not believeable.

Believability is not the same as realism, and immersion is a matter of consistency. In star wars, aliens, the matrix etc, they introduced their worlds, told us the rules and as long as they stuck to them (as un realistic as they might be) immersion wasnt broken and they where enjoyable. However losting that consistency, eg all of a sudden neo could stop machines out of the matrix and Anakin built C3PO/ Obiwan knew R2D2 etc, contributed greatly to the later films being sh*t.

Fysh

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Yeah, I agree. I wonder, those people who say they were 'not immersed in the storyline' because of these issues, however did they manage to get immersed in said sci-fi classics? In fact, how do they manage with most films, as surely the majority of (action/adventure) films are not believeable.

Every film has problems, from minor continuity glitches to bigger issues like huge plot holes or even stuff like the X-Men: First Class Magneto O'Toole incident.

The point is that, in plot terms, if a film addresses an issue (even in a casual fashion, with something as simple as a single line of dialogue) you can essentially park it and accept it as something to be ignored. If the film doesn't do this, you have to suspend disbelief for yourself, and with a film like this where the starting premise already requires a certain amount of suspension of disbelief, you risk pushing audiences to the point where they just decide the whole thing's a load of crap and stop paying attention.

For example - why was the 113 infused by aerosol? In plot terms, because the writer thought that an airborne virus-like agent would be a useful element for describing how Everything Went Wrong. In scientific terms, there are huge risks associated with making any virus-like payload (especially an as-yet-untested-on-humans one) airborne. A simple 2-line exchange could've been used to explain this in the film, but without it that development stood out as a Necessary McGuffin.

That's how I view it, at least, because what I want from a film is good storytelling, and good storytelling requires immersion. Good storytelling doesn't preclude all sorts of silliness (eg Crank is a perenial favourite of mine, because it basically says right at the start "This is going to be a preposterous excuse for a bunch of action segments, sit back and enjoy!"), so long as it's presented right.

Rise of the Apes seems to think it's a serious character drama/examination of issues from its presentation, when it's riddled with 2-dimensional characters and plot holes

If you're after visual spectacle, of course, different standards apply. That doesn't make me wrong for expecting good storytelling or you wrong for enjoying the film as a spectacle, but it does mean we're looking at the film from different perspectives.

Töpher

Handsome Bob wrote: »

I think they were still quite ignorant at this stage though, they didn't know that exposure to the latest version of the "cure" would be lethal to humans.

Had it not already killed Charles by this point? The team wouldn't have been aware, but Will would have. Perhaps that actually came after and I've the memory of a 2 year old, but I vaguely remember thinking it was odd at the time?

Duke Leonal Felmet

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

It's just a film, guys.

Guess what, The Matrix wasn't real either...

Consistency is important. The Matrix too is guilty of many inconsistencies.

Right, but when people say things like 'oh, the apes got clever too quickly' you really need to wonder why these people go to sci-fi/action/adventure films at all.

Did the time paradoxes really annoy you in The Terminator, or did you just accept it as part of the fantasy? Ditto Back to the Future.

Consistency is important, hence my pregnancy comment. But I thought the rest was fine within the realms of film fantasy.

Busi_Girl08

Töpher wrote: »

Had it not already killed Charles by this point? The team wouldn't have been aware, but Will would have. Perhaps that actually came after and I've the memory of a 2 year old, but I vaguely remember thinking it was odd at the time?

Charles wasn't killed by the virus. The first drug cured his Alzheimers for 5+ years, and then his immune system couldn't take the anti-bodies anymore, and rejected the drug. The Alzheimers came back with a vengance then.

He died as a result of the alzheimers, not the virus. The idea is that the apes' immune systems are a lot stronger than humans, which is how they will all survive and take over as the humans perish from the virus.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Fysh wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Yeah, I agree. I wonder, those people who say they were 'not immersed in the storyline' because of these issues, however did they manage to get immersed in said sci-fi classics? In fact, how do they manage with most films, as surely the majority of (action/adventure) films are not believeable.

Every film has problems, from minor continuity glitches to bigger issues like huge plot holes or even stuff like the X-Men: First Class Magneto O'Toole incident.

The point is that, in plot terms, if a film addresses an issue (even in a casual fashion, with something as simple as a single line of dialogue) you can essentially park it and accept it as something to be ignored. If the film doesn't do this, you have to suspend disbelief for yourself, and with a film like this where the starting premise already requires a certain amount of suspension of disbelief, you risk pushing audiences to the point where they just decide the whole thing's a load of crap and stop paying attention.

For example - why was the 113 infused by aerosol? In plot terms, because the writer thought that an airborne virus-like agent would be a useful element for describing how Everything Went Wrong. In scientific terms, there are huge risks associated with making any virus-like payload (especially an as-yet-untested-on-humans one) airborne. A simple 2-line exchange could've been used to explain this in the film, but without it that development stood out as a Necessary McGuffin.

That's how I view it, at least, because what I want from a film is good storytelling, and good storytelling requires immersion. Good storytelling doesn't preclude all sorts of silliness (eg Crank is a perenial favourite of mine, because it basically says right at the start "This is going to be a preposterous excuse for a bunch of action segments, sit back and enjoy!"), so long as it's presented right.

Rise of the Apes seems to think it's a serious character drama/examination of issues from its presentation, when it's riddled with 2-dimensional characters and plot holes

If you're after visual spectacle, of course, different standards apply. That doesn't make me wrong for expecting good storytelling or you wrong for enjoying the film as a spectacle, but it does mean we're looking at the film from different perspectives.

I never expected a compelling story, from the outset. Perhaps all people should do the same and enjoy the apes jumping around.

Töpher

Now that you say it I remember that. Christ my brain's just up and left me this morning! Thanks.

...Carry on. :pac:

Fysh

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Right, but when people say things like 'oh, the apes got clever too quickly' you really need to wonder why these people go to sci-fi/action/adventure films at all.

There is a distinction, more commonly made in literature than in film or television, between soft science fiction (basically high-tech/exotic fantasy) and hard science fiction.

My tastes lie towards the hard end of the spectrum - ie I don't want a story to feel like I'm reading a thesis, but I want some context and depth to be given for the outlandish elements in the story. As Mark Hamill mentioned above, internal consistency in the sense of sticking to relevant in-story rules is the important thing.

I can buy the whole "the apes are enhanced" thing, but if the whole film tells you the enhancement was purely cerebral only for the third act to then show some pretty tremendous physical enhancement (eg smashing through reinforced glass several stories up, landing on concrete with no adverse effects, large apes swinging underneath the Golden Gate Bridge with their weight entirely borne by their arms), the film is breaking its own poorly-described internal rules.

Action/adventure not only doesn't have to be brainless, it's more often than not at its best when consideration has been put into the story to make sure that it's internally consistent.

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I never expected a compelling story, from the outset. Perhaps all people should do the same and enjoy the apes jumping around.

Aside from the preposterous "entire film condensed into 60 seconds" long trailer, the ads suggested that this was going to be an engaging film explaining how Things Went Wrong. That they then opted for a Deep Blue Sea-esque "ZOMG! THEY GOT SMARTERER!" approach undermines the whole thing.

Was Rise... better than the Tim Burton remake? Well, yes. But being the lesser of two turds is faint praise indeed.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Those stories keep on rising. Next ye will be telling us they skydived without a chute.

Like I said, its just a film, stop taking it literally and enjoy the nice apes.

BlitzKrieg

I can buy the whole "the apes are enhanced" thing, but if the whole film tells you the enhancement was purely cerebral only for the third act to then show some pretty tremendous physical enhancement (eg smashing through reinforced glass several stories up, landing on concrete with no adverse effects, large apes swinging underneath the Golden Gate Bridge with their weight entirely borne by their arms), the film is breaking its own poorly-described internal rules.

Alot of the points being brought up were either addressed in the film or as you put it established by its internal rules.

Issues like the strength of the apes was established from the first scene with apes performing giant leaps across the forest to bright eyes smashing through reinforced windows jumping down 3 stories into a cafeteria table etc. The film has from its outset established apes *can* do this. Internal rules Yes. realistic probably not it will require an ape expert to comment. But nothing the apes do in the final sequence (except the weapons) is not new to the film's internal logic other apes did it in the film earlier.

-The aerosal chemical also was explained in the scene where the antibodies are shown to be fighting the 112 drug. Franco's character stated that he needed a strong virus and a faster delivery system.

-The number of apes was also established. they state there was over a hundred at the establishment. and you can see it both when they are in the rec area and by the cages that circle the rec area. where there is a a cage on every wall except the one where the gorrilla is and this circles the whole area. And these are all corriders with another set of cages on the other wall.

-The stupid apes element was shown with the handler catching one of them and then being freed by the smarter ones, also they were at times the ones that suffered the brunt of certain attacks (you see them being smacked down in the horse attack) and also they would have been submissive to the smart ones much like they were in the cage to the bald chimp before ceaser took over.

If you consider injection an automatical faster system then it would be you at error as I asked a doctor who saw the film with me tonight and she said it depends on the drug being administered and what functions it will be affecting etc. So there was an explanation for the change.

That they then opted for a Deep Blue Sea-esque "ZOMG! THEY GOT SMARTERER!" approach undermines the whole thing.

Rise is an infinitely better film then deep blue sea and assuming it was simply they got *smarter* that drives this film then I must ask how did you miss so much of the films content about trust, loyalty and leadership. The driving force of the rise was never that Ceaser was smarter. it was shattering of his place in the world and finding a new one, one he forged from betrayel and leadership.

Also as an entry in the Planet of the Apes franchise it is very genuine about its respect of the prior entries, from the establishing of the caste systems (chimps, gorillas and orangutans) from the signs of rebellion in ceaser's own ranks (a nod to battle of the planet of the apes).

I didnt give a full review after my viewing cause I had to get a flight the next morning home where I didnt have net access til yesterday. But the film is a fantastic film, I must praise from a technical perspective it is wonderfully crafted. From the moment Ceaser releases the drug on his fellow apes to the film's conclusion is one of the few film's I have seen recently that has been perfectly edited and paced. it just flows so damn well from that point on. Yes there is some serious weak characterisations of a number of roles, and it gives the film a weaker opening then it really should. But overall in a summer of mostly very weak mainstream blockbusters this is a huge step in the right direction.

I am very excited if the same crew and cast stick with the franchise and it doesnt get a sloppy sequel because so much of it has been well developed.

There are so many possibilities open to the series from here. personnally i hope they actually touch on the muting of humans that is overlooked so much in the rest of the series (burtons had the humans speaking) they could easily tie it to a vaccine for the 113 plague that stunts intelligence and results in later generations becoming mute and leading to man's final downfall.

Mickeroo

Fysh wrote: »

I can buy the whole "the apes are enhanced" thing, but if the whole film tells you the enhancement was purely cerebral only for the third act to then show some pretty tremendous physical enhancement (eg smashing through reinforced glass several stories up, landing on concrete with no adverse effects, large apes swinging underneath the Golden Gate Bridge with their weight entirely borne by their arms), the film is breaking its own poorly-described internal rules.

Orangutans are well able to swing around the way they did on the golden gate bridge to be honest, the only unrealistic thing about Maurice was his size, as far as I know orangutans don't grow that big, he looked as big as the gorilla in some scenes. Apes in general are also extremely strong, I really didn't see anything in the film that made me think they were physically enhanced. Breaking the possibly reinforced glass, well you can write off nearly every film with an action scene in an urban area for that fallacy Landing on the concrete unscathed, I can't remember the exact scene in question, no doubt in real life a bone or two would have been broken, but come on, thats an extremely minor detail to focus on.

Fysh wrote: »

For example - why was the 113 infused by aerosol? In plot terms, because the writer thought that an airborne virus-like agent would be a useful element for describing how Everything Went Wrong. In scientific terms, there are huge risks associated with making any virus-like payload (especially an as-yet-untested-on-humans one) airborne. A simple 2-line exchange could've been used to explain this in the film, but without it that development stood out as a Necessary McGuffin.

As for the 113 being airborne I think Franco's character said something about it being more aggressive and needing to get into the system quicker so having them inhaling it would be a good way to do this, this doesn't make any sense really I suppose though since surely injecting it directly into the blood stream would be just as fast, either way I think that was the reason given. meh.

shizz

I have to say I thought it was a brilliant film. I've seen most of the blockbusters this summer and this was by far the best.

I found it very engaging but funnily enough the only character I found you could really cling on to was Ceaser's.

If I was to suggest one film for people to see this summer, this would be it.

BlitzKrieg

As for the 113 being airborne I think Franco's character said something about it being more aggressive and needing to get into the system quicker so having them inhaling it would be a good way to do this, this doesn't make any sense really I suppose though since surely injecting it directly into the blood stream would be just as fast, either way I think that was the reason given. meh.

saw it with a doctor and she said if they were using a stronger viral strain then it would be safer to injest it via aerosal and possibly quicker then an injection depending on where it was going and what it was affecting. Though from a realistic perspective there is no way to know which is quicker unless we knew all the elements of the drug...which would be impossible since it doesnt exist.

PerrinV2

Just Back really enjoyed.Make of my thoughts have already been said here.
Kinda hope they don't make a sequel and watch the downfall of mankind.

jim-jam

Thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Caesar was fantastically written. His character really pulled on the heart strings particularly when he draws the window pattern inside his cage and at the end. There was a collective gasp when he spoke as well. Absolutely hated Tom Felton's character. It was Draco Malfoy in an ape sanctuary and I cringed when he said that line. The poor lad is being typecast. The film was very well paced and well written. I loved the references to the originals. Most prequels can be dire but this is one of the best prequels I've seen.

Fysh

Mickeroo wrote: »

Orangutans are well able to swing around the way they did on the golden gate bridge to be honest, the only unrealistic thing about Maurice was his size, as far as I know orangutans don't grow that big, he looked as big as the gorilla in some scenes. Apes in general are also extremely strong, I really didn't see anything in the film that made me think they were physically enhanced. Breaking the possibly reinforced glass, well you can write off nearly every film with an action scene in an urban area for that fallacy Landing on the concrete unscathed, I can't remember the exact scene in question, no doubt in real life a bone or two would have been broken, but come on, thats an extremely minor detail to focus on.

I know orangutans can do, the issue I had was the size of some of the apes shown doing that. As with the landing issue, it's minor, but I found the film to have a lot of small flaws like this that combined and knackered the suspension of disbelief.

I hadn't considered BlitzKrieg's point about the earlier scene in the lab with Bright Eyes as establishing the strength/glass-breaking abilities of apes, and it's a fair point. (It still doesn't work for me, but that's partly because of the suggestion that a trained lab animal handler working on animal testing and medical research could somehow not notice that one of the test subjects was about to give birth...)

Mickeroo wrote: »

As for the 113 being airborne I think Franco's character said something about it being more aggressive and needing to get into the system quicker so having them inhaling it would be a good way to do this, this doesn't make any sense really I suppose though since surely injecting it directly into the blood stream would be just as fast, either way I think that was the reason given. meh.

The issue I had is that aerosols can be good for disseminating certain types of treatments eg anaesthetics. However, the way the 112 was rejected earlier in the film led the team to realise they needed something that could get around an autoimmune response. You don't aerosolize something virus-like that you've designed to negate normal immune responses without taking a lot of precautions, because no scientist wants to be the guy who accidentally made HIV or AIDS airborne. So the way the script just gave us a "we need faster delivery" as a reason, with no possible problems, for switching to airborne delivery just didn't work for me.

blodvyn

Fysh wrote: »

I know orangutans can do, the issue I had was the size of some of the apes shown doing that. As with the landing issue, it's minor, but I found the film to have a lot of small flaws like this that combined and knackered the suspension of disbelief.

I hadn't considered BlitzKrieg's point about the earlier scene in the lab with Bright Eyes as establishing the strength/glass-breaking abilities of apes, and it's a fair point. (It still doesn't work for me, but that's partly because of the suggestion that a trained lab animal handler working on animal testing and medical research could somehow not notice that one of the test subjects was about to give birth...)



The issue I had is that aerosols can be good for disseminating certain types of treatments eg anaesthetics. However, the way the 112 was rejected earlier in the film led the team to realise they needed something that could get around an autoimmune response. You don't aerosolize something virus-like that you've designed to negate normal immune responses without taking a lot of precautions, because no scientist wants to be the guy who accidentally made HIV or AIDS airborne. So the way the script just gave us a "we need faster delivery" as a reason, with no possible problems, for switching to airborne delivery just didn't work for me.

You didn't mind ceaser talking to franco though?

.......................................................................................................

Fysh

blodvyn wrote: »

You didn't mind ceaser talking to franco though?

.......................................................................................................

The film's internal logic, in that regard, showed us a small ape who'd been treated/infected before birth with an intelligence-enhancing drug, and who over the course of several years was taught to communicate using sign language. The basic concept of teaching chimps sign language isn't sci-fi at all, it's been done repeatedly as part of several research projects.

So no, I didn't mind that at all.

What I did mind was that several things shown in-story were unrealistic or unlikely enough that, without further context to rationalise them, they combined to break my suspension for disbelief. (The cardboard-cutout characters didn't exactly help in that regard either...) I don't think it would have been very hard to fix those details, and had they done so the film would have been much stronger.

If these things don't bother you, that's fair enough. They bothered me, though.

Mickeroo

Fysh wrote: »

I know orangutans can do, the issue I had was the size of some of the apes shown doing that. As with the landing issue, it's minor, but I found the film to have a lot of small flaws like this that combined and knackered the suspension of disbelief.

But the apes that did that were Orangutans if I recall correctly.

Either way I understand where you're coming from, and I completely agree a film should set up it's own internal physical rules and adhere to them. I just didn't feel this film was one that was overly guilty of failing to do that.

You're right about the cardboard cut out characters too, I don't know why you put Brian Cox in a film and then have his charcter do nothing, the only human character that came away with any real kudos in this I thought was John Lithgow's.

BlitzKrieg

But the apes that did that were Orangutans if I recall correctly.

correct. The shot in question is a pan up showing the orangutans swinging underneath and the chimps running along the girders above them.

You're right about the cardboard cut out characters too, I don't know why you put Brian Cox in a film and then have his charcter do nothing

Cause you'll bring him back in the sequel as the flamethrower wielding leader of a human militia bent on wiping apes out

tunguska

Went to see Planet of the Apes last night and I have to say it was a big surprise. Top notch stuff, head and shoulders above the usual hollywood summer blockbusters. Well written and acted, no complaints at all except for the kid from Harry potter doing his cartoon vilian act. To be fair to him though it was the way the character was written more than his acting abilities that was the problem, too obviously machiavellian. But thats a minor quibble. A film that achieves the rare balance between entertainment and quality. Highly recommended.

blodvyn

Fysh wrote: »

The film's internal logic, in that regard, showed us a small ape who'd been treated/infected before birth with an intelligence-enhancing drug, and who over the course of several years was taught to communicate using sign language. The basic concept of teaching chimps sign language isn't sci-fi at all, it's been done repeatedly as part of several research projects.

So no, I didn't mind that at all.

What I did mind was that several things shown in-story were unrealistic or unlikely enough that, without further context to rationalise them, they combined to break my suspension for disbelief. (The cardboard-cutout characters didn't exactly help in that regard either...) I don't think it would have been very hard to fix those details, and had they done so the film would have been much stronger.

If these things don't bother you, that's fair enough. They bothered me, though.

Yes because an ape that develops over time the tools to SPEAK not SIGN is plausable as apposed to jumping a few stories and breaking reinforced glass.

Fysh

blodvyn wrote: »

Yes because an ape that develops over time the tools to SPEAK not SIGN is plausable as apposed to jumping a few stories and breaking reinforced glass.

Humans can be viewed as being apes that developed the ability over time to speak. Most people can't hurl themselves without damage out of a fifth-floor window, or break reinforced glass just by throwing themselves at it.

Speaking is just another way of communicating, and Caesar was shown, throughout the film, to be much more intelligent than a normal ape. The timing of him learning to speak is at the very least chosen for dramatic effect, but the rest of it works by the film's internal logic. He's somewhere between ape and human, and exhibits traits of both.

Warper

Thought this film would be a lot better after the reviews it was getting.

First off, you know this film is PG. The apes for me aren't sinister enough, nothing like the original Planet of the Apes. The story and scenarios dont make any sense at all. Plus the ending is ridiculous, typical Hollywood schmalz.

Disappointed as it looks great in the trailer. There are some good points in it but overall feels as if it is primarily aimed at children. Could have done a lot better i feel. Obviously gonna make a part 2. Should have just let a classic alone rather than making inferior prequels.

Mickeroo

Warper wrote: »

Thought this film would be a lot better after the reviews it was getting.

First off, you know this film is PG. The apes for me aren't sinister enough, nothing like the original Planet of the Apes. The story and scenarios dont make any sense at all. Plus the ending is ridiculous, typical Hollywood schmalz.

Disappointed as it looks great in the trailer. There are some good points in it but overall feels as if it is primarily aimed at children. Could have done a lot better i feel. Obviously gonna make a part 2. Should have just let a classic alone rather than making inferior prequels.

Why would the apes be sinister? I never found them sinister in the original either. The trailers were terrible. I don't know where you're getting the aimed at kids bit, the tone was far too serious for this to be considered a kids film imo.

Goldstein

Whoever put together and approved the first two trailers should be electrocuted with a cattle prod. They did their product a big disservice by making what is a cleverly written, intelligent and worthy origins movie appear like a brainless pseudo-sci-fi action flick.

I'll be damned, a Hollywood remake that excelled, and it was a science fiction movie of all things (Not the best track record there). I wasn't overly surprised after seeing the promising 3rd trailer but it still surpassed my revised expectations by a hefty margin. It says a lot for the story that the lack of character development (of the humans) doesn't really hurt the film too much. The writers, Serkis, the director Wyatt and the special effects team among others deserve a lot of plaudits for this one.

titan18

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I have a hat ready to eat if this turns out to be anything but rubbish, I genuinely don't think I've ever seen a trailer as bad as the one for this. Those early reviews are alarmingly positive though - we'll see what the more trusted voices have to say!

You ate that hat yet?

constitutionus

well just back from seeing this now.

brilliant.

ill be honest i was kinda worried going.

1.

because im not a huge fan of the series.

and 2.

ALOT of critics i dont have faith in were bigging it up big time.

but it turned out to be the first genuine summer blockbuster that delivers in years. ceasar in fact is the first genuine "hero" character to grace the silver screen in an age. christ he's more noble than any of the human cast

refusing to wantonly kill humans if he can avoid it. in fact watching other apes sacrafice themselves for him lent alot of them a moral superiority over the humans who just wanted to kill them all (im thinking the helicoptor scene here and the bit where they broke out the apes caught by the animal catchters on th street.)

the whole thing is practically "monkey braveheart" but what really amazed me is how brave the direction was.

theres literally whole tracts of this film where not a bloody thing is said, relying on the incredible ability of the special effects to convey emotion , pathos and meaning.

thats just staggering as its a level of sophistication i dont think they couldve done a few years back. yes every now and again it looks a little off, but more often or not when it matters it shines.

its such a breath of fresh air to see a film thats just good at establishing an emotional attachment to its cast which causes you to root for its lead.

i havent enjoyed a film this much in a long time and its nice to see it can be still done. the film is set up for a sequel if they want but TBH you could just as easily watch the other films that came before it and pretend its part of their series.

in fact the virus that goes global at the end gives us a nice reason to why humanity falls and even the mutism/lack of intelligence of them in the other films as it does indeed attack the brain.

i cant laud this enough and i hope it does the business it deserves.

with a bit of luck we'll get more like it

oh and

the "talking" scene. i didnt see it coming (even though i knew from this thread he does speak) and its masterfully well done. that one word just encapsulated all the pain and hurt he's been through and was bang on the right thing to do at that point.

i was worried it'd be done in a hackneyed manner but it was just brilliant.

Fr0g

I enjoyed this film. As a prequel I think the story was well handled. If we are being picky however I have to point out that chimps cannot form speech and cannot be taught to. They lack the physical structure of the mouth and tongue to form speech. Most of the rest of the inconsistencies can be largely ignored. you have to allow some licence (show me a sci-fi movie that doesn't have plot holes) except the birth of Ceaser (lab chimps would be sterilised).

I don't like Franco as an actor but Lithgow was excellent as always.

stealinhorses

I thought the movie was very good, up there with X-Men when it comes to this year's cinema entertainment. The scene where Caesar speaks really comes out of nowhere, and it sure seemed like air was sucked out of the cinema for a second or two. Complete silence.

I would highly recommend it to anyone

krudler

movie moment of the year for me so far anyway. goes from Malfoys epically sh1t line to an epic moment in a flash, the whole cinema gasped when I saw it

Mellor

Fr0g wrote: »

I enjoyed this film. As a prequel I think the story was well handled. If we are being picky however I have to point out that chimps cannot form speech and cannot be taught to. They lack the physical structure of the mouth and tongue to form speech.

Seriously, its only a film. Chimps also can't be given a engineered virus to turn their eyes green and enhance their inteligence.

Fr0g

Mellor wrote: »

Seriously, its only a film. Chimps also can't be given a engineered virus to turn their eyes green and enhance their inteligence.

Yes I agree with you. I was just commenting on the posts that pick apart small details and inconsistencies. It doesn't matter you have to ignore quite a lot when watching sci-fi movies. Arguing the finer medical or technological points is ridiculous IMO.

krudler

epic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH1oKmjBNcQ

BlitzKrieg

Out of interest.

There does seem a fair few subplots might have been cut from the film.

the most obvious being the character of cornelia who gets blatantly pointed out as a *female chimp* in one scene then she disapears only to be shown that she was taken to the lab and we get a scene of ceaser looking into her empty cage and then to the lab tag.

-I assume in a longer cut there would have been mor meaning behind that on a personal level over being a simple motive to raid the labs and I remember I think a few earlier teasers actually show her interacting with ceaser.

-Also I think the role of Steven Jacobs was retooled a bit in the edit. Cause in the comic con footage he calls ceaser by name at the helicopter crash site yet in the final film he never knows about the existence of ceaser (yet knows to target him when they are chasing them)

MagicMarker

krudler wrote: »

epic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH1oKmjBNcQ

Jesus, that's better quality than the one I watched!!

Mickeroo

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Out of interest.

There does seem a fair few subplots might have been cut from the film.

the most obvious being the character of cornelia who gets blatantly pointed out as a *female chimp* in one scene then she disapears only to be shown that she was taken to the lab and we get a scene of ceaser looking into her empty cage and then to the lab tag.

-I assume in a longer cut there would have been mor meaning behind that on a personal level over being a simple motive to raid the labs and I remember I think a few earlier teasers actually show her interacting with ceaser.

-Also I think the role of Steven Jacobs was retooled a bit in the edit. Cause in the comic con footage he calls ceaser by name at the helicopter crash site yet in the final film he never knows about the existence of ceaser (yet knows to target him when they are chasing them)

A directors cut with even more scenes with the apes would be no bad thing IMHO

krudler

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Out of interest.

There does seem a fair few subplots might have been cut from the film.

the most obvious being the character of cornelia who gets blatantly pointed out as a *female chimp* in one scene then she disapears only to be shown that she was taken to the lab and we get a scene of ceaser looking into her empty cage and then to the lab tag.

-I assume in a longer cut there would have been mor meaning behind that on a personal level over being a simple motive to raid the labs and I remember I think a few earlier teasers actually show her interacting with ceaser.

-Also I think the role of Steven Jacobs was retooled a bit in the edit. Cause in the comic con footage he calls ceaser by name at the helicopter crash site yet in the final film he never knows about the existence of ceaser (yet knows to target him when they are chasing them)

It seemed thatway to me too, especially during the breakout from the ape sanctuary where Caesar was looking into the cage of the female chimp and there was a close up of a rocking horse on its side, it suggested they bonded even though we never saw it in the movie.

Was anyone else just rooting for the apes? that part where the gorillas were pushing the capsized bus along the bridge shielding the other apes from gunfire was fantastic.

Mickeroo

krudler wrote: »

Was anyone else just rooting for the apes? that part where the gorillas were pushing the capsized bus along the bridge shielding the other apes from gunfire was fantastic.

Totally. It was a stroke of genius they made the apes the heroes of the film. The early trailers made it look like it was just going to go for the light horror/disaster movie approach.

Inkyhead

krudler wrote: »

Was anyone else just rooting for the apes? that part where the gorillas were pushing the capsized bus along the bridge shielding the other apes from gunfire was fantastic.

Definitely. That's the beauty of it! It's what made the original so good - the underlying message that humans are the bad guys.

Miguel_Sanchez

Fr0g wrote: »

you have to allow some licence (show me a sci-fi movie that doesn't have plot holes) except the birth of Ceaser (lab chimps would be sterilised).

Yeah but his mother was captured in the wild and was pregnant pre-captivity. Would they sterilise chimps in labs? They wouldn't be allowed interact with each other so how would they become pregnant?

Of course the fact that nobody noticed that while she was in the lab was a bit far-fetched but hey, them's the movies!

iguana

Fysh wrote: »

Humans can be viewed as being apes that developed the ability over time to speak. Most people can't hurl themselves without damage out of a fifth-floor window, or break reinforced glass just by throwing themselves at it.

Chimps aren't humans, and are in fact much stronger than us. We are the weakest of the great apes, by a significant margin. Early studies into the differences in our strength indicated that an average female chimp is over 5 times stronger than a very strong human male in peak physical condition. This level of extra strength hasn't been replicated in further studies, so there is certainly a question mark as to just how much stronger than us they are, but they have always been shown to be much stronger and faster than us.

A chimpanzee's skeletal muscle has longer fibres than the human equivalent and can generate twice the work output over a wider range of motion. Additionally we have lost certain genes throughout our evolution which the other great apes have retained. ACTN3 is a gene that is rarely properly functioning in humans (apart from in our very best athletes in sprinting {active genes} and endurance running {deactivated genes}) due to a mutation rs1815739 but is present and active in all of the great apes.

One explanation for the varying levels of strength shown in chimp testing is that in a state of agitation they may be significantly stronger than in their normal emotional state. It's probably bunk, but for the sake of the movie I buy it. In fact one of the problems I actually had with the movie was the idiocy of the cops baton charging the agitated apes, that was never going to end well for the humans. Intelligence virus or not.

All in all it wasn't a great movie. I felt it was very paint by number in terms of telling us what we should be feeling but I never felt any of it. Some of the set-ups were clear plot devices, like why on earth would a primate sanctuary be run by people who hate chimps? It wouldn't, it was just a nonsensical device to make Caesar start to despise humans and want to protect the other apes. Biggest of all was the alzheimer's plot. One of the first known major physiological differences between chimps and humans is that they are completely and utterly unaffected by alzheimer's disease. You might as well test your treatment on a potato as on a chimp for all of the scientific data you'll accumulate.

It wasn't the worst movie I saw this week, I watched Scream 4 yesterday and Glorious 39 the night before, both complete stinkers. But it wasn't very good either, perhaps in part because, as has been mentioned, there was clearly a good few chunks of the story left on the cutting room floor. It's been a very long time since I've seen it but as I remember it, I prefer the story in Battle for.