the audience applauded

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

An unexpected masterpiece

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

I'm going to catch some heat for this, but I've found Tim Burton's Planet Of The Apes to be a far better film than any of the three recent versions. I can't explain it, but there's something so otherworldly and exotic about the production design, makeup and effects, a true storyteller's touch used, resulting in a piece with elements of fantasy and world building brought lushly to the forefront, whereas the newer films just felt somewhat clinical and sterile, going through minimalist motions without any real sense of wonder applied. Oh and another thing: real, tactile makeup on actual human actors, which will win against motion capture/cgi any day. There's also an old world, medieval feel to this planet, as the 'humans being subservient to apes' dynamic has already been in full swing for generations, as opposed to a lengthy origin story that takes up most of the newer trilogy. No build up here, just Marky Mark getting marooned on a distant world dominated by simians, fighting his way through their ranks, sort of falling in love with one (Helena Bonham Carter as a monkey=kinky) and attempting to find a way back to earth. There's various apes of all shapes and sizes at war, the most memorable of which is a sleek, snarling Tim Roth as Thade, a volatile warlord who despises humans. Michael Clarke Duncan towers over everyone as Attar, his cohort and fellow soldier, and seeing already be-jowelled Paul Giamatti as a cumbersome orangutan is priceless. The human faction is led by weathered Kris Kristofferson and his daughter (Estella Warren, quite possibly the most beautiful girl on the planet), leading the dregs of humanity as they exist in hiding and fight for their lives. No expense was spared in filling every frame of this planet with lived-in splendour and atmospheric decoration, from suits of armour and architecture to the overgrown thickets of mountainous vegetation that grow on this world. As for the apes themselves, it's terrific how real they feel. It's the same thing that happened with Lord Of The Rings vs. The Hobbit, and the switch from practical Orc effects to the overblown cgi madness of the goblins in the later films. The human eye is inherently adept at deciphering what is real and what is not, and the effects of the later Ape films with Andy Serkis just felt lifeless and orchestrated, whereas here the makeup prosthetics are organic, authentic and wonderful to look at. Don't even get me started on the ending either, it's completely brilliant and will leaving you in cold isolation as the credits roll, a perfect gut punch to a film that could have easily turned sappy in the eleventh hour. So that's my two cents. Bring on the backlash.

Reinventing a classic film is one thing, but if you're going to remake something beloved by film fans worldwide, do it for a reason. This Planet of the Apes reboot brings little to nothing new to the series with a brutally dull outcome.Look, it's easier said than done. Remakes and reboots have a lot of pressure and usually wind up being a waste of time. But there was serious potential here. With Tim Burton coming off a few solid films with Johnny Depp and box office success with Batman, you'd think he would have a grapple on what to do with the Apes franchise. Sadly, it was the exact opposite.The original 1968 classic was thought provoking and lead to a couple really well done sequels, but Burton's take is disappointingly more creepy and awkward than it is cerebral. I'm sorry, but I just don't care for seeing Mark Wahlberg have a strange romantic relationship with a female ape. Or, rather, an equally dull relationship with a human, played by Estella Warren. No chemistry between the two, whatsoever.But there are a few redeemable qualities surprisingly. Instead of a massive Statue of Liberty reveal at the end, Burton makes a few middle act changes that actually benefit the story in the long run. Having the very cause of the apes taking over earth being due to Wahlberg's mistake was interesting, but I'm just not sure it was earned. Something else that wasn't earned is the entire third act. Talk about an atrocious piece of mess, the third act tries to propose so many ideas and take twists and turns that it just all feels tiresome. Unfortunately, by the time the big battle comes around, you just don't care.It's easy to look at a film in hindsight and say it shouldn't have been made, but seriously, this Apes entry should not have been made. It wasn't yet the time where visual effects offered up the opportunity to do great motion capture or picture perfect-looking Apes (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, 2014) and using old make-up was the wrong choice. It's nice for the 60's but using it in 2001 is a completely different entity. But the main problem is that the characters and story are second to an attempt to build out impressive set pieces. Tim Roth's one-note villain and the film's choice for romances make for one brutal viewing.+Some interesting subtle changes-Lack of reinvention-Awkward romances-No reason for 2001 to be the time for a remake4.6/10

Tim Burton's remake of the classic 1968 film of the same name and in many ways the film that shows both his strengths and flaws as a filmmaker. Many have praised its visuals while also condemning its confusing story, weak characters and an ending so baffling and weird that the film would instantly jump a couple of ranks if you left it out.And yeah, there's a lot of truth to that. The visuals are great, which has always been Burton's main forte. The ape costumes are still amazingly beautiful, the set and background designs are innovative and filled with small details. The colours are great, the cinematography is nice and it's an all-around good visual experience. Plus, some of the characters are nice. Mark Wahlberg as the main character is pretty bland, as he usually is, but he's a decent actor in his own way, so I guess we could have had worse. I especially like Helena Bonham Carter as Ari, our proxy for Zira from the original film. Easily the character with the most charisma in the film.But yeah, then the flaws. The story is pretty weak. At times it simply copies the plot of the original film to the nth degree, while at the same time making lame jokes at its expense. And at times it does not do that it veers into directions all its own, none of them making much sense or serving the overall story. The third act, when we learn all the secrets behind the world, is especially weak and will leave you at least somewhat disappointed.And then there's the final twist ending that tries to up the ante from the original film. but with none of its shock value or finesse. It's simply moronic.There is value in this film. If you haven't seen the original film, you'll probably like this one fine. It's not a very clever piece of science fiction, but it's not insultingly stupid either – aside from the ending – and the visuals are good enough to warrant a viewing.