Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Yesterday I went to the theater to watch “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” and today I will let all of you know what I thought of it. This film has been getting really great reviews, and currently holds a 91% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is a higher score than the original 1968 film. Is it as good as everyone says it is? Let’s find out.

Three years after the first in the reboot series of this well-known sci-fi franchise, director Matt Reeves enters into this picture with taking the sequel up a notch that capitalizes on the first movie’s potential.

After getting through the opening credits where you see America basically affected after the virus that spread near the end of the previous movie, we see Caesar, reprised by Andy Serkis, and his ape clan that have made a peaceful community in the woods outside the city of San Francisco. The only ape that is a rebel in the clan is Koba, played by Toby Kebbell, a scarred ape who was tortured by humans, making him hate them, and is constantly questioning Caesar’s decisions as the leader, which is definitely seen when humans step into the woods and shoot one of the apes. Caesar could have easily killed that human, but does his best to keep peace and lets the humans that he still doesn’t trust to work on repairing a dam to generate power for their home.

At first, the human characters, played by Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Keri Russell and Kirk Acevedo, don’t really do much, since some of them feel like stereotypes. When the film switches over to the human camp, it’s hard to get interested, although a few of the humans, particularly Clarke and Russell’s, you do start to like since they are the ones that Caesar starts to trust more as they help him and his family.

It’s very clear since the start of the movie that the apes are the main stars since the humans mostly act like the antagonists, especially Oldman, and it’s very hard to decide which side you are on. Caesar’s lieutenant Koba acts like the instigator for war as he breaks into the human’s armory and sees a wide range of guns and other weapons they have in their base, since the weapons the apes use are no match for guns.

Serkis and the performance capture cast give the viewers a lot of depth and emotion in the scenes between the apes and humans that you don’t even notice or forget that the apes are actually humans doing performance capture. Edward Douglas stated in his review, “When Judy Greer and Toby Kebbell's names were listed in the end credits, I couldn't even recall where they appeared in the movie until I looked up the credits afterwards.”

What’s nice about this movie is that even though we see hints of the future that was portrayed in the original 1968 movie, (humans being caged) the sequel doesn’t really hit the viewers with references to the original movie like “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” sometimes did.

The CG is absolutely amazing, the highlight of the film since there are scenes that are shot almost completely in CG FX, like the part where the apes are hunting down the deer so the clan can eat, but it looks so real to the human eye that you wouldn’t know if this was CG or not. The production design of the different environments is magnificent, which is what also separates the sequel from the original, which was less fantastical. Douglas commented that, “It's fairly clear Matt Reeves has upped his game since "Cloverfield," though he's working with a much better concept, script and cast.”

The film has a number of great moments including an all-out war sequence, but unlike the previous movie, it doesn’t leave you on a cliffhanger for another movie even though we already know that a third film is already in production. Let’s just hope this is going to be another trilogy that is one of those rare ones which are either the films getting better and better or are all just as good, like “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy or the original “Star Wars” trilogy. Douglas made a remark in his review when he said, “We predict the third movie will either revive the title "Battle for the Planet of the Apes" or go with "War of the Planet of the Apes," because that's really the only way the story can go from here.”

Douglas ended his review with this verdict, “A brilliantly-realized successor to a solid franchise reboot, "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" shows what can be done when a talented director with a strong script and cast creates a summer blockbuster that doesn't feel the need to dumb itself down in order to succeed.” I personally think this film is better than “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” since it up the stakes, furthers Caesar as a character, and I like how almost everyone is trying to work together in order to maintain peace. The only question that might be rising in everyone’s head is, “Will this come full circle to the original 1968 film or will be a change of events and end like how “Battle of the Planet of the Apes” did?” The only way to find out is to wait until the third film comes out in 2016 and the questions might be answered there.

In the meantime, I highly recommend everyone to go to the theater and check this film out, especially if you liked the last one. You will love this one as well, I promise you. All of the praises this film is getting is no joke.

Well, thank you for joining in with all “Planet of the Apes” reviews and my other reviews this month, stay tuned next month to see what I will review. Take care.

How to Train Your Dragon 2

Well the wait is over folks. It’s time for my thoughts on “How to Train Your Dragon 2,” which came out last month. It’s easy to take for granted the amazing wonders behind an animated feature. However, it’s useful to see how this sequel looks magical. Dragons breathe both fire and ice that looks minty. The flight in this movie doesn’t look simulated. Even when watching in 2-D, the cliff dives and cloud-surfing feels like you’re driving on the road and your car takes a dive downward on the hill, and your stomach jumps, making it feel all the more real. Then there is music to your ears when you hear the voices of Gerard Butler and Cate Blanchett. I cannot tell you how their voices were recorded because I have no knowledge of that. But when you see Stoick the Vast and his wife dance, Wesley Morris described in his review of the film, “her touch and tremulous singing transform the gravitational properties of his boulder of a body.” She makes Butler necessary.

Morris described the film as “a romance — visually, parentally, ecologically.” The movie definitely has emotional, humorous, exciting sweep that you want from a summer movie. The first one, which was based off of Cressida Cowell’s children’s series, came out four years ago. That would give digital animation process to excel, which is seen in this movie. “How to Train Your Dragon’s” swordplay lessons of taming and tolerance are here with stiffness. Morris stated in his review, “The motion was navigable but it lacked the trademark richness and eloquence that is Pixar’s stock in trade. The colors were bright, but they weren’t veering on the three-dimensional.” Dean DeBlois, the director and writer of this sequel, wrote a strong enough story for a great cartoon for the family. This sequel, where DeBlois is also at the helm, looks spectacular. Morris described that “The human motion is almost more graceful than the dragons’, and the dragons could dance for Alvin Ailey.” The half-movements, the walking and shrugging and throwing up of arms looks like the film wasn’t animated.

The protagonist is still Hiccup (which I have to say is a weird name to give your child), who after told the warlike hungry savages of his village to coexist with dragons, now is faced with the possibility to be promoted to leader. His father, Stoick, wants his son to one day take his place as chief. All of a sudden, a caped, dreadlock hunter named Drago (no, not Ivan Drago. That was “Rocky IV”), voiced by Djimon Hounson, is kidnapping dragons and using them to wage war to, you guessed it, take over the world. Hiccup, his dragon, Toothless, and his friends (America Ferrera, Jonah Hill, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, T.J. Miller, and Kristen Wiig) first meet up with a man named Eret (Kit Harington), who is working for Drago to capture dragons. Then Hiccup bumps into Valka, voiced by Blanchett, who Morris describes as “a socially maladroit woman with Glenn Close’s bone structure and Dian Fossey’s ponytail.” She has a magnificent dragon at the centerpiece of a giant tusked creature from the appropriately named bewilderbeast species. No doubt about it, Valka’s talent would be very impressive and useful for Drago.

Morris stated in his review, “You think Godzilla is impressive (and this latest incarnation of Godzilla is impressive), but then you see one or two of these bewilderbeasts and you wonder why reptiles from Aliens remain the benchmark for scary or classically awesome.” To look at an old National Geographic would remind you that a lot is there in the animal kingdom to scare people. For example if we look at Toothless, he’s got the eyes and fur of a panther and a salamander’s length and smoothness. A lot of these creatures look like they belong in “Star Wars” or “Avatar,” but the filmmakers of this sequel enjoy in scale. There’s big, and then there are the animals in this movie. Some of them cause danger.

Drago gets his war, some of the characters die (I won’t say who), dragons get mind-controlled by an all-powerful dragon, and the thematic ideas of control and bend, of alpha-ness, bring in the darkness that DeBois doesn’t stretch on. One dragon that gets mind-controlled does horrible things that will make kids hate him for it. Morris counters this by saying, “it’s the sort of bad news that provides a springboard for the resilience that makes these sorts of stories go.” This in a way is similar to “Star Wars.” Like everyone else, I didn’t like when Luke got his hand chopped off by Vader in “The Empire Strikes Back.” However, children seem to understand that loss is also a part of romance.

My final verdict is that if you loved the first one and you haven’t seen this one yet, go out and see it, because it won’t be in theaters for very long. If you want, see it in 3D. I didn’t see it in 3D, but I imagine the 3D in this movie is probably far better than the first one. When putting both the first and second one together, I prefer the sequel because five years have passed and the characters grow and become more likeable as well. I do hear that they are making a third one, which I will be very excited to see when that comes out.

Stay tuned next week to find out what I will review to close July out.

How to Train Your Dragon

Last week my brother and I went out at night to see “How to Train Your Dragon 2,” I thought that I will review both of them this week. Before I get to the latest one, I bet all of you are wondering what I thought of the first one, released in 2010, right? Well, here’s what I thought:

Some movies seem like they were meant to inspire video games. The only thing missing are the controllers and the scoring system. If you watch “How to Train Your Dragon,” you will think that it was a game that was meant to inspire a movie. The reason why is because a lot of time is given towards aerial battles between tamed dragons and evil ones, and not much to character or story development. However, it looks good; it’s bright and has high energy. Ebert said in his review of this film, “Kids above the easily scared age will probably like the movie the younger they are.”

Here is another action animated movie with an incredible young hero, based on a series of popular kids’ books. You probably will recall the heroes in this genre being teenagers. Usually, the kid is 10, saying that he is stronger, wiser and braver than the older folks, and is really fast at learning when time comes to discover or mastering a new form of fighting. We are born to know how to control dragons and spaceships, but we forget that when we grow.

Our main character is Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III, voiced by Jay Baruchel, a young Viking who lives in Berk, a village on the mountainside that is around heights and penthouses where aggressive dragons live. Hiccup lets the audience know that his village is old, but the houses are new. You will probably find this alarming. His father, Stoick, voiced by the great Gerard Butler, is the leader and the dragon master Cobber, voiced by the best late-night talk-show host ever, Craig Ferguson; the villages have been fighting dragons since ancient times. It looks like an unfair battle; the dragons are huge and breathe fire, and the Vikings, while having a lot of muscle, only have clubs, swords and spears. You would think that they would be smarter than dragons, but how would you know that just by listening to them.

Butler looks like he is doing the exact same character he did in “300,” as Ebert described, “beefed up by many a hearty Viking feast.” He joins Ferguson and the other Scottish actors speaking English with a strong Scottish accent, since anyone who knows a bit of Viking history knows that English was used among the Vikings. By looking at them, Vikings look like they had a testosterone outbreak causing hair to come out really fast. You could even use their nose hairs to knit up a nice sock, but then again, why would you want to do that? Ebert said in his review, “Oh, how I tried not to, but as I watched these brawlers saddled up on great flying lizards, I kept thinking, "Asterix meets Avatar."”

Now the basic story is that Hiccup is told that he needs to stay inside during a dragon attack. However, he grabs a cannon, fires away at the dragons and apparently shoots one down. By going into the forest to find the dragon he shot down, and finds a dragon around his age, chained up. He frees it, they become friends, and he finds out that dragons can be nice. With his new dragon friend Toothless, he comes back to Berk, and the good dragons team up with the Vikings against the bad dragons, who, as Ebert puts it, “are snarly holdouts and grotesquely ugly.”

One of the evil dragons is covered all over with huge warlike knobs, has six eyes, three on either side, looking like a Buick, as Ebert described. One part of the movie is where a Viking hammers on the eyeball with a club. Not a good thing to look at. The battle ends as all battles must, with the bad guys together and our young hero saving the day. The flight battle sequences are put together like a World War I scuffle, with swoops, climbs, and barely missed impacts with rocky peaks and other dragons. Ebert stated in his review, “For my taste, these went on way too long, but then I must teach myself that I do not have a 6-year-old's taste.”

In the end, if you haven’t seen this movie, check it out. I didn’t get to see it in the theaters, but I hear that the 3D in this movie was magnificent, even so much to surpassing “Avatar’s” 3D. Then again, I guess you would have to look at it from the perspective of a mostly computer-generated movie to a complete computer-generated animated movie. Still, this movie is great to watch with the whole family. How is the second one? Check in this Friday when I review it.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

“Rise of the Planet of the Apes,” released in 2011, is a title suggesting that it needs a sequel, because in this film, it ends with the chimpanzees only going as far as crossing the Golden Gate Bridge: Today San Francisco, tomorrow the world. It comes up with the idea that chimps, who we thought was a few genes from humans, only need a brand new drug to be good at a game of chess.

The film starts at a drug company, where Will Rodman, played by James Franco, is a scientist who invented the ALZ 112, which could possibly cure Alzheimer’s. He experiments on it with the chimpanzees, which suddenly have a high IQ shot and are able to do sign-language.

However, one of the test chimps goes crazy and attacks a board meeting, which calls the experiment off. You would think that scientists should have the same knowledge that we all do, which is that chimps are kind animals until they hit their growing age, which is when they develop the characteristics of a wild animal. Guessing that the ALZ 112 works Will believes that it would be alright to test it on his dad without thinking of the risk that he will beat people with his walker.

Will feels elated by the difficulty of a helpless baby chimp that he decides to take it home with him “for a few days.” That turns into years, and Caesar is able to gain a vast amount of intelligence and, as Ebert puts it, “the body language of a Marcel Marceau.” Around the same time, Will becomes infatuated with a primatologist named Caroline, played by Freida Pinto, who arrives in and plays Caesar’s surrogate mother. If she becomes a surrogate wife to Will is a good question, since this movie only gives what a PG-13 movie can about friendly details. When she kisses him after a few years into the relationship, it gives us the belief that she finally has made her statement. Ebert even claimed in his review, “I expected her to be employed as a device for getting lots of info about chimps into the dialogue, but no, she doesn't know much more than anyone else.”

Ebert also sated in his review, “By a benign coincidence, the fascinating documentary "Project Nim" has been playing around the country and provides a sort of briefing for this film.” It has a more interesting relationship between men and women, and apes and humans. It tells us that chimps may be intelligent and friendly, but they are not humans, and when they grow, they turn vicious. The chimp experts are seen running across the Golden Gate Bridge crying out, “Caesar! Caesar!” long after they have found out that Caesar moved his last pawn to K4.

Now with that stated, the movie has its interests, although human intelligence isn’t one of them. To start off, Caesar is a perfectly executed character, a product of special effects and a motion-capture performance by Andy Serkis, who before dazzled everyone as Smeagol from “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy (and returns in “The Hobbit” trilogy). No one knows exactly where the human ends and the effects begin, but Serkis and/or Caesar are the best performances in the movie.

James Franco struggles with an underwritten role that is taken away from philosophical and ethical questions and limits itself to plot points in basic English. Ebert described Freida Pinto’s Caroline as “no Dian Fossey, and indeed gives no hints that she has even heard of her, but, man, is she gorgeous.” Tom Felton, who you will remember as Malfoy from the “Harry Potter” series, plays a keeper in the monkey building who is a complete jerk to apes on purpose, which is unlikely but does serve a reason. People who make faces at chimpanzees give the guests more about themselves than they should share. Finally, John Lithgow is in here as Will’s dad, who was once a respected music teacher, now suffering from Alzheimer’s. He is in the film to perform the way he usually does and not anything more.

Ebert said in his review: “There's a big climactic action scene that is more engaging than the countless similar scenes I've seen with zombies. And a conclusion that is uplifting and inspiring for the apes, I assume, and proves that Caesar is so smart that when he sees a place from another place, he knows how to find his way back to the other place from the first one, which is what humans need GPS for.”

Final verdict: this is the movie you have been waiting more. No more, no less.

Well, that concludes my “Planet of the Apes week.” Stay tuned sometime later in the month when I review the latest in the series. Now I just have to find a day when I can go to the theater to check it out.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

As a filmmaker, Tim Burton’s strong aspect was never subtlety. However, with being a storyteller and director, Burton’s films rely on imagery and obsessive narratives to fill in what he can’t as a craftsman. Strangely though, Burton was given the task to remake one of the most thematically subtle movies of all time. “Planet of the Apes,” released in 2001, is one of the most relevant pieces of work on humanity and politics that was ever made for the big screen, and Burton never really got a good hand on that.

That can be seen very obviously when Burton does not let actors behind all the ape make-up to express their emotions, but spoon feeds the audience by giving the apes eyebrows. This allows the apes to express emotions that Burton guessed audiences would never really know what the apes are feeling. That’s a very high chance why since the screenplay is poorly done that it’s hard to fathom this is a remake to a film that’s absolutely brilliant in its hints of political turmoil and the cruel cycle of a civilization and government. Felix Vasquez Jr. is right when he said in his review of the film, “Under Burton’s guidance, “Planet of the Apes” is transformed in to a fairly dunderheaded science fiction actioner with more focus on dazzle and style than telling a fairly interesting story.”

Burton’s remake replaces Charlton Heston with the very beloved Mark Wahlberg, changing a very interesting character in a traumatic situation in a man who looks bored, even when being with apes that are able to speak fluent English. Wahlberg does not really do a good job as Leo, and he doesn’t do much for a situation of wonder and awe as the essential factors in the film’s events. It’s tough to acquire sympathy for Wahlberg when he can’t even assemble enough emotion to grieve for his monkey lost in space. Vazquez stated in his review, “Burton’s “Planet” is essentially a superficial re-telling of the original film with much of the politics and commentary on society exchanged for a lot of razzle dazzle, all of which feels like blatant Hollywood artifice.”

The set pieces are exactly what they are, and Wahlberg never looks like he is in turmoil, unlike Charlton Heston seemed to demonstrate the insanity of the fascinating situation he got himself stuck in, despite his over the top emotions. Estella Warren doesn’t really do much beside stand there and look hot as Burton fills in a few regulars that he puts in his work nowadays, like Lisa Marie and his wife Helena Bonham Carter. The only standout performances are Tim Roth and the late Michael Clarke Duncan who play the twisted dogmatic soldiers of the ape army who plan to bring down the human rebellion and take over the ape society for their own satisfaction.

Rick Baker’s prosthetics and make up are really well-done, and the makeup man is able to turn Roth and Duncan in to truly evil and dreadful villains who create a dangerous threat to a group of forgetful protagonists. Paul Giamatti is also in here as the Orangutan Limbo who does a double performance as comic relief and as Vazquez described, “a pure example of the wizardry Baker and Cinovation Studios are capable of.” For the most part, this remake is very much like the original without the irony and hints to cruelty we as animals are capable of.

Despite the great effects the film will never have the same magic of the original series. The final part is one of the most ridiculous parts ever in a film, and to this day it’s painfully puzzling to where it’s evident that the writers didn’t have a clue what symbolism meant, if anything. 12 years after this was released, “Planet of the Apes” is ridiculous and absolutely unrelated in the story by Pierre Boulle. If there’s anything that can save it, it’s the makeup effects and the supporting performances by Tim Roth and Michael Clarke Duncan. Other than those pros, the remake is full of cons.

Now that I’ve gotten that bad remake out of the way, I will say that it’s worse than Burton’s remake/sequel, “Alice in Wonderland,” but nowhere near as horrendous as his “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” remake. Don’t see it because you’re not missing anything. Stay tuned tomorrow when I conclude the week out with the first in the series of reboots.

Battle for the Planet of the Apes

The original series came to a close in 1973 with “Battle for the Planet of the Apes,” which happens about a decade after the events of “Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.” In this film, nuclear war has taken out most of the Earth, and apes have begun to claim their superiority. Even though some humans and apes still live together, the humans are mostly used for slave labors and are considered inferior.

Roddy McDowall returns one last time as Caesar, the apes’ leader who has combined power and is trying to make Earth a better place (he has calmed down a great deal since the last movie). The first commandment he passed is very much like one of the Ten Commandments: “Ape shalt not kill ape.” Their mostly peaceful place is constantly under threat of being ruined as the bellicose gorillas, commanded under General Aldo, played by Claude Adkins, thrive for violence as a way of claiming authority. War is then started when a group of mutated humans (no, not the X-Men) that came from a radioactive wasteland of the fallen cities break into the apes city. James Kendrick described one scene in the movie as, “The scene depicting the humans riding out of the ruins in burned-out Jeeps and tanks is a striking one, and it must have been an inspiration for George Miller's Mad Max films.”

You might be thinking that this film sounds just as dark as “Conquest of the Planet of the Apes,” but no. “Battle for the Planet of the Apes” actually ends on a positive feeling. The final scene gives viewers the feeling that humans and apes have finally learned to live together peacefully, thus making the future Taylor discovered in the first movie completely false. Director John Huston is briefly in the movie, first at the beginning then at the end as the Lawgiver, not as a person who gives proclamations about the superiority of the apes, but rather telling the story of how Caesar created a peaceful community after the havoc caused by the nuclear war.

As a result, this series was brought full circle. Kendrick stated in his review, “Its political and social commentary, while often scathing, comes to a close with a hopeful outlook for the future.” Being made through six years and five films, this series told a magnificent tale of evolution. Even though the narrative was wearing thin by the end, the series will always be considered one of the landmarks and a great example of how entertainment value and political commentary can be brought together with great success.

However, we are not done yet. Yes, the original series has ended, but Tim Burton came around almost 30 years later and remade the first film. Stay tuned tomorrow to see how the remake was, but you probably might be able to guess or know how it turned out.

Conquest of the Planet of the Apes

An allegorical tale of fascism and slavery, “Conquest of The Planet of the Apes,” released in 1972, was called by TV Guide as “the best of the four sequels in the hugely successful APES series, as well as being the darkest and most violent.” I think that is up for debate if it’s really the best of the sequels. Roddy McDowall, who you will remember as Cornelius from the previous movies, brings a very heated performance as Cornelius’s son Caesar, who guides the apes in a rebellion against the cruel humans.

1991 North America is a police state where dogs and cats have been annihilated by a virus that was brought back by space astronauts. Apes are brought in from Africa and are auctioned off as the new house pets and are trained to perform basic tasks. Armando, the circus owner who you might remember from the end of the last movie (Ricardo Montalban) arrives in the city with grown up Caesar (Roddy McDowall). Eighteen years prior to the events in this movie, Armando hid baby Caesar, the son of Cornelius and Kira who you remember as the intelligent and articulate apes who traveled back in time from the 40^th Century and were murdered when they tried to prevent ape domination. Even though Armando warned Caesar not to speak or else his identity would be given away, Caesar is shocked at how the treatment the slave-apes are given by the police and he swears at one of them. Armando is then taken in by the police and is interrogated by the ruthless Governor Breck, played by Don Murray, but Caesar escapes and hides with a group of gorillas that are going to be handed in as slaves.

After he has gone through an intense training and conditioning program, he is sold off to Breck and is put to work in the city’s communication control center. However, when Armando jumps out of the window when he is being interrogated, Caesar explains who he is to the governor’s sympathetic black assistant MacDonald, played by Hari Rhodes, and begins to plan an ape revolution. Caesar is captured by Police Chief Kolp, played by Severn Darden, and is tortured to a point where he has no choice but to speak, but when Breck demands that Caesar be electrocuted; MacDonald quietly goes and shuts off the power preventing Caesar’s murder. Caesar escapes and leads a street fight against the band of soldiers, and captures Breck, but spares his life. That’s when he gets all of the apes together by giving an impassioned speech predicting that man will bring about the destruction of their kind in a nuclear war and that apes will be the dominate ones left on the planet.

TV Guide has said, “CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES is a hard-edged thriller featuring a sleekly sinister look and a disturbing tone that's quite different from any of the other films in the series.” Director J. Lee Thompson, who directed the original “Cape Fear,” is also said by TV Guide as “brings a dynamic visual style to the film, utilizing kinetic hand-held camerawork and low-angle, deep-focus widescreen compositions to convey a jittery and menacing atmosphere.” The whole film is filled with menacing anger and hostility (the apes dragged around in chains and beaten by the police dressed like Nazis, the cruel reconditioning where the apes are “trained” with flame-throwers, and the most difficult scene to watch, Caesar being electrocuted), and there’s also some severe social satire in such scenes like when snobby women bully the apes while the animals groom the ladies’ hair and light their cigarettes, and that the entire film takes place in a futuristic neighborhood of the then-new Century City complex next to the old Fox lot, with its ever-present surveillance cameras and outdoor loudspeakers used to call out orders to the public.

TV Guide said this about the last fight scene: “The final hand-to-hand combat between the apes and the militia--a fierce tour-de-force that lasts for 30 minutes and features wholesale slaughter by knife, machine gun, and every weapon imaginable as the city goes up in flames and an impassioned Caesar delivers a tirade against mankind--was explicitly designed to evoke images of the 1965 Watts riots and is extremely effective.” In fact, this film was so violent, that it was the only film in the series to be rated PG (every other film surprisingly were rated G despite the violence and brief profanity), and the studio really brought it down from the original version, afraid that it would turn off the series’ intended family audience (nowadays it would receive a PG-13). Nevertheless, the film was another huge success and Thompson was brought back to direct the final film in the series, “Battle for the Planet of the Apes,” which Fox’s pressure unfortunately agreed for more friendly monkeyshines.

You want to know how "Battle for the Planet of the Apes" was? Find out tomorrow in the conclusion to the original series with my review of the film.

Escape from the Planet of the Apes

After how “Beneath the Planet of the Apes” ended, no one would have believed that they would have made another sequel to this series. Well, everyone was in for a surprise when in 1971, the third film in the series; “Escape from the Planet of the Apes” was released. Roger Greenspun of the New York Times started his review by saying:

Nobody is going to believe it, but I must say anyway that Don Taylor's "Escape From the Planet of the Apes," which opened yesterday at the Astor, the Juliet 2 and the 34th Street theaters, is one of the better new movies in town, and better in a genre—science-fiction—that at the crucial middle level where the history of movies is made, if not written, has recently been not so much bad as invisible.

“Escape from the Planet of the Apes” takes place about in the present time period, 2,000 years before the world’s demise by the nuclear bomb going off during the war between the human beings and apes.

Three scientists, who you will remember from the first film, escape the destruction of the Earth by traveling back through time in the same space ship that Colonel Taylor traveled in not so long before this film came out.

The only thing the three apes bring with them are the knowledge of when the Earth will end, but also the main ape who is still our favorite here, Zira, is pregnant with her child who she will name and eventually will appear in the sacred histories as the first to rise up against the cruelty of humans and bring about the power for apes to rule over.

Greenspun stated in his review: “As movie premises go, I think this is quite beautiful—though I am sure that in one variation or another it has been used before—and its development in "Escape From the Planet of the Apes" does it considerable justice.”

Allowing for certain plausible impossibilities (which Greenspun has said “the film is much stronger in fiction than in science—no drawback so far as I'm concerned”) there is enough thought to support the kind of dramatic certainty this sort of film needs and allows.

If you have seen enough monster movies, the topic is finally human guilt – but here it is rendered highly hesitant, because the apes are hardly monstrous and the guilt functions on unquestionable strategic intelligence.

The story follows Dr. Otto Hasslien, played by Eric Braeden, who is said that he should be the U.S.A.’s President’s science adviser. Even though he is evil, like every other human in this movie, he maintains credibility that appears unusual for movies, and life.

As Cornelius (a character you would remember as agreeable, short-tempered, and a bit too proud of himself), Greenspun described Roddy McDowall as “to have evolved a performance designed as a tribute to the late Edward Everett Horton.” Kim Hunter reprises her role as his wife, Zira, who Greenspun has said, “rather in the manner of your maiden aunt from Peoria, and like McDowall's, her characterization is hugely successful.”

Don Taylor’s direction seems composed in equal parts of good organization and skill, and with this work alone he got his place among those for every easy irony he avoids. There are certainly remarkable moments (for example, the first shot of the apes’ hotel room, which has been set up for them for their welcome to Los Angeles), but a lot of times there is a sense of decent professionalism that doesn’t look good to certain tools.

By conservative guess, the U.S.A. President turns out to be a huge idiot that can be seen in 90% of all science fiction films – and he seems to be in 90% of all science fiction films.

However, in “Escape from the Planet of the Apes,” William Windom’s President is allowed to be elegant, wise, articulate, and smart. Greenspun ended his review by saying, “And though I'm sure I'll never see his like again, I'll remember him as not the least of this film's graces.”

I would say that you should check this out, since “Beneath the Planet of the Apes” was really liked by a lot of critics. This actually was received better, so if you didn’t like the last one, this one would be good for you. Unlike the last two movies, this one ended on a note that could have been left open for another sequel. Find out tomorrow how that one is.

Beneath the Planet of the Apes

After the success of “Planet of the Apes,” it came as a surprise to fans when the sequel, “Beneath the Planet of the Apes,” came out in 1970. It is a markedly different film. If you remember the ending of the first movie and how surprising of a note it ended on that James Kendrick described as “constructed as downbeat,” “Beneath the Planet of the Apes” ended shockingly that could never be topped: the ape planet blowing up. That’s a great deal for the movie business over 30 years ago that a major studio with a great deal would end their film in such a dark way and end with every central character killed before the planet exploded.

The main character in this film is an American astronaut named Brent, played by James Franciscus (whose physique does look like Charlton Heston’s). Brent follows Taylor into the futuristic time where apes rule the Earth, and he finds a subterranean city where mutant humans with the ability to control minds that worship an atomic bomb that is meant to destroy the entire planet in case a nuclear war happens. The ape civilization, worried about another group that is ruling the Forbidden Zone, invades the premise which ends in the destruction of the planet.

“Beneath the Planet of the Apes” is different from the first film, meaning that it has a more militaristic tone (which will be seen in the last two of the original series). Kendrick states in his review, “There are explicit allusions to the war in Vietnam, which was at full scale when the film was released.” If you remember the one scene where peaceful chimpanzees put together a protest against the gorillas, and they do so with peace banners and nonviolent protest while blocking the streets. Ted Post, the director of this film, switches to a hand-held camera to give the scene a more violent news footage feeling as the gorillas remove the protestors by force.

The film also focuses more on the horrors of the nuclear holocaust (which is a fascinating thing for science fiction to do since World War II). You can see the suggestion at the end of “Planet of the Apes,” the sequel sets the sheer fact humankind killed themselves with nuclear war, which allowed the apes to evolve and take over the planet. The film is full of images of 20^th-Century civilization that was decimated. The famous half-buried Statue of Liberty is in here with the ruins of the New York Public Library, the New York Stock Exchange, and Radio City Music Hall, most of which that has been buried underground.

A lot of the story takes place in the dark ruins of the subway system, giving the viewers the claustrophobic feeling. Even though the production value isn’t anywhere close to being as good as the original (the sets are obviously sets, and the matte paintings sometimes look one-dimensional), “Beneath of the Planet of the Apes” is still an effective sequel that takes an increasingly dark look at war, which is inevitable.

If you haven't seen this film, definitely check this one out because it is definitely worth watching. Not as good as the first, but good in its own way. But does the series end here, or is the focus now going to be somewhere else? Find out tomorrow in the continuation of “Planet of the Apes week.”

Planet of the Apes (1968)

In celebration that the new Planet of the Apes movie is coming out very soon, I thought that maybe I will review all of the movies before I review the new one. So sit back and enjoy because this week is “Planet of the Apes week.” Let’s not waste any time, let’s jump right into the very first movie, released in 1968.

This movie started it all and the only memorable flick to come out of the laughable and sometimes unbearable saga of talking ape movies, “Planet of the Apes” still holds up exceptionally well 36 years after it was released.

Now this film is a novel adaptation of “Monkey Planet,” written by Pierre Bouille, which came to screen by producer Arthur Jacobs, who eventually oversaw the production duties for this entire franchise. None of the studios would even pick up this project except for Fox, despite the fact that Rod Serling was involved, who co-authored the screenplay adaptation of the novel (and which led to 30 drafts), Charlton Heston, Roddy McDowall, and Kim Hunter, and the first-time makeup artist John Chambers.

Heston plays George Taylor, who along with three fellow astronauts (Robert Gunner, Jeff Burton, and Dianne Stanley), is exploring the universe like all astronauts have done since the beginning of time with a time-traveling space shuttle. Taylor and his co-astronauts crash-land on an isolated planet and they set out across the desert to find any sort of life on this new planet they are on. That is until the astronauts find a watering hole, jump in to bathe themselves, and run into a race of mute humans looking for food in a local cornfield. Suddenly, apes come in on horseback with rifles on their shoulders, and Taylor’s crew is captured during an ugly roundup of mute humans.

During Heston’s captivity, a sympathetic ape named Kira, played by Kim Hunter, takes an interest in Taylor and helps him back to health since Taylor was shot in the throat and cannot speak. When Taylor escapes from this prison, he is chased by through the ape civilization and says the movies famous line that puts the entire ape community in awe. Those words are, “Get your stinking paws off me, you darned dirty ape.” Kira and her husband Cornelius, played by Roddy McDowell, an anthropologist with his own speculations about ape evolution, takes her side in depending Taylor against the head of the apes named Dr. Zaius, played by Maurice Evans, who is wanting to make Taylor into all of the other humans they have imprisoned. After judgment is passed, Kira and Cornelius help out Taylor and his new girlfriend Nova, played by Linda Harrison (girlfriend of the studio’s head who doesn’t have a word of dialogue throughout the entire film) escape from the cruelty of these apes. Together, they get apes and humans together to go out to the Forbidden Zone to find out Taylor’s true destiny on this ape planet.

“Planet of the Apes” has surprisingly held up very well due to one main reason: its script. Rod Serling and Michael Wilson, working on the script separately, managed to put together one of most diverse and entertaining movies to ever come out of the 1960s. Max Messier stated in his review of the film: “The combination of Serling's deft storytelling abilities shown so strongly in his work on The Twilight Zone with the real-life political experiences of Michael Wilson -- who was blacklisted by the Un-American Activities Committee in the 50s -- gave this first Apes movie everything a successful film needs: intelligent and meaningful dialogue, rousing action sequences, evolving character development, and a whopper of an ending.”

To summarize, the script would not have been able to be good if it wasn’t for the magnificent acting done by Heston, McDowall, Evans, and Hunter to make this film have some of the most memorable characters that have left an inevitable impact on the audience. Might be another one of my favorites.

Go see this film if you haven’t, it’s one of the best out there. Stay tuned tomorrow to when I continue “Planet of the Apes week.”

Top Gun

Happy Independence Day! It’s time to celebrate with another patriotic movie. Let’s see…I think I got just the movie for today: the 1986 classic jet-flying movie, “Top Gun.”

Movie critic Rob Vaux’s wife commented after their screening of the movie in 3D, “I think this is a film for women,” and in the following conversation, it became more and more difficult to deny. For all the thundering shots of fighter planes in their patriotic glory, for all the façade of the so-called “men” proving themselves against their own self-doubts, for every single energizing 80s overload on the screen and soundtrack, the film seems to be geared more towards women’s sensibilities as much or more than men’s.

Obviously, that doesn’t change the magnificent flight scenes, done by director Tony Scott before the time of CGI and the works that we will never be able to be glorified of again. Whenever “Top Gun,” leaves the predictability of its earthbound story, it develops a brand new story as daredevil pilot Maverick (Tom Cruise) and his best friend Goose (Anthony Edwards) stun us with their dangerous acrobatics. Scott puts the stakes in completely obvious places – repeating key plot points a number of times with pedestrian, obvious dialogue – but following the drama isn’t the point. “Top Gun’s” strong point lies in pure MTV display, and if you want to experience that, the big screen is the only place where you can. Vaux said, “I’m guessing that, like me, a large number of people first experienced this movie on pan-and-scan VHS tapes.” It was a new movie when it was released in theaters, which did show with the audience with the first shots over the opening credits.

Vaux also commented this in his review: “In light of that, it’s unfortunate that the new transfer is such a spotty effort. Some shots look as crisp and sharp as you’d expect, but serious pixilation overwhelms too many others. On the IMAX screen, the grains look bigger than your average house cat. Scott’s devotion to colored air and extreme close-ups may play some part in that, but with interest in restored re-releases dropping precipitously, Paramount may simply have throttled back the budget and let us suffer through a less-than-perfect picture. At least the 3D is decent, though it can hardly improve on the already exceptional aerial shots.”

As soon as the flying scenes are done, the film falls flat on its face. Vaux mentioned this about the characters: “Its ridiculous cardboard characters can’t stand up to even a basic litmus test of plausibility and the script’s penchant for explaining everything multiple times to catch the rubes up to speed threatens each and every onscreen relationship.” Edwards saves a large amount of it with his effervescent charm, while Cruise and Val Kilmer (playing Maverick’s rival Iceman) put on a show of fiery chemistry that made audiences speculate the supposed gayness in this film. I felt sorry for Kelly McGillis because she couldn’t compete with that, though she does try hard to make the audiences convinced about her romance with Maverick that we’ll kindly call a subplot. It all arrives in the middle of countless smaller, equally laughable decisions (like people complained about giving Michael Ironside’s character the nickname “Jester”) that hopelessly swamp it in 80s bad taste.

This brings us back to my initial point…and “Top Gun’s” saving grace. When the boys in the audience can be amazed at the awesome fighter planes, the girls can howl at the actors. Whether it’s at them shirtless on the volleyball court, the shower scenes and even involves a lot of not-at-all-suggestive embraces as they go through their tough testosterone phase. Distinguish that with McGillis’s Charlie, who does not show audiences anything so much as her bare thigh especially during her lovemaking scene. Obviously she acts as a ready substitute for the girls in the audience: calm under pressure, tough as nails, and refusing to give anything to Maverick. She speaks the terms of her relationship, and earns herself a changed bad boy with a heart of gold by the end of the movie.

That makes “Top Gun,” hands down, a cheesy yet strangely interesting time capsule, with a little something for everyone by also making sure we understand that it’s all what the film was going for. You’ll rarely see a movie this one-dimensional, but neither has anyone else has done this particular combination of commercial flash and unacknowledged subtext. Producers Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer combined a fortune with people who like this type of stuff in the seats entertainment like this, and for better or worse, changed moviemaking as a result. Put that together with Scott’s one-of-a-kind vision (which Vaux never appreciated until Scott passed) and suddenly we have a strangely fitting piece of cinematic history. “Top Gun” is no one’s idea of a great movie, but it is a significant movie, and it’s hard not to find something to like…even if you secretly hate yourself for doing so.

For a long time they have been talking about making a sequel to this movie, which I would be happy if they did. It would be great if they made a sequel because I do think this movie is worth checking out. Maybe this film will make you say, “Take my breath away,” while you are watching it. Anyway, enjoy the fireworks today everyone. Now I’m going to see if we are going out tonight because, “I feel the need – the need for speed.” Don’t worry, I won’t be driving fast over to the location, but we’ll see. Stay tuned for more of my film reviews.