Rise of The Planet of the Apes

Funny, I just watched Conquest, which this is a loose remake of.

Edited by JonZ - 4/14/11 at 9:48pm

Surprised there hasn't been a topic already, this was announced awhile ago.

It's already been through a name change from Rise of the Apes.

The trailer didn.t show me very much promise.
The name of the drug is simply called "The cure" zzzzzzzzzzz

Neat!  Was hoping for something else.  But come to think of it...they've done what I was thinking already and this looks new.  Well, similar to the original sequel about Caesar.  Kind of excited about this.  Popcorn entertainment to be sure... 

I hope it will be a worthwhile entry to the series. It would be hard to be worse than the Tim Burton movie from 10 years ago. Moving the film around on the schedule so much (June 2011 to Nov 2011 to Aug 2011) doesn't inspire hope.

 

 

The good news...not a Tim Burton Apes movie.

 

The makeup/effects work looks outstanding.

 

However, just viewing the trailer, I have a sinking

feeling about this movie.   James Franco?  That

guy from the Hangover movie?  That's like putting

Jack Black as the lead in this film.   Would have

had more hope with a better cast, but to me, it

looks like another possible Independence Day fiasco

where you have a big effects movie populated by

second-rate actors and a thin storyline.

 

Hope I am wrong.  

 

 

Visit our DVD, BLU-RAY and 3D REVIEW ARCHIVES

Looks interesting I have to admit, and the effects are of course the attention grabber (being WETA), but I might give it a shot come August..........can't be worse than Burton's garbage nor can it be worse than the last film I "took a chance on" in the theaters Battle: L.A. so ....whats to lose?

James Franco was just nominated for an Oscar. Given his talent, I think he's slumming by being in a movie like this.

 

I laughed out loud when I saw the trailer and it said something along the lines of "WITH EFFECTS BY WETA WHO DID THE EFFECTS FOR AVATAR". I can't imagine anyone in the world seeing that and saying "Oh man, Weta's doing the effects? I'm so fucking there!"

No, I wasn't referring to just James Franco. 

 

I think perhaps I could have worded it better.

 

 

I was talking about two separate actors.  To be

more specific, James Franco and Tyler Labine.

 

I did make a mistake, though.  Tyler Labine is

not the guy from the Hangover.  I was thinking

of Zach Galifianakis.  They look very similar --

thought they were the same guy.

 

 

 

And, man, I am no fan of James Franco.  I hated 

127 Hours and his stint as co-host of this year's

OSCARS totally turned me off to him.

 

 

 

Visit our DVD, BLU-RAY and 3D REVIEW ARCHIVES

Anything to shoehorn in a mention of a very popular movie .

Despite all of the disliking of Burton's version, I have to say that the men in Ape makeup in that movie looked absolutely fantastic. The CGI in this trailer doesn't look that impressive to me, honestly. But hey, it isn't out yet.

The one big mistake (of many) Tim Burton made with

his Apes film is that you can tell that much of it was

filmed on a soundstage.

 

I was mortified when cameras moved from an outdoor

field/forrest into the Ape village and you can immediately

see that it was shot indoors.   Believability stopped at

that moment.

Visit our DVD, BLU-RAY and 3D REVIEW ARCHIVES

 

Well, if that starts to bother me, then I can't watch any Hitchcock movie any more either . I mean, I certainly notice it, but I don't really care either.

 

The only good thing to come from the Burton movie was that Linda Harrison was present at the premiere I attended in New Jersey, and gave a brief intro to the film, talking about her days on the original two films. Otherwise, that movie was a failure from the beginning to its incomprehensible ending.

 

Fox obviously thinks this movie could be a summer player, which is why they moved it from its slot in November to August (it was originally scheduled in the already-crowded June). But August has a tendency to be dumping ground for summer movies, so we'll see. I certainly hope it is good.

 

 

I think the studios now want the summer movie season to run from the end of April to August (rather than the old days when it was Memorial Day to mid-July) so I think you're going to start seeing more big movies in late July and August. Plus, if the movie is good and there's less competition, it may be a good move to have it open in August.

The problem remains that a lot of people are on vacation in August - it's one of, if not the, biggest months for vacations, so it's not surprising that movie-going drops off some. Of all the summer movies released in August, I can think of perhaps two in the 20 years that were really very good.

 

 

 

I can see that no one is throwing poop at the previous poster so..

 

I liked it too.  Nothing about how it looked bothered me much.  I thought it strongest aspect was the brilliant make up work.  Weakest, the actor in the Heston role (forgot his name, not a fan) and so-so storyline. 

 

People do that same thing to films like Blair Witch and I usually just keep quiet about really loving the film.  If every movie had to grab me completely and pull me in (like Lord of the Rings, Wizard of Oz,etc) I'd probably have a dozen or so flicks on my movie shelf instead of the insane amount I have. 

I don't see more "realistic" makeup as being a plus in a Planet of the Apes movie.  The original apes have a unique look that is amazing all by itself; I don't see it as a plus for the franchise when they moved away from that look.  Just like King Kong -- the original Kong was more than just a gorilla.  The remakes lessened Kong in some way, when they made him more realistic, more explainable.  Then the mystery is gone.  

I don't quite follow you.  Why wouldn't you want it to look realistic?  The original apes looked great too.  Although, the TV series had obvious problems keeping that going episode to episode.  In the films, they looked like apes standing up right and walking and talking like humans.  You wouldn't want those effects to look dated then would you?  Why now?   Kong lessened because of better quality effects? 
 

 

I would really prefer a blending of actors and CGI. I almost always do.

Thought this actually looked like it could be fun/interesting.

 

My only question is, where do you go from here?  I mean, is the plan to eventually remake the original (again), essentially doing the old series backwards?  I'm kinda interested in this movie and yet skeptical of a new franchise.

 

(Just noticed - for any fans of the original - the Film Forum in NYC is going to be screening a new 35mm print of the original film in July, that should be fun!)

It's unclear from the trailer exactly what this movie's relationship is to the previous films.  Is this supposed to be a sequel to the Burton film?  Or a "reboot" of the franchise?

Looks like the Caesar heavy film from the original.  Apes Revolution sort of thing.  Not necessarily tied to the Burton film.  Just tied to the same source material. 

"Why wouldn't you want it to look realistic?"

 

The more you go down the "realism" route, the more obvious it is that these are humans wearing ape masks.  The apes the original were stylish and different, and I think that helped the shock ending.  As for Kong, define "better."  The original was powerful enough to become a classic.  The fact that Kong was done with stop motion animation made him stylish and different, a little mysterious.  Personally, I found Jackson's remake, with Kong being just an oversized ape a little disappointing.  In both cases, less realism (for me) means a bigger adventure into the unknown.

I believe it's been described as a prequel reboot of the series, as well as a remake of sorts of Conquest. I very much doubt the film will acknowledge any relation to the Burton film, which is pretty much universally reviled (the posts in this thread notwithstanding) as one of the most pointless remakes ever attempted and a staggering bad film in its own right.

 

I agree Burton's Apes wasn't a very good film but I saw it in the cinema and bought the dvd as soon as it came out, I did enjoy Tim Roth's villainous chimp Thade, and Roth didn't require much make up to look like a villainous ape (ooh). I was watching the Hulk the other day and there was Thade in a face off with the Hulk.

 

I think this new film looks interesting, I'll wait for the reviews and than decide if it's worth seeing at the cinema. But good or bad it'll be in my collection by the end of the year.

 

 

 

p.s. Roth is one of my favourite actors, superb in Rob Roy.... Thade with a sword [STOP IT STEVE!]

 

 

 

I meant "better" as in better and more modern effects technology, not laying out my own judgment of the film over the original film.  Further, the original looks like a stop motion figure, very similar to an animated ape.  Jackson's looks like a real ape, not just over-sized but a monsterous size that you soon learn isn't really a monster at all.  It's a beauty and beast story, afterall.  Beast here is an over-sized ape in all the film versions of this story.  Not to say that just because of the more realistic looking giant ape character makes recent film better...  Everybody is going to have their favorite when there's a remake for whatever reason.  I happen to love both films.  And I find Jackson's film a hell of a ride with some of the best visuals in the business to back up the fun updating of the story.  Just my reaction.  The original is a classic with loads of personal nostalgia since I used to stay up late watching those kinds of films as a kid.

 

I follow you about "stylish and different".  I have tons of favorite films that have exactly the same appeal to me for that reason. 

 

With all this said, I prefer the Jackson version over the original at this time.  I also enjoy the 70s version since Baker did a grand job in the suit.  And it's highly nostalgic just like the original.  Campy, but underrated in spite of, if you ask me. 

 

Just wanted to add, I still don't get this. 

If that film is "staggering bad" there are films out there that could put you in the funny farm because of their badness. hee!