Great Make-Up, But... (1 Viewer)

[Dick]

Just picked up both THE GRINCH and PLANET OF THE APES (2001) today, and watched them both for the first time. I am very ambivilent about them. Each is a triumph for Rick Baker, needless to say. But GRINCH, by adding so much "back story," removed a lot of the mystery and humor of Dr. Suess's original and tied to substitute pathos. APES had no character build until the very end, and except for Tim Roth, I didn't care much for any of the cast. I'm sure this will get flamed, but that is my opinion. Does anyone share it?

 

[Alex Spindler]

I was most impressed with Apes from the excellent makeup and the social design that they put together. The movement acting was also superb and consistent throughout. But the humans were far worse, and the story had nothing on the original. Far too conventional and an ending that was completely pointless.

Haven't seen Grinch yet.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Apes, IMHO, sucked as a piece of entertainment. It had good makeup, and the people moved very ape-like, but it felt too much like a big joke. It wasn't serious enough.

It also looked crappy when the apes jumped in the air. They looked too much like it was artificial.

 

[Greg_Y]

I saw both of these in the theater and was disappointed in both. In fact, I can't think of any good reasons why either film was necessary (other than to make money, of course.) The Grinch didn't have anything over the 30-minute long cartoon. Nothing. Carrey's antics were okay, but misplaced and not enough to save the film.
And I suppose I mildly enjoyed watching Burton's POTA in the theater, once, but I have no desire to ever see it again. I'll take the original, hammy Charlton Heston and all.

 

[Alex Spindler]

I know this is Movie bound, but I have to wonder what was so attractive for PotA to be remade. I mean, the focus to make it as real as possible, which is evident in the effort taken to have the apes move and interact as they did, would be an understandable driver. But the actual script and story lost much of the soul of the original, both in tone and in application. It was way too concerned with the fight and less on the concept of a role reversed society. It had so little of the sections on humans living in an ape world that really was the core of the original. I mean the whole trial from the original is one of my favorite sections, because it really dives into their treatment of humans and how it mimics our own responses to animals. Instead, they're in the ape society for 20 minutes and then it's just the setup for the battle. If they called it Battle for the Planet of the Apes, I would understand it. But as an introduction, it falls very very flat. I just don't see a point to exploring their world anymore because they didn't give me a chance to experience it.

A total bummer, because having the makeup and behavior in an Apes movie with a story I would have enjoyed would have made this a real winner, and would have been a worthy remake IMO. But now, it's hard not to compare it to many other remakes that just don't cut the mustard as far as justification for existance. I would make it a requirement that remakes like this have a script everyone salivates over before they move forward. I just don't see any other reason for someone to tarnish a title like this, especially when they have the making of a franchise as they did with the originals.

Extra disappointing, although I do recommend everyone check it out (as in rent) for the makeup and all of the ape actors abilities. That's where they got it right.

 

[Blu]

POTA was a 90 million dollar movie with a 9 dollar script and I use that term loosely.

 

[Dick]

But I should add that Fox put out a magnificent 2-disc set of POTA, and the extras along make the set worth the purchase (cheap, too!)

 

[Heinz W]

I rented PoTA and also found it lacking. I'm waiting for rumored the 5-Star edition of the original before I purchase this movie.

 

[Steve_Ch]

I've posted my impression on the DVD on the HTF review thread (did not see it on the theatrical release), the only thing I want to add here (which I have not seen post here yet) is, yes the makeup is fantastic, BUT, it's NOT just the makeup, the acting by all of the Ape characters are uniformly superb (as good as the human are uniformly bad). I was absolutely amazed by how much emotion and character their eyes communicate, Tim Roth was nothing less than spectecular.

 

[Steve_Ch]

>>I know this is Movie bound, but I have to wonder what was so attractive for PotA to be remade. I mean, the focus to make it as real as possible, ...

 

[Julian Lalor]

The thing that disappointed me most abourt PoTA was what could have been, given the previous work of Tim Burton. Watching the supplements, I lost count of the number of people who talked about doing the project because of the peculiar vision that Burton brings to his films. The problem with PoTA is that this, alone among Burton's films, looks as if it could have been directed by any hack. There is almost nothing Burtonesque about the film at all. It's just banal.

 

[Alex Spindler]

Yeah, I had heard them stress that it was a different movie. I suppose my problem is that the original felt like it was more than "man crashes on planet where apes rule and man is the animal". I don't know if it was the style, the examination of religion over science, or animal cruelty turned on it's head, but the original feels better than that sentance.

The remake, however, feels even lower than that sentence. It's pretty much only "man crashes on planet where apes rule", because the humans are just second class citizens, and not animals. I guess it was just that they had such limited ambitions beyond the makeup and behavior. If only they had just tried to make something more than the bare minimum for a story, it would have really been something.

 

[Akira Zimmerman]

Am I the only one who thought that Tim Curry would've been a much better Grinch? Well, he would look much more like the Grinch in the cartoon, but I also think he could have acted the part perfectly. I think Jim Carrey added a little bit too much of his touch to the character, making the Grinch look like a mixture of his loonie character in The Mask and Ace Ventura.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I havn't yet seen 'POTA', but I bought 'The Grinch' and loved it!
Personally, I think that Jim Carrey was terrific as the the Grinch, and I just couldn't get enough of the film's visual style, and Taylor Momson is absolutly adorable as Cindy Lou Who. After seeing it, I read Roger Ebert's review of the film, and thought he was WAAAY off base with this one, and he and I usually like the same thing's, not in this case. Also, a lot of fuss has been made about how strange the Who's look in this film, I disagree, I think they look very appropriate.
And as a sidenote, did anyone else think that the guy playing Cindy Lou's father looked an aweful lot like William H Macy in that make-up?
Ron Howard' 'Grinch' is definatly now part of my holiday tradition. Great film!

 

[Keith_R]

POTA had great makeup but but the movie it self well, sucked. I was so bored with it that within the first 15 minutes I was ready to walk out unfortunately there was nothing else I really wanted to see. :frowning: This recent trend I see with movies like Mummy Returns, POTA and Final Fantasy that focus all on CGI/ Makeup effects and none on story is starting to bother me, it really makes me question where the industry is going.

 

[Steve_Ch]

>>POTA had great makeup but but the movie it self well, sucked.