Rise of The Planet of the Apes (1 Viewer)

[Ron-P]

Well, I had no idea this was coming, or that it was even a thought in someone's mind. But, here it is. Actually looks kinda decent.



http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/fox/apeswillrise/

 

[JonZ]

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

 

[TonyD]

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

 

[Radioman970]

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...

 

[Sam Favate]

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.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

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

 

[Kevin M]

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?

 

[Ron-P]

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein REVIEW ARCHIVES[/b]

James Franco was not in the Hangover film, think 127 Hours or Your Highness, the Spider Man films.

I don't mind the cast, of course I'm one who thinks less popular actors are always better than the mega-stars in any film. So, I'm ok with this cast. Where I disagree with you, the effects, they need more work to look better. They look a bit to CGI'd and unrealistic.

 

[TravisR]

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!"

 

[Ronald Epstein]

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

I think perhaps I could have worded it better.

James Franco? That guy from the Hangover movie?

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

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by TravisR .

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.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

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

 

[Brian Borst]

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein . I mean, I certainly notice it, but I don't really care either.

 

[Sam Favate]

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.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Sam Favate

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.

 

[Sam Favate]

Originally Posted by TravisR



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.

 

[Ron-P]

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein

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.

It's a movie about ape-men, when does a film like that become believable in the first place? Not busting your balls here Ron but your comment can be applied to just about any film in this genre. The transformation from real-life, to sound stages to CGI is so plain obvious in just about any film like this there's no way it can be believable, it's suspending belief to be able to enjoy films like these.


I for one like Burton's Ape film. Is it his best, not by an long shot but it was still an enjoyable fantasy film.

 

[Radioman970]

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.

 

[Don Solosan]

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.

 

[Radioman970]

Originally Posted by Don Solosan /forum/thread/310611/rise-of-the-planet-of-the-apes#post_3802562