And Maurice!
Rise of the Planet of the Apes - Discussion/Review
- Thread starter PlainSimpleJoel
- Start date
An orangutan named Maurice. Now that's the kind of homage I like. 
^
And Buck is apparently named after an actor who played a variety of gorilla bit parts in Planet of the Apes and its sequels.
Oh, that's the name of the chimp who bullies Caesar. Had to look that up, but you're right, he was also very good. The credits indicate that the other principal apes had live performers like Serkis, and honestly did it feel like that.
And Buck is apparently named after an actor who played a variety of gorilla bit parts in Planet of the Apes and its sequels.
Couldn't have asked for a better death, though.
Oh, that's the name of the chimp who bullies Caesar. Had to look that up, but you're right, he was also very good. The credits indicate that the other principal apes had live performers like Serkis, and honestly did it feel like that.
Well Maurice was the 'he' I was referring to, no?
B
Thought it was pretty good.... although I'm afraid I was always a little too aware of the CGI to get fully absorbed into the story. It was certainly some excellent CGI, but I still found myself more admiring it than really believing in any of it.
Still though, the character work on Caesar was undeniably strong stuff, and the arc he goes on, and his interaction with the other apes, was all really well done.
The only thing I didn't buy (as I'm sure has been discussed to death already), was where all those HUNDREDS of apes suddenly came from at the end. I kinda doubt there's that many apes in all of California, let alone one primate facility. It's certainly possible there were that many being kept for research for this one particular company, but it would have been nice if the movie actually made that clear beforehand.
Thought it was pretty good.... although I'm afraid I was always a little too aware of the CGI to get fully absorbed into the story. It was certainly some excellent CGI, but I still found myself more admiring it than really believing in any of it.
Still though, the character work on Caesar was undeniably strong stuff, and the arc he goes on, and his interaction with the other apes, was all really well done.
The only thing I didn't buy (as I'm sure has been discussed to death already), was where all those HUNDREDS of apes suddenly came from at the end. I kinda doubt there's that many apes in all of California, let alone one primate facility. It's certainly possible there were that many being kept for research for this one particular company, but it would have been nice if the movie actually made that clear beforehand.
^
Well, the apes are from three different locations - the research facility, the animal compound, and the zoo. The film does show Caesar at the zoo and the research facility earlier on, so he's aware there are apes in both locations.
But yeah, thinking too hardly about how the apes were able to so quickly both free tons of their fellow apes from disparate locations and then make them part of their impromptu ape army is something best not done.
Well, the apes are from three different locations - the research facility, the animal compound, and the zoo. The film does show Caesar at the zoo and the research facility earlier on, so he's aware there are apes in both locations.
But yeah, thinking too hardly about how the apes were able to so quickly both free tons of their fellow apes from disparate locations and then make them part of their impromptu ape army is something best not done.
The other issue for me is, that while the medical experimentation and virus angle certainly plays out fairly believably, and works pretty well on it's own terms, I can't help but feel it's a bit too... ordinary and mundane an explanation for what we see in the classic movie.
I'm no continuity nut or anything (and have only really seen the original movie), but this just doesn't have the same iconic power of humanity being wiped out by nuclear armageddon, and apes evolving to be the dominant species in their place.
Not to mention the fact I always saw the movie as more of a Twilight Zone-style allegory or parable anyway. Trying to rationalize and over-explain the history of it all seems to be kind of missing the point, in my mind. Kind of like learning how the Force works in Star Wars, learning exactly how the Apes came to be where they are kind of diminishes that classic film's power a bit.
I'm no continuity nut or anything (and have only really seen the original movie), but this just doesn't have the same iconic power of humanity being wiped out by nuclear armageddon, and apes evolving to be the dominant species in their place.
Not to mention the fact I always saw the movie as more of a Twilight Zone-style allegory or parable anyway. Trying to rationalize and over-explain the history of it all seems to be kind of missing the point, in my mind. Kind of like learning how the Force works in Star Wars, learning exactly how the Apes came to be where they are kind of diminishes that classic film's power a bit.
Last edited:
That's true. But so is this:
The original film never leant itself to sequels or explanations simply because it's a loaded parable that unspools at the end. That didn't stop them from making a ton of sequels, of course, and one of those - Conquest of the Planet of the Apes - follows a young intelligent ape called Caesar as he leads the apes to revolution.
This film's a clean reboot of the Apes franchise, and just takes the basic premise of Conquest and runs with it. What would happen if apes became intelligent and then fought against us is an interesting idea of a movie, independent of any ties, however ephemeral, to the 1968 classic.
Yeah I agree it's a strong idea on it's own (and I do look forward to seeing how it plays out in the sequel), but I still got the sense that it was trying to be, if not a literal prequel to the classic movie, then a pretty close spiritual one. So I just can't help but view it from that perspective at the moment.
Plus I get the impression that, like me, the filmmakers don't put much stock in the other movies anyway. The only movie they really have to line things up with is the classic one.
That is actually good news for me. I only own the classic 1968 movie (out of the original franchise) so if this new movie fits with the original I am happy and all for it.
Except that the protagonist's name is taken from the original film's sequels, of course.
Caesar didn't appear until Escape and was first named in Conquest.
CaptainJack
Lieutenant Commander
Anyone seen that TV show from the 70's called "Lancelot Link Secret Chimp"? Its about a chimp who goes around as a Private Detective.
BJ and the Bear.
A from me. Sensational and emotive, a very full-blooded movie in its own right and an astounding leap forward in terms of the use of effects. I don't recall a single real see-the-join moment, though Caesar does seem remarkably athletic even for a chimp.
where it doesn't just seem ridiculous.
Yeah, I think it was (to varying degrees, I suppose). It was also one of the few instances I've seen of
a character shouting "Nooooo!!!!" in a movie
Last edited:
"What is Episode III?"
^ Yeah, that was a pretty egregious use of it. I actually liked Episode III overall though.
If one of the prequels has to be the "best one" I guess Ep3 is the one to go with, but that's like saying that my urine doesn't burn as much today as it has the last two days.
But, yeah, the use of "that phrase" in this movie was actually done very, very well and it gave me a good shock too when it happened and I think was a solid "impact" of what the "future" holds for humanity and the simians.
But, yeah, the use of "that phrase" in this movie was actually done very, very well and it gave me a good shock too when it happened and I think was a solid "impact" of what the "future" holds for humanity and the simians.
