Rise of the Planet of the Apes Put on your suspension of disbelief cloak and enter in ...
Entering the theater I thought, do I really want to see yet another entry in the ape versus human saga? The truth is that I was primarily drawn by a curiosity to see what the more modern special effects could do to improve the look of this decrepit franchise. In a word, the effects are stunning as expected. So, in that way, the effects were no surprise. I don't know if just meeting expectations is what they were going for.
The other curiosity was the story as it seemed a departure from the originals. Other than a few obvious nods to the original which felt strained, it was. When the original was released in 1968 the country, indeed the world, was living under the threat of immanent nuclear annihilation and the main focus of the evening news everywhere was the war in Vietnam. So, the story line of the original blamed the excesses of nuclear weapons for the downfall of humanity and the elevation of the simians to preeminent status. That theme carried through the sequels along with it's strong anti-war subtext. A lot of people were discussing the moral and ethical theme of the original film when it came out. That won't happen here.
The new version has thrown out all of the basis for the original film and replaced it, ironically, with a strong, albeit possibly inadvertent, pro-war subtext. The other themes seem to be anti-animal research, anti-genetic research and the usual anti-authority figure. The majority of the plot is telegraphed far in advance so there are no surprises. In fact, if you've seen the trailers you've seen most of the plot.
Like most movies, if you try to make sense of what's on screen you quickly begin to see the underpinnings of the whole story disappear. So do not try to rationalize it, it'll just spoil it. Instead just sit back and enjoy the effects. The lions share of the movie is the effects. While credit certainly goes to the creators of those effects, in this case, because of the method of animating them, a large part of the effort has to go to the ones upon whom those effects are applied. In this case that is first and foremost in the person of Andy Serkis. So, exactly how much of it is Serkis and how much the effects remains to be revealed. For now they form an inseparable nexus. That also applies to the rest of the ape-actors such as Richard Ridings as Buck.
That brings us to the humans in the film. The clear standout here is John Lithgow. His performance as Franco's dad, who suffers from Alzheimer's is touching and in all ways superb performance. The other humans here are almost props or clichés. The actors are props in that the story revolves around them but is barely about them. They add color, like the natives in a Tarzan movie. James Franco is OK, but not great, as Lithgow's scientist/son but then again, he's given very little real material to work with so it may not be entirely his fault he comes across as kind of bland.
His "female lead" is Freida Pinto, of Slumdog Millionaire fame. She is pretty set dressing and doesn't do a bad job of acting. But there is something lacking from her performance, or maybe she just lacks much screen presence beyond being a kind, pretty face. Also, for a modern Hollywood film set in California, she seems rather overdressed. Again, considering it is California, perhaps an actress more like Jessica Alba might have been more appealing. In any event, her performance is forgettable. The good news is it doesn't detract any from the film.
The rest of the actors are walking/talking props representing most of the modern day movie bad guys, like the cruel animal keeper, the greed driven boss, violent cops and the cretinish neighbor prone to outbursts of stupidity and violence, etc.
That brings us back to the effects. It's entertaining enough to buy a ticket just for that and to see the way the film is boxed, as it is a great visual film. Besides, the filmmakers need to make enough to pay for all those CGI effects.
By Bruce L. Jones http://webpages.charter.net/bruce.jones1/
Entering the theater I thought, do I really want to see yet another entry in the ape versus human saga? The truth is that I was primarily drawn by a curiosity to see what the more modern special effects could do to improve the look of this decrepit franchise. In a word, the effects are stunning as expected. So, in that way, the effects were no surprise. I don't know if just meeting expectations is what they were going for.
The other curiosity was the story as it seemed a departure from the originals. Other than a few obvious nods to the original which felt strained, it was. When the original was released in 1968 the country, indeed the world, was living under the threat of immanent nuclear annihilation and the main focus of the evening news everywhere was the war in Vietnam. So, the story line of the original blamed the excesses of nuclear weapons for the downfall of humanity and the elevation of the simians to preeminent status. That theme carried through the sequels along with it's strong anti-war subtext. A lot of people were discussing the moral and ethical theme of the original film when it came out. That won't happen here.
The new version has thrown out all of the basis for the original film and replaced it, ironically, with a strong, albeit possibly inadvertent, pro-war subtext. The other themes seem to be anti-animal research, anti-genetic research and the usual anti-authority figure. The majority of the plot is telegraphed far in advance so there are no surprises. In fact, if you've seen the trailers you've seen most of the plot.
Like most movies, if you try to make sense of what's on screen you quickly begin to see the underpinnings of the whole story disappear. So do not try to rationalize it, it'll just spoil it. Instead just sit back and enjoy the effects. The lions share of the movie is the effects. While credit certainly goes to the creators of those effects, in this case, because of the method of animating them, a large part of the effort has to go to the ones upon whom those effects are applied. In this case that is first and foremost in the person of Andy Serkis. So, exactly how much of it is Serkis and how much the effects remains to be revealed. For now they form an inseparable nexus. That also applies to the rest of the ape-actors such as Richard Ridings as Buck.
That brings us to the humans in the film. The clear standout here is John Lithgow. His performance as Franco's dad, who suffers from Alzheimer's is touching and in all ways superb performance. The other humans here are almost props or clichés. The actors are props in that the story revolves around them but is barely about them. They add color, like the natives in a Tarzan movie. James Franco is OK, but not great, as Lithgow's scientist/son but then again, he's given very little real material to work with so it may not be entirely his fault he comes across as kind of bland.
His "female lead" is Freida Pinto, of Slumdog Millionaire fame. She is pretty set dressing and doesn't do a bad job of acting. But there is something lacking from her performance, or maybe she just lacks much screen presence beyond being a kind, pretty face. Also, for a modern Hollywood film set in California, she seems rather overdressed. Again, considering it is California, perhaps an actress more like Jessica Alba might have been more appealing. In any event, her performance is forgettable. The good news is it doesn't detract any from the film.
The rest of the actors are walking/talking props representing most of the modern day movie bad guys, like the cruel animal keeper, the greed driven boss, violent cops and the cretinish neighbor prone to outbursts of stupidity and violence, etc.
That brings us back to the effects. It's entertaining enough to buy a ticket just for that and to see the way the film is boxed, as it is a great visual film. Besides, the filmmakers need to make enough to pay for all those CGI effects.
By Bruce L. Jones http://webpages.charter.net/bruce.jones1/