Planet of the Apes (2001) User Reviews

A Remake of a Film that Never Needed to be Remade

[JamesHitchcock · 6/10 · 3 November 2004]

If one wants to remake a movie, the best option is probably to choose and original that was good, but not a great classic. Clearly, any attempt to remake a concept that failed first time around is fraught with danger, but an attempt to remake a classic runs the risk that one's film will be unfavourably compared with the original. The original 1968 film of 'Planet of the Apes' is one of cinema's great science fiction classics. More than an adventure story, it touches on some of the concerns of the late sixties- the fear of nuclear war, race relations- and also raises more fundamental issues about the relationship between man and nature, the relationship between religion and science, Darwinism and animal rights. It was therefore a brave move on Tim Burton's part to try and remake it.

The main concept of Tim Burton's film is basically similar to Franklin Schaffner's. An astronaut from Earth travels to a planet ruled by intelligent apes. Humans exist on this planet, but they are regarded as an inferior species, despised and exploited by the apes. There is, however, an important difference. In the original film, the apes are the only intelligent and articulate beings on the planet. Although they have only attained a pre-industrial level of civilization (they have firearms, but no power-driven machinery, and no means of transport other than the horse or horse-drawn vehicles), they are a far more advanced species than the planet's human inhabitants, who lack the powers of speech and reason and live an animal-like existence. In Burton's remake, humans and apes have similar powers of speech and intellect; it is only the apes' greater physical strength that enables them to dominate the planet and to treat the humans as slaves.

It was this ironic role-reversal, with apes behaving like men and men behaving like beasts, that gave Schaffner's film its satirical power. That film was advertised with the slogan 'Somewhere in the Universe, there must be something better than man!', and the apes are indeed, in some respects, better than man. Their law against killing others of their kind, for example, is much more strictly observed than our commandment that 'Thou shalt do no murder'. There is no sense that the apes are bad and the humans good. Even Dr Zaius, the orang-utan politician, is not a wicked individual; by the standards of his society he is an honourable and decent one. His weakness is that of excessive intellectual conservatism and unwillingness to accept opinions that do not fit in with his preconceived world view. (In this respect the apes are very human indeed).

Burton's film takes a less subtle moral line. It is a straightforward story of a fight for freedom. The villains are most of the apes, especially the fanatical, human-hating General Thade. The heroes are Captain Davidson, the astronaut from Earth, the planet's human population who long for freedom from the domination of the apes, and a few liberal, pro-human apes, especially Ari, the daughter of an ape senator. The apes are more aggressive and more obviously animals than in the original film; they still frequently move on all fours and emit fierce shrieks whenever angry or excited.

There are some things about this film that are good, especially the ape make-up which is, for the most part, more convincing than in the original film and allows the actors more scope to show emotion. (I say 'for the most part' because Ari looks far less simian than do most of the other apes- Tim Burton obviously felt that the audience would be more likely to accept her as a sympathetic character if she looked half-human). The actors playing apes actually seem more convincing than those playing humans. Tim Roth is good as the militaristic Thade, as is Helena Bonham-Carter as Ari. Mark Wahlberg, on the other hand, is not an actor of the same caliber as Charlton Heston, who played the equivalent role in the original film, and Estella Warren has little to do other than look glamorous. (Heston has a cameo role as an ape in Burton's film, and even gets to repeat his famous line 'Damn you all to hell').

Overall, however, the film is a disappointment when compared to the original, a simple science-fiction adventure story as opposed to an intelligent and philosophical look at complex issues. It tried to copy the device of a surprise ending but failed. Schaffner's famous final twist is shocking, but makes perfect sense in the context of what has gone before. Burton's makes no sense whatsoever.

Tim Burton can be a director of great originality, but with 'Planet of the Apes' he fell into the standard Hollywood trap of trying to copy what had already been done and remaking a film that never needed to be remade. It was good to see him return to form with the brilliant 'Big Fish', one of the best films of last year. 6/10

Underrated

[on_the_can · 7/10 · 6 April 2011]

In the spring of 2001 audiences seemed eager to see Tim Burton's retelling of the 1968 classic, "Planet of the Apes." By the summer of 2001 it seemed to be the movie everybody loved to hate. Were the criticisms fair? Not if you ask me.

2001's Planet of the Apes' biggest downfall, in my opinion, is unfortunately also it's biggest strength. Unlike many remakes which often end up as nothing more than weaker rehashes of their predecessor's this version of 'Apes' dared to be different. The plot has been stripped down to its bare bones and then rebuilt into something completely new. This is refreshing, if you ask me. Especially when rewatching it now, because just a few short years after this film came out we launched into sort of a remake renaissance, where half the tent pole films that come out every year are the same lesser rehashes that I spoke of a second ago. This film does take a moment here and there to wink at the '68 original, but Burton and his merry band of screenwriters has created a world completely original...it could be watched next to any entry of that original series as a wholey different film.

This is also the film's biggest flaw though, or at least financially speaking, because the original 'Apes' franchise has a cult following behind it that could almost rival that of Star Wars or Star Trek. The core audience for this film really only wanted to see their favourite story told with modern day effects and makeup. I don't think we needed that, but I'm not sure how many would agree with me.

Now, if you want to compare the two films plots and decide which one is stronger that's a whole other debate. But I don't think that's fair, that's why I champion it for taking such a different approach. I don't think this movie should be compared to any other movie and with that mindset a much better appreciation can be found. To put it bluntly, this movie ain't bad...in fact it's actually pretty good.

I won't deconstruct the plot for you...if you're interested enough to be reading this you probably at least know the jist of it anyway. But it's a solid and interesting plot that sets up a very fun and entertaining action adventure flick. Visually its in many ways a departure from typical Burton fair but his stamp is definitely evident in its art direction, and the atmosphere he creates in this jungle/desert/urban/high tech universe is really something to behold. The apes are not only impressive in terms of makeup but they are also creatively impressive from the choices of the species to match personalities, the incredible costumes and simply perfect performances by a cast who act through all that latex. And while I'm praising I'll also throw up a shout out for Danny Elfman's great score, which just might be one of his best.

The only caveat I'll lay on the movie is that the twist ending, obviously conceived to rival the famous twist of the original, kind of falls flat. BUT...considering how many instalments the original franchise had I have no doubt that the producers had hoped to make a sequel had this film been more financially successful, and had that sequel been made maybe we would've learned the story behind this twist and all would've been forgiven.

It's a little too late to say, 'long story short,' but I will anyway. Give this movie a fair shot. It may not be without its flaws but how many movies are? Try not to compare it to the original, just watch it with a bowl of popcorn and have fun.

Escape from the Boulle planet.

[dbdumonteil · 6/10 · 29 August 2001]

Visually,this film is sometimes a splendor;the light falls on a crepuscular world.The Apes' town is quite scary particularly when you see it from a distance ,as it stands out against an ominous sky.In the very beginning,the cast and credits are also successful,with an adequate martial music.The first third has some funny,parodic and sometimes politically incorrect lines.In the second third,the movie begins to lose steam,although the discovery in the wrecked spaceship is a rather good idea. But that's not all good news.First of all,the hero lacks charisma and the apes and their sensational make-up simply overwhelm him and drown him out.On the contrary,majestic Charlton Heston,even when he was in chains,displayed a Shakespearian grandeur in the first version.

The last third consists in battles,a "second coming" and the "astonishing" ending without which..that would not be "planet of the apes".Actually,the new ending was borrowed from Pierre Boulle 's novel,but not without adding a mathematically unlikelihood which will give you headaches if you begin to think too hard:the least they can do:Everything ,even the proper nouns from the French writer's book have been removed,even if some characters recall some of the Boulle/Shaffner version.Shaffner had contented himself with changing the astronauts' name(eg:Ulysse Mérou=Taylor) Hats off to Helena Bonham-Carter who brings warmth and emotion in a rather vapid cast:in a part close to that of Kim Hunter/Zira,she really asserts her distinctive identity. Tim Roth is effective as well,but his part is less so.David Warner and Kris Kristofferson are wasted.As a tribute to Shaffner(?)both Linda Harrison (an unidentified woman captured with Leo) and Charlton Heston (moaning his curse,which is,admittedly,funny)appear unbilled.

Tim Burton might be a director to remember.Although he has not made a genuine masterpiece yet,his filmography is already rich:"Sleepy hollow","Edward Scissorhands ,the marvelous "Ed Wood" (Martin Landau is unforgettable).But redoing "planet of the apes " was a hard task.Shaffner's movie followed a progression,it moved slowly,from the long introduction showing the three astronauts making their way across desolate landscapes to the stunning final shots with Heston and Harrison 's roaming down by the sea.Remember how long it took Taylor to convince Zira he was a thinking man!Here it seems natural to Ari almost as soon as she sees him,that Leo is no dumb idiot animal.And that's the last straw,even Tim Roth (some kind of cross between Shaffner's Cornelius and a pulp fiction baddie)pretty damn quickly believes too that that human is too clever for his own sake.

Tim Burton's so-so remake epitomizes the dearth of good scripts.Pierre Boulle's book is a golden mine and one could have written a coherent story out of it,different from that of the first version.Why not,for instance,introduce the two "astronauts" whose scenes open and close it,and turn Leo's adventures into a flashback?What about showing the love between the hero and the woman-animal ?And the son they had?And the menace this son represented for the simian race? All these ideas were left over by Shaffner's script writers and could have built a strong new tale.

The main flaw lies in the human beings:here,they speak -English!- ,they can reason,they can swim (!),they are (except for bubble head Warren)clever,so why the hell did the apes tame them?

As shallow as the water he crashlands in.

[seemore-3 · 21 August 2001]

After seeing Tim Burton's excellent Sleepy Hollow, and superlative Ed Wood, I was expecting much more of a character driven movie, with the characterization and spiritual philosopies that elevated the original movie out of the pure science fiction genre and into a cerebral adventure film with acutely observed social comments.

Unfortunately, the film suffers from poor script and direction right from the minute the astronaut crashlands.

They knew from the outset that they would never produce an ending to rival the original, and any cinema-goer in their right minds would never expect one. But they could have at least got the beginning right. Neither Mark Wahlberg's character nor the tension is ever developed, so when he is confronted by the apes: we feel nothing.

The humans, though they have the benefit of increased intelligence and speech, are poorly utilized. And Kris Kristofferson is criminally wasted.

The make-up and effects are, as you would expect, fantastic. However, despite improved flexibility in the make-up, there is little warmth in either the performances or direction that made millions of kids go ape-nuts in the seventies. Bonham-Carter's Ari, whilst convincing, is not a patch on Kim Hunter's Zira. Roth's quite brilliant performance as Thade virtually carries this film and makes it the one reason to stick with it to the end.

Did I say end? Well, the less said about that the better.

remake?

[kairingler · 7/10 · 3 June 2014]

First off I haven't seen the original, so that leaves me free and clear of bias. I knew going into this movie however that Charlton Heston was in the original,, and he does make a cameo in this one,, Second, I've seen a few Tim Burton movies so I knew going in that some of the movie was going to be way out there, on a different level as most of his movies and ideas are. That said I just sat back and enjoyed the movie,, Mark Wahlberg,, aka,, Marky Mark. plays an astronaut on an American Space Station sent to do some research he has an ape with him,, and then they hit an electromagnetic storm and are sent crashing into a different planet in the future where apes rule the humans,, pretty fascinating concept if you ask me,, anyways, I enjoyed the movie,, mainly because I never seen the original,, so I didn't have time to sit there and judge one versuses the other,, maybe when I do see the original , I will change my mind,, but for now , I 'll stick with this opinion.

Best Remake Ever.

[SilverGrimmSnow · 6/10 · 31 December 2011]

To all the people who said this film sucked, it didn't suck in my opinion.

The Directing, Script, Visual Effects, and performances were spectacular.

I think that Mark Wahlberg did a better performance than Charlton Heston, and that it didn't have anything bad in this film.

This was better than the 1968, with a cliffhanger ending, and had many other better actors and actresses in the film.

Better story (Although the same), and I thought that the villain was epic and amazing.

I think this film needs a sequel to continue after what happened to Leo when he crash landed in the alternate Earth.

Planet of Shallowness

[basrutten · 3/10 · 27 August 2002]

Thank you Hollywood. Yet another movie classic utterly ruined by a cheap, shallow, effect-heavy and redundant remake. The original "Planet of the Apes" was an intelligent and thought-provoking movie with a very clear message. It was a movie that focused almost entirely on dialogue, which sounds very dull but was in fact very interesting.

This movie, on the other hand, seems to have done away with pretty much ALL the dialogues. Instead of a great movie we get an incredibly stupid two hour chase movie. Dialogue has been reduced to a mere minimum, character interaction and development are non-existent and most of the time it's extremely hard to figure out what's going on. Instead, we get a bunch of pointless action scenes, some marginally funny one-liners and some very hollow quasi-intelligent conversations.

The only thing worth mentioning about this movie is that it looks absolutely fantastic. The make-up of the apes is magnificent, and the sets and backgrounds are beautiful too. However, this does not distract from the fact that "Planet of the Apes (2001)" is a very shallow and simplistic movie, filled with paper-thin characters, stupid dialogue and a nearly non-existent plot. Please Hollywood, stop ruining great movies by turning them into senseless blockbusters.

Oh yeah, the ending did not make ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER.

* out of **** stars, mainly for the visuals

Oh, Tim, I'll forgive you

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 6/10 · 3 December 2003]

It's not bad, but not a masterpiece that Tim usually cooks up. I mean, I wasn't really into this film. It got kind of boring at parts. And Mark plays the same character he usually does in every film. Intense, angry guy. Well, I wouldn't recommend this to Tim Burton fans, you'll just cry.

6/10

Marky Mark's Planet Of The Apes

[dunmore_ego · 3/10 · 2 September 2003]

Warning: Spoilers Galore!

Tim Burton remaking this sui generis movie is about as sensible as remaking Psycho - oh, that's right, some idiot already did that - I rest my case.

Movie opens with chimpnaut blundering a simulation, proving he's not that smart from the outset. Marky Mark appears in shot without his characteristic underpants showing, then is turned down by a plain woman who prefers the touch of chimpanzees.

The perfunctory establishing shot of the space station orbiting Saturn for no apparent reason, interior of ship a-bustle with genetic experiments on apes. Must we travel 1,300 million kilometers to Saturn to conduct these experiments? The special effects team decrees it.

Marky's chimp gets lost in that staple of 60s sci-fi cinema - the Time Warp. Marky then demonstrates the space station's mind-boggling security ineptness by stealing a pod without anyone noticing, while simultaneously demonstrating his abject stupidity in mounting a deep-space rescue mission into a worm-hole for an expendable test chimp, with a million dollar vehicle with limited fuel and oxygen supplies.

Before anyone can say `Pointless Remake' Marky has surfed the worm-hole, crashed on an alien planet, removed his helmet without any thought to the lethality of the atmosphere and is being chased through a sound stage that almost resembles a lush rainforest, if it weren't for the kliegs backlighting the plastic trees.

Surprise! It's APES doing the chasing - or at least, it *would* have been a surprise if no one saw Planet Of The Apes THIRTY-THREE YEARS AGO.

Since Marky Mark did not get to show his pecs, take down his pants, or bust his lame whiteboy rap, he was characterless. Michael Clarke Duncan's gorilla teeth being inserted crookedly helped immensely in establishing *his* lack of character. Helena Bonham-Carter (aka irritating chimp activist), at a loss without a Shakespearean script, did a fine job of outdoing both Marky and Clarke as Most Cardboard Cutout. Paul Giamatti, the orangutan slave trader, secured the role of token comic relief and interspecies klutz. Though I have grown bilious in hearing puns relating to this movie, one review headline captured the essence of this Planet Of The Apes `re-imagining': `The Apes Of Roth'. While everyone else minced about looking like extras from One Million Years BC or Greystoke, Tim Roth, as Chimpanzee Thade, chews massive amounts of scenery and hurls kaka splendiferously. As entertaining as his portrayal of the psychotic Thade was, his character lacked a behavioral arc: Thade is mad when we first meet him... and he's pretty much at the same level of mad at film's end. Nice twist.

The original POTA (1968) featured a leading character, Charlton Heston's Taylor, who was so disenchanted with mankind that he left earth for space with no regrets - yet as that film progressed, Taylor unwittingly found himself locked in a battle to prove mankind's worth - as their sole champion! The original film was ultimately a tale of humiliation, not salvation: when Taylor discovers the Statue of Liberty, he is forced to realize that his species had NOT prevailed. Is there anything that cerebral or ironic to Marky Mark's Leo? Or Roth's Thade? No, but there's lots of running.

The slogans cry: Take Back The Planet .but it's the APES' planet. In this movie, humans and apes crash-landed here together, the humans having degenerated to cavepeople, allowing the apes to acquire speech and sensual body armor; the apes DESERVED to inherit the planet! Along comes Marky Mark, in true anthropocentric arrogance, taking it for granted that humans HAVE to be the apex predators, simply because they're there. `Taking it back' is as ludicrous as apes landing here in 2001, complaining, `A planet where men evolved from APES??!!' and then causing trouble with their overacting and hairy anuses.

Heston was cast in the 1968 POTA because he had established his reputation as a maverick: he WAS Ben-Hur, Michelangelo, Moses! To cast him as the mute, dogged animal in an alien society was to stupefy an audience's expectations: how crazed must a world be where Our Man Charlton cannot command respect? Marky Mark has currently only established that he has tight underpants.

Though Heston was denigrated constantly by the ape council, he dominated the screen with his charisma and stupendous overacting. When Marky Mark tries to instill fervor in the mongoloid humans, it's like that unpopular guy in school suddenly being made classroom monitor, who tells you to stop drawing penises on the blackboard and you throw a shoe at him. Burton tries to elevate Marky to humanity's icon, but he comes off as a chittering deviant. In the original film, the apes deem Taylor a deviant, yet he was, to audience and apes alike, an icon of humanity. That irony again.

It was apt that a man who elevated scene-chewing to an acting technique - Heston - should play the father of this film's primo scene-chewer, Thaddeus Roth. As Roth's ape-dad, Charlton utters his own immortal lines, turned against the HUMANS this time, `Damn them! Damn them all to hell!'

The movie gets dumb and dumber towards the end. While Thaddeus is giving Marky an ass-beating lesson, a pod descends from on high with Marky's chimpnaut in it. Apes demonstrate their hebetude by bowing in obeisance to this incognizant creature, while Marky proves his own hebetude by muttering, `Let's teach these monkeys about evolution.' Firstly, they're not monkeys, you ape! Secondly, it was genetic tampering and imbecilic plot fabrications which brought the apes to this point, not evolution. And what you intend to teach them by blowing them away with the concealed lasergun is called misanthropy, not evolution.

Giving away the twist ending would only confuse viewers into believing that Estella Warren's half-nekkid role was actually integral to the plot (be still my pants.).

No matter that he was humankind's last underpanted hope; in the end, cop apes take Marky away to Plot Point Prison where he was last heard ululating, `It's a madhouse! A MADHOUSE!!...'

Not sure what the deal with the hate is but this is an awesome adaptation

[UniqueParticle · 7/10 · 18 October 2020]

Mark Wahlberg was perfect this role especially with his physique! I'm the sure there could've been a better director but Tim Burton did pretty good with his own style; he definitely has done better. I feel like this Planet of the Apes deserves more credit despite any flaws! I'm one of very few that think the ending is brilliant and the way things play out is pretty solid.

A stinker in a summer of stinkers

[Mike_A · 3/10 · 16 August 2001]

This movie merely goes through the motions. The story just moves along with little emotional connection or suspense. The "climax" creates some interest but is over far too quickly.

Sure the apes are impressive but much of the effect is obscured by the darkness that shrouds 80% of the movie.

Oh and then there's the ending which is the biggest sham I've yet to see in movies. It leaves you feeling like you were just scammed out of your money, taking place in a marketing gimmick. I am refering to the blatant set up for a sequel.

Hollywood seems content just to fill cinema's on hype without trying to give any satisfication to those foolish enough to waste there money (or think this one will be any different from the last 10)

Wait for DVD.

Mike

Fun on its own terms ...

[Vic_max · 8/10 · 22 June 2008]

For any sci-fi fan, it will be hard to resist watching this movie. The original Planet of the Apes (POTA) opened the door to this new world and made it interesting and believable.

This movie is very different than the original. About halfway though, it is clear this movie is going in a different direction. Basically, a astronaut crash lands on planet populated by apes (the dominant species) and humans (the ones who exist in the wild, and as slaves). Soon after he is captured, he picks up the homing beacon to a rescue ship... and the story progresses from there.

That's a pretty great setup, and the story progresses in a totally different direction than the original. I really appreciated that because it made the movie all the more interesting.

The special effects were one of the big treats of this movie. Not only do we get scenes with the spacecraft, space station, etc. at the beginning (unlike the original), but the character makeup of the apes was fantastic. The variety of body builds, faces, personalities, etc. was very entertaining to watch. Somehow they made Helena Bonham Carter look "sexy" as a young animal rights activist/chimpanzee... and Tim Roth look more threatening and aggressive than just about any character I've seen in the movies. Brilliant work.

The ape habitats were also kind of cool. If you want to know what an ape kitchen, dining room, bedroom, etc. looks like, you'll get a peek in side some of them in this movie.

All the thematic hallmarks of the original are present (role-reversal, overt prejudice and cruelty, fight for equal-rights). While they are probably not as impactive as they were given how times have change, they still deliver a sting about who unpleasant such a society is.

While I wouldn't say this is as strong a movie as the original, it is still a fun movie see and worth checking out.

Worth watching for those who missed out on it

[troy-manatunga · 7/10 · 9 June 2011]

Despite some unbelievable pod landings, "Planet of the Apes" a movie that attracted negative reviews at the time was one that is my personal favorites. A decade later I decided to pop the movie in and give it another go. Yep, I still feel the same! Love the movie, love the makeup and costuming, love the themes discussed and by all means, love the cliff hanger Tim Burton uses in the end. I have all kinds of love for this movie. Seems like Tim Burton had a vision of more movies in the Ape regime; sadly for some of us it just did not see its way through due to the entire mixed acceptance back in 2001. Tim Burton as all you readers are aware is quite unorthodox and eccentric in his directorial choices. For those of you who are not as familiar as some of us, he gave us "Alice In Wonderland" , "Sweeney Todd", "Corpse Bride", "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" "Sleepy Hallow" & "Edward Scissor Hands" to name a few. If you are a reader who follows movies not by trailer but by director, 8 out of 10 have watched all of the above. "Planet of the Apes" with comparison to Burton's style is quite different. It's a Sci Fi that discuss themes of Animal Cruelty, Humans vs Nature and also if you want to be scoffer who hates this movie, a remake of classic Sci Fi from 1968. I respect classics, however what if I can watch it done slightly better. The costuming and make up is brilliant in comparison to the classic. However my intention is not to compare this with the reputed classic. 5 Stars and a round of applause for the magnificent work put in by the team with the makeup and costuming. For a movie made a decade ago this is brilliant, I have watched movies done in the past 2 years that can't even hold a candle to this effort. There is a lot of emotion that is required to be conveyed, which was a vital element to carry out the emotional wave. Giving the extra advantage of excellent facial movement makes it so realistic, never would I have for a moment felt, it is false and it is just a movie. I was right there in the middle of it all. Thumbs up yet again! As much as I respect Mark Wahlbergs performance, I have to side with Tim Roth on this one. Bold performance! The ferocity, the valor, the true determination to make every human suffer he nailed it all. Tim Roth although under so much of makeup, has his presence; he is just scared to look at. He is the meanest Ape I have seen so far. Helena Bonham Carter, who later marries director Burton in real life, was convincing and also was the vital link that ties human affection and animal cruelty on a broader perspective. Personally though I felt that Carter has so much more potential is capable of contributing more. (But wait! Am I comparing her to who she has become before she became?)

We do not realize what it is like to be caged, or to be treated as pets or even as beasts, but seems like there is much to fathom from this, animals feel as much as we do. These are lessons for some of us who beat our pets up, or for those who don't leave a clean bowl of water for your dog every day. Doesn't look too great when the tables are turned does it? Also we humans don't realize that once done, certain things can never be undone (You have to watch the movie till the end to understand this). Wahlberg clearly states in the movie that we humans hurt each other way more than we hurt animals on his home planet? Have you ever stopped to think how true that it is? With such beautiful themes that are very well deeply hidden it disheartens me that this movie never got the place it rightfully still deserves. A decade is a long time, but the copies are still out there. I am pretty certain that most of the younger generations never have seen this one; just like back in 2001 I had never seen the 1968 classic!

Burton is no good as a gun-for-hire director

[Clive-Silas · 3/10 · 13 March 2003]

If there's one thing that annoys me most in seeing a bad film, it's seeing it done by experienced film-makers who ought to know better. This "re-imagining" of Planet of the Apes could have used some imagination, to say nothing of essential elements of character development. Nova, the girl in the original Planet of the Apes, was a better developed character than Daena in this version, for all that she does not say a single word. One certainly expected a lot better from Tim Burton, a man who has hitherto combined an incredible visual imagination with intelligence, wit and humour, all of which were notably absent from this production.

There were problems in basic plot development. The first big mistake was allowing the humans to talk. This was the fundamental difference between apes and men that made *all* the difference in the original film. Even while he was mute, his ability to communicate was what marked out Heston's Taylor as being different from the other humans. In the current film, Mark Wahlberg encourages the (talking) human slaves to revolt, but there is no overpowering reason for them to have not revolted and reclaimed their emancipation already. They are dexterous tool-users and have the ability to communicate in order to form plans, something mute humans can't do. It needs no man to fall from the stars to save them. Indeed, since he comes from a technological civilisation and finds himself in a pre-technology era without (at first) any gadgets to help him, it is Wahlberg who ought to be at a disadvantage, not the humans who are used to living there.

It was sad to see Helena Bonham Carter working so hard to generate some kind of spark between herself and that unresponsive brick wall Mark Wahlberg. Her best scenes were with the villainous Tim Roth.

The humans were practically ignored until they were needed in the third act, at which point Daena started showing some actual interest in Davidson (Wahlberg), and a young boy suddenly changed from part of the background to a feisty gung-ho freedom-fighter. This was poor character development. (Estella Warren, in particular, looked as if she would have been capable of a great deal more than she was given in the script). Wahlberg's puzzlement at the end as to what these humans see in him was certainly shared by me, as he has scarcely interacted with the humans throughout.

Creating the apes: half a plus point and two minuses: Ape make-up was excellent on the males, particularly Michael Clarke Duncan who has incredibly expressive eyes (which was why he was so good in The Green Mile), and the makeup design allowed him to use them fully. But the ape females looked like nothing on earth, neither ape nor human. The minuses were the ape jumps which looked about as realistic as Flash Gordon's rocket: jumping apes looked as if they'd just been fired from a catapult, they had none of the long-limbed grace of genuine apes. Secondly, the poor sound mixing - when the gorillas roar it is quite clearly dubbed from some animal, probably feline, making them sound ridiculous and unrealistic.

In the original film, the various "human" things the apes do and say are handled as light relief ("I never knew an ape I didn't like." "Human see, human do!"). Here, the apes just talk matter-of-factly exactly as 21st Century humans do, and there is no humour in it at all. The only genuinely original idea was Ari writing with her feet.

Nothing made me cringe more than the "V-Ger from Star Trek" moment near the end of the film. First of all, the apes had apparently been able to read Roman lettering in the distant past, for them to know the name of the Forbidden Zone in its partly concealed form. Secondly, the mysterious inscription giving the name is merely covered with sand which Wahlberg just brushes away, something any ape could have done centuries ago. This moment was, for me, far worse than the much-maligned ending of the movie.

Things of that nature, however, are typical of most science fiction movies of today. Back in the '60s and '70s, they generally didn't have the budget to make convincing futuristic sets, but they dealt with genuinely original themes and ideas which were truly science fictional. I'm thinking of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the 1967 Planet of the Apes, THX1138, Soylent Green, Silent Running and the 1972 Solaris. The first Planet of the Apes even utilised the only scientifically valid and physically possible method of travelling forward in time. However, this film includes just about every bad science fiction cliché going: space storms, anomalies and worm holes straight out of Star Trek; the planets of the solar system and their moons apparently all visible together as large globes (in reality from any one planet, all other bodies, even their own moons, are just points of light); a conventional rocket powered shuttle travelling from Saturn to Earth in a matter of minutes instead of years; two-thousand year old equipment firing up and fully working the minute the hero presses the button. To say nothing of a conveniently bulletproof internal glass door. In a contemporary setting, you'd have to explain *why* it was bullet proof, but because it's "science fiction" you don't have to!

Overall, Burton's most disappointing film.

"Apes Lite"

[lwjoslin · 27 August 2001]

Tim Burton's new "Planet of the Apes" is actually a remake--excuse me, a "re-imagining"--of the first TWO movies of the old series. Its occasional paraphrasing of lines from the original movie (devoid of any meaningful context), and its cameos by members of the original cast (Charlton Heston and Linda Harrison), only underscore that this new version isn't what the original was, i.e., an original. Mark Wahlberg, as Our Hero, has none of the cynical, edgy complexity of Heston's Taylor, and is in fact the sort of can-do flyboy Taylor found laughable. Much as I adore Helena Bonham Carter, her turn as Ari, a sultry, sexy, meddling, annoying human-rights activist, is ultimately tiresome, and absolutely incomparable to Kim Hunter's brave, brilliant, impish Zira of the old series. The role is also a criminal waste of Bonham Carter's beauty, hidden as it is behind a bizarre makeup that looks neither ape nor human. Rick Baker's highly-touted ape makeups (which I've enjoyed since the days of "Schlock" and "Kentucky Fried Movie") are highly uneven here. Tim Roth's villainous Thade has the best, with most of the rest being just adequate and no particular improvement over John Chambers' work in the original. And the socko ending (keep reading; I won't spoil it for you) is simply tacked on: unlike the jolting end of the original, it neither ties together nor arises from the movie's earlier action in a way that Explains Everything. Instead, it begs so many questions (mainly "How the heck did THAT happen?") that it seems engineered (or contrived) solely to set the stage for more sequels. All told, this is "Apes Lite," a comic-bookish caricature of the original, made for the short-attention-span crowd. It made me want to do something I hadn't done in ages: fire up the VCR and roll the original again. It's typical of the 1968 movie's gritty, clever irony that the first word of dialogue uttered by an ape--his entire line, in fact--is "Smile."

A Mixed Bag, but Ultimately a Decent Addition to the Apes Saga

[Wuchakk · 6/10 · 14 March 2014]

YEAR: 2001 DIRECTOR: Tim Burton COUNTRY: USA RUNTIME: 119 minutes

THE PLOT: An astronaut (Mark Wahlberg) crashlands on a planet ruled by apes where humans are considered animals and slaves, even though they are intelligent and can speak. The astronaut soon leads the humans to revolt.

I don't think there's any question that Tim Burton really knows how to make a film look great. And so it is with this remake of "Planet of the Apes." The locations, sets, ape make-up, costumes, cast, score (Danny Elfman) and direction are all outstanding. Just as good as the original film and, in many cases, even better. Unfortunately, the overall results are a mixed bag.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: The biggest problem with this remake is that there is no build-up of mystery. Wahlberg crashlands to the planet very early on in the story, just like in the original film. Unfortunately, as soon as he lands he's IMMEDIATELY thrust into the ape/human conflict, captured and taken to the ape city. This flashes by so quickly that the viewer could easily MISS IT ALL if s/he got up for a few minutes to get something from the kitchen!! The original took its time in this matter; Taylor (Heston) and his fellow astronauts obviously crashland in the middle of nowhere and explore the planet for a long period of time before eventually encountering the inhabitants of the planet. It's all very mysterious, and there's a lot of build-up to the ape revelation.

It's also highly unbelievable that Wahlberg would crashland right into the midst of the human/ape conflict. The planet is the size of Earth, so what are the chances that he'd land right in the middle of the fray? I suppose Burton and the writers didn't want the film to bog down once Wahlberg crashlands, but couldn't they have at least given us FIVE MINUTES of exploration time, giving the impression that Wahlberg searches for a fairly long period of time before encountering the humans and apes? As it's presented it's simply too unbelievable.

This is a major misstep; and because it happens so early in the film it strongly tempts most intelligent viewers (who naturally MUST have some reasonable amount of believability to enjoy sci-fi) to lose faith in the picture and tune out or, at least, become excessively critical of the remainder of the film.

Another problem with the picture is that I just simply failed to really get caught up in the characters and their story. There needed to be more character-defining dialogue. A well written script causes the viewer to be CAPTIVATED by the storyline. Well, I never fully got captivated.

These factors explain why I was severely let down when first viewing the film at the theater in 2001.

WHAT WORKS: Seeing the film again recently, I was braced for these flaws and willing to suspend disbelief to (try to) enjoy the story. I now conclude that there are numerous worthwhile qualities to the remake.

For one thing, although Mark Wahlberg is no Charleton Heston (Taylor was Heston's greatest role and performance IMHO), I think he does a great job as the protagonist. Helena Bonham Carter is also fabulous in the Zira-like role of Ari; she really brings Ari to life and makes her unique. And as beautiful as Linda Harrison was as Nova, Estella Warren pretty much blows her out of the water in the counterpart role of Daena. Unfortunately her character is shallow and we never get a satisfyingly good look at Estelle in all her voluptuous glory. But, no matter, what we DO see is breathtaking.

Tim Roth is utterly evil as the villainous Thade. This is very much in contrast to Dr. Zaius in the original, who was actually a very noble character. Lastly, the giant Michael Clarke Duncan is magnificent as the gorilla general, Thade's "friend."

As to be expected, the ape make-up is WAY better than the original, even though I still love the job they did in the earlier film. The ape characters don't only look more like highly evolved apes compared to the original, they walk, talk, howl, grunt, jump, fight and climb more like real apes.

The ape city sets are fabulous too, albeit a bit too dark for my tastes. I find this unbelievable and verging on cartooney. I know Burton is into Goth and therefore prefers dark lighting, but it would be nice to actually SEE the wonderful sets made for the film (or perhaps he doesn't want the viewer to get too good a look and see how artificial they really are? I don't know, I'm just guessing).

I also liked all the homages to the original film -- the various lines, Linda Harrison, Charleton Heston as Thade's dying father, etc.

Although numerous people had a problem with the ending, I think they did a good job. How else better to end it? Notice how the camera mysteriously shoots from behind the "Lincoln Memorial" just like the original does with the Statue of Liberty.

FINAL ANALYSIS: Despite a couple major flaws there's a lot to appreciate in Burton's remake. It's not as good as the original or "Beneath," but it's, at least, on a par with "Escape." And it's certainly better than "Conquest" and, especially, "Battle."

The bottom line is that Tim Burton's remake of "Planet of the Apes" is a worthwhile addition to your apes film collection. For serious "Apes" fans it's even mandatory because, even though -- OVERALL -- it doesn't come close to the greatness of the original (or "Beneath"), it has numerous singular aspects that surpass it.

GRADE: C+ or B-

Aged well

[lenny-22959 · 7/10 · 1 April 2022]

It's April first 2020z.

Feeling very nostalgic. Went on date in 2001 in Germany while in the army. I was 18 years old. I feel asleep during the film. I'm now 39 watching it for second time. It's not bad don't understand the hate.

Apes for dummies

[FlickJunkie-2 · 3/10 · 25 January 2002]

This film is another of director Tim Burton's attempts to capitalize on a familiar title to bring his `vision' to the screen. He has done it with `Batman', `Sleepy Hollow' and now this. This is not a remake. The only thing it has in common with the original is that it has simians that can speak (and Charleton Heston makes a cameo). Burton has reconstituted the entire story, watering it down for today's mass viewership.

The original Planet of the Apes was a product of its time. During the 1960's America was struggling to redefine its civilization. It was a turbulent time of soul searching and rethinking social norms. It was the civil rights era where groups long considered inferior demanded to be treated as equal. In that context, POTA was allegorical, reflecting the philosophical turmoil confronting the audiences of the day. POTA was an extremely intelligent film that broached difficult questions and elegantly held the oppressions of American society up to scrutiny by making the white guy justify his intelligence to a species he considered inferior. The dialectic between Colonel Taylor (Charleton Heston), Dr. Cornelius (Roddy McDowall) and Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter) was thought provoking and intelligent with ironies both subtle and obvious.

Burton's version is as much a product of today's times as POTA was of the sixties. This is Apes for Dummies. It is superficial and jejune, substituting politically correct platitudes for intelligent dialogue and focusing more on form than substance. The `surprise' ending is utterly incongruous and contributes nothing to the film except a cliffhanger that sets up the sequel. While the ending of the original POTA gracefully tied everything together in a single powerful scene, Burton's ending simply mocks the audience, taunting, `I know something you don't know, and you are going to have to wait for the sequel to find out.'

From a technical perspective, as is always the case with Burton's film, the film is excellent. The makeup is fantastic and Burton's camerawork is outstanding (though I continue to dislike his dark look). However, thirty-three years of advancements in prosthetic makeup can not compensate for the insultingly vacuous script.

The story has been reduced to a monster movie. The humans band together behind Captain Davidson (Mark Wahlberg) to fight the monstrous Apes, aided and abetted by a few turncoats (notably Helena Bonham Carter as Ari). The presentation is formulaic and simplistic with plenty of violence, perfect for today's fast food mentality.

The acting is mixed. Mark Wahlberg is a fine actor who is simply miscast in this role. Walberg is excellent at playing dark, sullen characters that are tormented but strong. This part requires an inspirational hero, a profile not in Wahlberg's repertoire. Helena Bonham Carter is a brilliant actor whose character is so far beneath her ability that the disconnect is laughable. She tries desperately to do something with the flimsy character, but her interpretation presents like a cross between a college peace demonstrator and love sick teenager.

Then there is Tim Roth. His is a virtuoso performance, single-handedly saving the film from total ruin. Roth is diabolically hateful as the malevolent General Thade. He creates one of the most villainous and despicable bad guys I can remember in some time. Additionally, his physical acting is superlative, rendering a chimp-man that is such a perfect meld that one can almost believe that the species exists.

This film is a great disappointment. It is decent entertainment, as long as you check your brain at the door. I rated it a 3/10. From a technical perspective it is much better than that, perhaps a 9/10. However the story is an insult to the original franchise. It is simply another attempt by Burton at self adulation, using a familiar title to attract throngs to the box office so lots of people can see what a genius he is. Of course it's true, but it would be great if he used that talent to produce substantial films, instead of simple minded pap formulated for mass consumption.

A planet where the apes oppress the humans.

[esteban1747 · 7/10 · 16 September 2001]

The miseries, believes and thoughts of our planet Earth are shown in another planet where higher apes rule. This is a good film for entertainment. The major deficiency is that the apes speak English and the hero, an astronaut is not coming from Russia, Germany, United Kingdom or Japan. No, as usual is another Flash Gordon-like North American. The end of the film is perhaps its best moment when the hero back to Washington D.C. discovers that during his absence the planet was invaded and governed by the same apes.

Not nearly as good as the original.

[zdz8888 · 1/10 · 2 August 2001]

This is a sorry excuse for the Planet of the Apes title. It doesn't make you think, it doesn't hold your, but it does re-affirm the belief that Marky Mark is one of the worst actors in Hollywood.

The movie starts out with Marky Mark and his funky bunch floating around in space for no apparent reason. They use monkeys as subjects for experiments and also send them out in pods (very similar to Kubrick's in 2001, in fact their whole space station looks the same, more to come on that...) to do experiments.

Well they find some weird force field stuff and send a monkey out. What else happens but they lose communication. Well Marky Mark, being the animal lover that he is, goes out and tries to save his monkey friend. But, alas, he is sucked through the force-field-black-hole-blah-blah and crash lands on a strange planet. He lands in the midst of a human round up where the apes are getting the humans to sell in the slave market.

The main symbolism in this movie is racism. Unlike the first movie, the people in this movie can talk. After the apes catch the humans, they sort them out in groups of male and female. Hmm, sounds like a Nazi concentration camp to me. The apes don't notice that Marky Mark is wearing a weird space outfit and everyone else is wearing rags made from animal skin.

Marky Mark realizes that apes don't like humans too much so he tries to escape. He is helped by an "human-lover" Ari to escape the city.

SPOILER ALERT: They get out of the city and Marky Mark finds his old ship via GPS or something. He then realizes that the ship has been there for thousands of years and figures out he traveled through time. The movie never tries to make you think it is earth though. It's just some weird planet. You also find out all the monkeys they had on-board, all CHIMPS, are the apes now on that planet. Pretty hard to believe considering there are all types of great apes: gorilla, chimp and orangutan.

Anyway, they have a battle with the apes (hmmm, reminds me of....SPARTACUS, another Kubrick film). The humans win and Marky Mark leaves, without saying a word the entire last 10 minutes of the film, not even to the very hot Estella Warren who looks very good in her costume. He goes through the portal...blah blah....lands on earth.blah blah but is greeted by a monkey statue at the Lincoln memorial. (He crash landed right on the steps, don't ya know) and the movie ends. blah.

The first movie had a good surprise ending, leaving us realizing that man destroyed themselves as a result of their violence. This movie doesn't explain why apes and humans have changed places except with some stupid blurb by Charleton Heston explaining that man is violent, blah blah, that is why they cannot regaion control, blah blah. It's a case of "always has, always will be" or "segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forver" blah blah.

Stupid movie. blah.

See the Original

[epsilon3 · 6/10 · 6 March 2002]

I was expecting a lot from this movie as the original had a major influence on me and is a genuine Science Fiction classic. I enjoyed this re-imagining but it was just okay - not great. The acting was mediocre - the sets and special effects were good and the make-up was of course spectacular.

What really lets it down is the plot. For example, in the original film the human slaves couldn't speak, reinforcing the fact that the apes saw them as savages. When Taylor (Charlton Heston) spoke, it was a potent weapon against the apes' prejudice - the fact that he had language and thus cognitive abilities shook their entire belief system. In this movie the humans are chatting away normally which lessens the importance of Davidson's (Mark Whalberg) arrival.

And could somebody please tell me what the point of the blond woman was? Sure she is beautiful, but her character just felt tacked onto the plot to provide some eye candy.

I found the ending to be a big let down - again it was clumsily stuck into the film to provide that twist in the tail. It just didn't feel like it was part of the story, but more of an afterthought.

Despite my criticism, I enjoyed the movie. There's some great action scenes and hey - it's Planet of the Apes! There's nothing horribly bad about it - it just doesn't live up to the wonderful original.

Rent this one or wait for it to be on TV.

7/10

AWFUL!!!

[windegg · 1/10 · 31 July 2001]

"Why can't we all get along?" the Rodney King ape asks. Maybe it's because Hollywood insists on doing awful re-makes of classic movies! There is NOTHING worth seeing in this film (except, maybe, Charlton Heston's cameo). The remake is cliché-ridden, wholly predictable, and the ending makes no sense whatsoever . Why would anyone even THINK of tampering with a work of art like the original version of the Planet of the Apes? Avoid this travesty of a movie and rent the video of the 1968 classic.

A visually spectacular action movie.

[Shopaholic35 · 8/10 · 22 February 2014]

Personally I love this movie and cannot understand why so many other people disliked it. I respect the original for what it was but this version directed by Tim Burton is visually spectacular and exceeds expectations.

Nobody creates a fanciful world like Burton can and there is no better duo than Tim Burton and Helena Bonham Carter. The costumes for the apes are incredible with intricate details that look very realistic. The sheer enormity of the sets makes you realise how much energy and passion went into creating this film.

I love all the action, and the special effects still seem remarkable even after more than 10 years has past. Sometimes people can't move past the original but if you have never seen the 1968 version then I think you will enjoy this movie. Also it is perfect to watch again now that the new planet of the apes movie series has started to be released.

Do not expect a social message: this is an action flick

[arturmachado-29588 · 6/10 · 19 April 2016]

In this remake by Tim Burton (who had not the desired creative liberty), the focus is not so much on the story but more on the visuals, what makes this, basically, an action movie.

Plot: the beginning resembles the 1968 movie with some added prelude scenes. A test-monkey in a shuttle from a space-lab enters a space- time rift and the scientist in charge follows him, crashing on a planet where the dominant species are intelligent apes that enslave humans; the scientist is captured but manages to free himself and from here on out the movie is escape-pursuit action until the climatic final confrontation, with some stops here and there to add short dialogues that add nothing to the story. The final sequence divides opinions, being ambiguous and leaving questions unanswered, promising a sequel that never happened.

As incredible as it may seem, the 'apes' act way better then the humans. If you've already seen the 1968 and 70's installments, don't expect to find some social message in this remake. This is a pure entertaining action flick, and a decent one at that.

Burton slips on a banana peel

[petra_ste · 4/10 · 27 May 2007]

Whether one is a fan of Tim Burton or not, it's undeniable he has a gift for creating atmospheric, unique movies... with some exceptions, like this one.

An unworthy remake of the sci-fi classic with Charlton Heston (who has a cameo here), the film follows astronaut Leo (Mark Wahlberg), who ends up on a planet where intelligent monkeys are the dominant race and humans their servants. Leo escapes captivity and leads mankind against evil chimpanzee general Thade (Tim Roth) and his army.

The moment local humans opened their mouths to speak, I knew this was doomed. Not that a remake should fanatically mimic everything about the original (for example, Van Sant made a carbon copy of Psycho and the result was absurd): I'd argue some departures are necessary, otherwise why bother? But there are changes and changes. Humans being mute and beast-like was the WHOLE POINT OF THE STORY. In this remake they behave like normal human beings - it's as if a kid saw the original and grasped just the basic premise of "a planet with talking apes", with the meditation on humanity and religious fanaticism whooshing over his head.

Roth, an actor who can play effectively both nice and despicable individuals, is in full villain mode and chews scenery with glee. Helena Bonham-Carter also has fun as Ari. Wahlberg is bland as the insipid Leo; much like Brad Pitt, Wahlberg is a fine character actor whose talent appears to melt whenever he plays a conventional lead. Other cast members don't have much to do, their performances overshadowed by their costumes (and, in case of statuesque former swimmer Estella Warren, by her lack thereof). Make-up by Rick Backer is exceptional, the only real achievement of the movie.

The ending is terrible. First, a simian deus-ex-machina (now that's a satisfying climax!). And then, a final twist which does not and will never make *any* sense. What a sad, desperate attempt to find something as shocking as the original's brilliant twist.

4/10