La planète des singes

"Planet of the Apes" (2001), despite its title, is not exactly a remake or sequel to the old ape movies from the 1960s-70s. So much of the plot is different, I see it more as a reimagining of the story.

As far as this film goes, it isn't rated all that well. Additionally, the star, Mark Wahlberg, made public statements about how the studio ruined this film...mostly by giving the director Tim Burton impossible to meet deadlines...resulting in a rushed movie. You might want to know that I am a big fan of the original series...so impressing me won't be easy.

Speaking of impressing....the ape costumes and makeup are insanely good. I thought they were CGI but when I read Rick Baker actually used practical effects to make the apes, I was shocked. It is really amazing...and it makes we wonder how the newer ape movies could be better...that is, for the male apes. The female apes look creepy and almost like an entirely different species. They could have used some work.

The story is very different. It begins in 2029 on a space station. Captain Davidson (Wahlberg) goes out in a space craft during some weird space storm to retrieve a chimp astronaut (a 'normal' Earth-type chimp...not a scary one like you'll later see in the film). His ship goes out of control...flying through space and crashing on some planet controlled by apes.

These apes manage to be even crueler and meaner than those in the original films...as well as acting more ape-like. Among them, the most ardently anti-human and evil is Thade...and after the Captain an some other humans escape from their incarceration, he's excited about how to use this not only to kill humans but gain power.

So is this any good? Well, it's a heck of a lot better than the paltry 5.7 score it now has. It would have you think the film is very poor...and it certainly isn't. While I hate remakes and reimaginations, this one kept my interest and I enjoyed it very much. And, since the newer reboot is supposed to be better, the film has me wanting to see more.

By the way, the very end scene is neat...and makes no sense whatsoever...one of the weakest parts of the story, actually.

I remember the first time I watched the classic series for the first time, not too long ago. My initial impression: Shock. I had never before witnessed such a captivated tale. The series kept getting better with each movie. Not long after I found out that Tim Burton was to remake "The Planet of the Apes" and I asked myself, "Why bother?" The original series have hardly aged a bit and are still vastly entertaining to watch. Even though the original is over 30 years old, it doesn't feel like it at all. I felt there was no need for a remake. I saw the new film on opening day, and I have to say I was disappointed. The movie wasn't as shocking as the original. It wasn't as captivating. It wasn't anything like the original. The only thing that seemed to save it was the truly shocking twist ending. It really made me think for a while, but, eventually, I gave up. It didn't make sense to me at all. Then, I decided to throw all my initial thoughts of the film away and decided to go see it again for a second opinion, and, this time, I was blown away. Rarely do I see a film and loathe it only to go see it again and absolutley love it. I didn't compare it to the original as I did the first time, and I think that's the reason I completely hated it the first time around. Tim Burton really did an amazing job creating a whole new world of apes where humans are slaves. The cinematography, the set designs, and just about every technical aspect of the film is a marvel, especially the make up and costume designs. Danny Elfman's score is one of his best, and at times, very frightening. The acting is also top notch, from Wahlberg's subtle but heroic portrayal of Leo, to Roth who is absolutely stunning as General Thade. This has got to be the most impressive movie of the summer, if not the year, easily on par with "Hannibal". Just don't go see it and compare it with the original. My grade: A-

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

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?

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