Planet of the Apes (Double Digipack)

Rating:
Summary: Good movie
Review: I haven't seen any of the original Planet of the Apes movies and because of this perhaps I'm not being a harsh critic of this movie as others around here.
I liked this movie. Great special effects, good acting, interesting plot.
I sort of disliked the inconclusive ending.


Rating:
Summary: Remakes Are Mistakes
Review:
I cited in my Beneath review that the origional Planet of the Apes is my favorite film. When the various whispers of remakes in the trades led to this- and to the onslaught of reviewers who said that Burton succeeded- had 're-imagined' the concept, I still didn't want to see it. When Daryl Zanuck (Head of Fox) stated in a review I read a few days after the release of this, it depressed him that people thought it was a remake; that he was greenlighting an adaptation of the origional Boulle novel, I went.

After it was over, I walked up the aisle of the theatre and looked at the faces of others who had come, like me, to see what the hell the fuss was about. Their faces echoed mine! What the hell did we just watch? Did anyone actually watch the origional? Is this a joke or something?

I spoke with a number of 20 something's who thought it was a great remake. I had asked them whether they had seen the origional. Some had and some had not. I then asked for one 'great line'- one sentence in the screenplay, uttered by the central character that would lead all of the humans to follow him out into the desert to fight. No response. I then asked why the female ape committed herself to aiding the astronaut when barely a word had been exchanged between them during his initial captivity; anything that would remotely suggest a difference or intelligence that made him special from the other humans that surrounded them. They began to agree that seemed kind of lame.

Once again, not one line in the screenplay or in the writing to spark that kind of belief or development in the story. In the origional, we got to know what Taylor thought and believed- what he was looking for as he crossed the desert. The astronaut in this piece crashes and is in a net so fast, you wonder whether there's a gun under your theatre seat- whether you're supposed to grab it, shoot at the screen and claim a prize for saving the astronaut with the theatre owners! (Damn! I've probably just given some studio exec an idea for a promotion for the next remake in line!)

All that had been developed painstakingly in the first screenplay- and then performed so well with relish by the origional cast, played like a video game in this remake. And I have to say, I was really kind of stunned by some of the critical reaction praising this kind of work. It was very lame, two dimensional stuff. Cartoon, really.

I've read some of the reviews of this film- raves of a screenplay that barely rises above the origional novel. The problem with the novel (as the origional film team stated accurately) was that, although it was a fabulous idea, it was really non cinematic. If memory serves, it was a psychological study of 'what would it feel like if we were the ones in the cage, looking out '. That's a take that reads well but translates poorly when played. But it's funny because this remake also seems a mix of an idea that Boulle had pitched to Arthur P. Jacobs when he was asked to write a treatment for the origional sequel: 'Beneath'- (about Taylor leading a fight against the apes to reclaim the planet). Jacobs politely turned that down as uncinematic as well. He was right and I think this remake really demonstrates that; demonstrates the kind of real thinking that has to go on, to lift an idea and give it shape, scope and truth.

The onslaught of remakes that have come and gone lately(ie Lost In Space/The Time Machine/Frankenstein/I Spy/Starsky & Hutch)have got me feeling philosophical.

The origional producer of Apes, Arthur P. Jacobs, marched an idea that was fresh, new and different around for 3 to 4 years- had everyone in a business built on fantasy, telling him the idea would be laughed off the screen, and then they closed their doors. He pressed on and got others involved and excited about it (ie: Serling, Heston and Schaffner ).

They got it made and nobody laughed (except when they were supposed to). It became a classic because it was fresh and new, and everyone who worked on it brought the energy of wanting it to succeed.

It's about passion, I think.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is- I'd really like to see this generation get the chance to make their magic.

Give them the greenlight to chance their ideas- not ones that seem a sure thing for a fast but lame return. You can rush a film into a multitude of theatres, make huge money before the word of mouth reveals it for the turkey that it is. But considering what you initially spend on these things and what little you're contributing in effort, art or inspiration- what is the point?

What if Wells, Ford, Capra, Demille, Huston, Fleming, Whales and others had settled for and merely made the obvious?

None of us would be anywhere if we kept trying to climb and descend the same staircase, trying to look cooler each time we did it. There's only one letter that seperates cool from fool. And that's not much. Either are remakes.

Oliver Stone wanted to remake Planet- so did James Cameron, at one point. I think they both probably screened it, realized it was Schaffner's gem and it probably inspired them to get back to shooting for classics of their own. So should have Burton. Tim Burton is a visual genious. I love the look of his work and he has some classics in him, too.

This isn't one of them.

Appreciate the classics- learn from them, be inspired by them, then fight for the right to create your own. Read the history and then realize a baton is being passed.