Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Bottom Line: True monkey business. Where is Charlton Heston when we need him?

Directed by: Rupert Wyatt
Starring: Andy Serkis, Freida Pinto, James Franco

1968 saw the release of PLANET OF THE APES, the first adaptation of Pierre Boulle’s French sci-fi novel of the same name. The film became an instant classic and inspired many follow-ups. It was in 2001 that another adaptation was made to the novel by Tim Burton, putting it in reverse, one could say. This shoddy remake of sorts should have been enough reason to leave the series, the concept, the story alone, but apparently it wasn’t.

Fast forward ten years later, to 2011. Now we have Rupert Wyatt, a director who is adapting the timeless story not for a remake, but for a prequel entitled RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. In this story of origin, we have Will Rodman (James Franco), a scientist developing a cure for Alzheimer’s (though apparently it’s supposed to cure other mental dysfunctions, as well). To test the drug, he uses gene therapy on chimpanzees. After a test, a chimpanzee goes on a rampage, sensing that her baby is in peril, resulting in her own death. After the unexpected situation, an animal professional is ordered to treat every single test chimp via euthanasia. When the professional struggles to euthanize one baby chimp (possibly the film’s only relief), Will takes the baby home, cares for him, and names him Caesar. It isn’t long before Will realizes Caesar has inherited the strong level of intelligence from his mother.

With the exception of the unintentional humor the apes bring, the entertainment level for RISE is just fine. It’s the low fidelity this heeds to its original from 43 years before that makes it such a confusing movie. Yes, believe it or not, it has been that many years, and this is an attempt to provide a backstory to the original from that long ago. With the strictly urban setting, the overflow of action sequences and special effects, and the overwhelming sense of futurism, RISE is 110% 2011, and it bears not the slightest bit of possibility that it could have been made similarly just shortly after the original film. Okay, maybe the film’s decency rose when HARRY POTTER’s Tom Felton delivered possibly the most memorable line in all animal movie history, that has been featured in just about every APES movie since the very first. Had that line not been delivered and the title not included the series’ name, it’d be very hard to tell that this had any relation to the classic it precedes. (Where is Charlton Heston when we need him???)

Note: The title is RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. Why not just add another “of the” statement and make yourselves sound completely unprofessional?


8 thoughts on “Rise of the Planet of the Apes

  1. This is the wrong opinion I’m afraid. This flick was one of the best of 2011 and for once, a proper high quality blockbuster rather than the throw-away pap we usually get from LA in the summer months.

    • I can see how it can be set apart from all the other actioners that we’re used to. We’re used to such movies that focus on neat action and act as if we can’t even pick up on the crappy dialogue and acting. This wasn’t one of those, but I found I was bored with it.

  2. This film was one of those rare instances where a box office success was also a critical hit. I can see why as I thought the film was quite good. I explained it best in my own review:

    “The star chimpanzee, Caesar, is a brilliant use of CGI created from a motion-capture performance by Andy Serkis. Renowned as Gollum from The Lord of the Rings trilogy, he’s crucial to the enjoyment of this science fiction. I’d actually go as far to say the full picture’s success rests with him. It’s a wonderfully expressive depiction. Caesar has an emotional progression that is comprehensive. A revolt becomes logical because his emotional trajectory is so believable. We truly mind what happens to this central figure since we’re emotionally invested in his growth.”

    • I watched it with your review in mind, actually. I felt surprised that you liked it. It didn’t seem like a film you would like, and had I seen it before you had (which rarely happens, anyway :D), I would have expected you to dislike it. It seemed like one that didn’t quite insult the original like Tim Burton’s version did, but it made it seem more like an out-of-date film than a timeless classic. I found it weird that the plot revolved around a cure for Alzheimer’s, too; don’t ask me why, I just did. 🙂

      P.S.: Is “Serkis” pronounced “circus”? And anticipate a review of The Lorax either tonight or tomorrow morning. It’ll be the first film I’ll have seen with an official 2012 release (that means not counting The Artist or The Descendants, both which I saw after they went into wide release earlier this year). 😀

    • Yeah, I’m glad someone agrees with me here. Films such as Jumper and Push have been unintentionally funny, dumb, and uneventful enough to be a mere show of special effects and action scene upon action scene. They got terrible reviews, yet Rise was virtually the same routine, and for whatever bizarre reason, it got massively great reviews. I feel I may have even overrated a slight bit.

    • I’m surprised so many people loved it. I didn’t really see more in it than special effects and action sequences. It struck me, personally, as dumb, confusing, unintentionally funny, and uneventful.

Comments are closed.