Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Organnall Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

tankace I won't spend much time reviewing this film for in all honesty many critics have done that better than i could ever do it. This only a brief take to a unmitigated disaster.This film was one of the the most hyped of its era and it was thought that it could do it. A great director, a cast full of Oscar winner and nominees and extremely well made visuals and make-up, so what when bananas and made this film so bad?For ones it is almost the same with the original, second dialogue that makes me wish to be deaf, third a stiff acting and finally one of the most idiotic ending in film history. I honestly am unable to say anything more .If something is to be said is that this film destroyed the reputation of Tim Burton as a great director and from this point on he is but a shadow of his former glory, many actors reputation was stained by that film and it took them years to come back in to the spotlight. However in all this disaster there is one good thing that came out: A guide of how not to make a remake ,which future directors and studios can uses in order to make good films and I believe that it has help ,if the new trilogy of the Planet of the Apes films is any indication.

Thomas Drufke Reinventing a classic film is one thing, but if you're going to remake something beloved by film fans worldwide, do it for a reason. This Planet of the Apes reboot brings little to nothing new to the series with a brutally dull outcome.Look, it's easier said than done. Remakes and reboots have a lot of pressure and usually wind up being a waste of time. But there was serious potential here. With Tim Burton coming off a few solid films with Johnny Depp and box office success with Batman, you'd think he would have a grapple on what to do with the Apes franchise. Sadly, it was the exact opposite.The original 1968 classic was thought provoking and lead to a couple really well done sequels, but Burton's take is disappointingly more creepy and awkward than it is cerebral. I'm sorry, but I just don't care for seeing Mark Wahlberg have a strange romantic relationship with a female ape. Or, rather, an equally dull relationship with a human, played by Estella Warren. No chemistry between the two, whatsoever.But there are a few redeemable qualities surprisingly. Instead of a massive Statue of Liberty reveal at the end, Burton makes a few middle act changes that actually benefit the story in the long run. Having the very cause of the apes taking over earth being due to Wahlberg's mistake was interesting, but I'm just not sure it was earned. Something else that wasn't earned is the entire third act. Talk about an atrocious piece of mess, the third act tries to propose so many ideas and take twists and turns that it just all feels tiresome. Unfortunately, by the time the big battle comes around, you just don't care.It's easy to look at a film in hindsight and say it shouldn't have been made, but seriously, this Apes entry should not have been made. It wasn't yet the time where visual effects offered up the opportunity to do great motion capture or picture perfect-looking Apes (Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, 2014) and using old make-up was the wrong choice. It's nice for the 60's but using it in 2001 is a completely different entity. But the main problem is that the characters and story are second to an attempt to build out impressive set pieces. Tim Roth's one-note villain and the film's choice for romances make for one brutal viewing.+Some interesting subtle changes-Lack of reinvention-Awkward romances-No reason for 2001 to be the time for a remake4.6/10

bheadher In another ape universe far far away...sorry, I just hadda do it! Anyway, this reawakening of the ape universe something was left behind...like an amazing, coherent story that grabs every fiber of your being. Sure, it had the obligatory special effects that permeate todays theater world, but it also bears little resemblance to the original for which it was named. Yes, I am essentially a purist so for me if you find an equation that works don't mess with it! At least not much...this version simply did not have any of the magic, the wonder that was in every minute of the 1968 masterpiece. It felt like a pasted together puzzle of several story lines. Chimps are taught to fly souped up space pods for exploration, space storm captures pod with chimp inside, "handler" goes frantic and takes another pod to rescue chimp and gets sucked in to a space warp. OK, that's story one. Story two: chimp handler exits space warp and lands hard on "Earth", only to run into a Super chimp raiding party hunting humans as pets and workers...OK OK, so that is a sorta direct clone of the original. But the remaining 90% of the film is a third story of the handler being befriended by a "cute" female chimp who sympathizes, then she helps him free the oppressed humans. They fight a mini-war with thousands of war apes led by a deranged chimp general, and at the last second we have "missing chimp" arrive in his pod and all the warring apes bow down to "missing chimp" who just happens to resemble their God ape from antiquity...well, that takes you up to the last five minutes of the flick, which turns into a misguided attempt at irony. Not amazing, not incredible, certainly stressful to watch in its entirety.

classicsoncall I tried watching this film probably about five years ago and gave up the effort about half way through. Figuring I might have been having a bad day I decided to give it a try again. I'm glad I did because there was actually some thought provoking stuff here just as you had in the original film, with ideas explored concerning racial/species intolerance, animal rights, and the concept of equality in general. Some of it was presented in clichéd dialog, which I agree can be a turn off, but if you listen attentively, a lot of it is applicable to the present day. One of the most insightful was the observation that "The human problem cannot be solved by simply throwing money at it".There's an idea that occurred to me while watching the picture I haven't seen expressed anywhere else and it has to do with the names of the principal characters. The anagram of each name has a connotation that intrinsically describes the nature of that character. For example, take General Thade. An anagram of Thade would be Death, and he was certainly the personification of violent, deadly hatred toward humans. Others I came up with include: Semos = Moses, the mythical ape who was considered the savior of his race, having insured the place of apes above humans in a 'Promised Land' of sorts.Ari = Air, as in having an ethereal quality required to bridge an understanding between the apes and human inhabitants of the planet.Even the name of Mark Wahlberg's character has a Biblical reference if you will. Davidson = David's Son, or Son of David, a name often associated with Jesus Christ who was descended from the Family of David. I haven't read the Pierre Boulle novel on which the film was based, so I don't know if these were names he gave his characters, but if this word play regarding the characters is merely coincidental, the odds I think would be astronomical.Anyway, that's what I thought about while watching the picture. And what is good science fiction if not making you think about what you're watching and/or reading? Beyond that, there's no question the time/space implications of the story lend themselves to serious head scratching. Upon first seeing the ruins of the Oberon space station, the representation called to mind the spires on the crown of the Statue of Liberty which signaled an obvious swipe from the original movie. But then we got to the crux of the Calima business, and I thought that was done pretty cleverly.So all in all, I thought the film makers did a decent job here in re-imagining the original screenplay, while offering food for thought in any number of areas touched upon in the script. Probably more so than even the awkward ending with the Thade Memorial, my biggest question was why Captain Davidson left Pericles behind.