 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Damn. That's what I thought upon seeing the ending of this movie. For most of it Tim Burton had me. Sure, there were a few minor flaws but nothing I couldn't overlook. Except that ending. Damn.**1/2
Rob C
Follow Ups:
I found the plot of Planet of the Apes simplistic and boring. The ape makeup was superlative. The acting was acceptable. The sets were good; nothing special when you consider what can be done these days. It was a hoot to see Heston as the general's father. Overall, I would give it a 5.5 out of 10.
Always loved that quote. How are the facial effects of the apes? From what little I saw it was very impressive.
-best regards,Rich S.
My wife and I saw this movie twice, the second time in order to take a friend who missed it openning weekend. Second time around an interesting thing occured. That shaky ending became even more painfully obvious, but Tim Burton almost redeemed himself with the movie's bitingly satirical Liberal human vs Conservative ape subtext that isn't readily apparant first time out. Yes siree, it's there throughout the film and not at all subtle once you catch on to it, but it's certainly more obvious with a second screening!Viewed in this light, Tim makes REAL monkeys (so-to-speak) out of hard-nosed Conservatives by analogizing them to the militant and paranoid religion-driven apes. Of course, the "Liberal" apes that help Mark Wahlburg escape are the caring, compassionate and curious ones who don't agree with their societies fascist military culture. In the end, the commanding ape realizes that his loyalties have been misplaced, that the religious myths which have been passed down are all lies, and that both human and ape species must learn to co-exist in peace rather than continue on the path of subjugation, warfare and extermination.
Unfortunately, the tacked on "shaggy-dog" ending intended to one-up (i.e., an impossible task which the Producers and Director should've realized from the outset) the original movie's "Stature of Liberty" climax fails miserably and only provides a continuity faux pas that a blind man could drive a Mack truck through!
So, taking this film's good points along with it's bad, if I were involved in editing this picture for a future re-release, I would probably cut the entire final sequence leaving Mark Wahlburg to ponder his future with either the human female, the ape scientist or both and more accurately retitle it "Planet of the Right-Wing Guerillas" (You don't like that one? Okay, how about "Conservatives in the Mist?" -- grin)
Cheers,
AuPh
for some reason, I don't see too much politics in this one. Its supposed to address more basic questions, instead of those about 'liberal' or 'conservative'. And why American politics? why do they speak english? why can/do those apes tell 20ish-century american jokes with impeccable timing? People don't question these anymore.Although the first one was not too exciting, I think it still told a better story. Here, I don't know what the points of this remake are. If there're the same as the original's, then they did a terrible job in telling it. For example, the two main female characters (human, and ape) in the original movie are there to make the story more credible. The role of human girl for instance to me gives a very strong sense of rawness and primitiveness, and that adds up. Here's it seems the girls are there to provide sexual tensions, which by the way don't lead anywhere. When he kisses the ape girl, I saw that too clearly: in the original, the ape girl said, "...but youre so ugly...", here she kissed him back. What was that about?
Although I think its a ok action movie, I would characterize it as 'balf-baked', and in ways more that one. Mark Wahlburg is a good actor, and in each individually scene, he's somewhat believable. But on a whole, I don't know what purpose his role serves. The same for other things as well, e.g. the final show-down. I think the apes actually out-act the human and are much more coherent here. Tim Roth is very convincing from beginning to end. THe same for the girl ape. Perhaps, the human are just lazy, so if you put them behind masks, they have to act.
And when he had a chance to get back to Earch after thousands of years, he never questioned why, if its a good idea -- staying, he would have the girl (ape or human), the respect, etc... going, too much uncertainty. But there's a very good reason he didn't question these possibilities at all, and simply jumped into the ship and never wondered what the Earth looked like now after thousands of years... The reason is simple: they don't want to hint the audience at the surprised ending. This cheap shot really doesn't help story at al.
The costumes are really nice though. Then again, you'll have to follow the conservation law of stuffs. If you spend so much on the special effects, you'll have to skim back on other materials.
Overall though, an ok action film.
caa, the only place I differ with you is about the level of political analogy woven throughout the recent Planet of the Apes plot. This movie contains a strong political message which isn't at all difficult to pick up on, but now, after having gone to a second screening, I've noticed quite a few reviewers have focused specifically on this aspect of the film as well. Tim Burton himself would probably be first in line to agree with some of those observations about his intended political subtext.FWIW, you're right on target when you say that the first movie holds up better from a storytelling standpoint, and all of your observations about the motivations ascribed to both the human and ape characters rings true as well. For me, what stands out in this revised remake are it's effects, music, realistic ape make-up and contemporary political/religious analogies. IMHO, the original was more of an action film than the remake, but the original was also better crafted in just about every way. While half-baked may not be the most accurate description of Tim Burton's 2001 version, the ending certainly didn't come out of the oven fully cooked! ;^)
Well, it looks like we're pretty much in agreement; thanks for the comment.
AuPh
I can't believe that people are actually seriously analyzing this 'bit of entertainment'. Let's keep it in context, folks!
Is this a soapbox I see before me? Never mind, anyone who would go to see this movie *twice* (not to mention *once*) is already a goner.clark
Is that one or two thumbs up your... ??? ;^)Just teasin'!
AuPh
As the original had the 3 liberal orangutans portraying see no evil, hear no evil, & speak no evil, but the undeniable conservative chimpanzees' embrace of Taylor was the only potential for Ape developement. However, this was ostracised by the liberal communtity. Zaius was another example of liberal piety where lies are considered a superior morality to the truth.Or, did you want to spin those facts too?
....just my 2¢
» Mart £ «
Planar Asylum
where the speakers are thin but the music is anything but
Mart--Whatever, dude.
I guess Tim Burton felt compelled to monkey around with the original's subplot in view of how extreme the radical right has become, right? Seriously, I've scanned literally dozens of reviews of the original movie and Ape's film series, many through google, and nearly all of the critics drew exactly the opposite conclusion from yours (i.e., the chimpanzees who embrace Taylor are in fact Liberal, and the militant gorillas are Conservative and anything BUT compassionate!).I'll assume that you were just being facetious with that little righty-rant. :o)
AuPh
Why would a conservative take over a country through military power? We are interested in raising the economic tide to persuade the enemy unless they attack us for which we will have a stronger military than they. It's sort of like taking Karate in order to avoid a fight.In the last century, it was the mainly liberal socialist-communist & liberal national-socialist who have initiated violence in order to oppress more people & acquire more real estate through pure power.
But, I guess you'll spin that too.
....just my 2¢
» Mart £ «
Planar Asylum
where the speakers are thin but the music is anything but
llllllllllllll duhhhhhhhh,Read some history mate
> > it was the mainly liberal socialist-communist & liberal national-socialist who have initiated violence in order to oppress more people & acquire more real estate through pure power < <Nazis in Germany? Fascists in Italy? Japanese militarists? Any of those right wing (i.e. conservative) political movements ring a bell?
nt
....just my 2¢
» Mart £ «
Planar Asylum
where the speakers are thin but the music is anything but
We're off to Superman's Bizarro World where everything is the opposite of Earth if you're characterizing the Axis powers as "liberal".
you must a contestant on "Street Smarts"
....just my 2¢
» Mart £ «
Planar Asylum
where the speakers are thin but the music is anything but
nt
I'm with you here Rob, it seems like Mr Mart here has no idea what he was writing about, and after reading your submission realised his mistake. (notice the inability to admit to his glaring errors)Liberal Nazis........heh heh heh.......
;^>
....just my 2¢
» Mart £ «
Planar Asylum
where the speakers are thin but the music is anything but
Quite right. Liberals have their eyes and ears fuzzed-over. To the extent conservatives believe in military power, it's about protection from foreign governments. At home, they want LESS government power. Liberals OTOH always seek *extension* of government power. Which direction is more likely to result in a police state? Hmmm?clark
There is absolutely NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between liberals (Dems) and conservatives (Reps). Both want larger more powerful governments. Their only goals are to ATTAIN and RETAIN power. There has not been a president, or national political leader from either side who has actually downsized the Federal governmentduring my lifetime. From Kennedy to Clinton, the federal budget has been LARGER when the administration changed hands than it was when the Prez took office. This was especially true after Reagans 8 years. And don't blame the liberals. Reagan got essentially the budget $ he asked for each year.And no one likes over seas military action more than conservatives (Reps). Let's not forget Grenada, Gulf War, Panama, Somolia (George I actually sent the troops in!!), and of course all of those "covert" actions in Central America during the Reagan years.
Conservatives. Indeed!!!
Also please don't confuse "conservatives" such as myself, with political leaders; none of us here have much truck with those guys. Trouble is, liberals *do* identify with their political leaders -- Teddy Kennedy, Barney Frank, Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt -- and are therefore indistinguishable from them in their longing for a more extensive, powerful, all-seeing, overbearing government.clark
..."And no one likes over seas military action more than conservatives (Reps). Let's not forget Grenada, Gulf War, Panama, Somolia (George I actually sent the troops in!!), and of course all of those "covert" actions in Central America during the Reagan years."..."Liberals like to bomb aspirin factories! And occupy Bosnia! Haiti!"
Well that's just great! Now who are the rest of us going to bomb and/or occupy? The Ls and the Cs already got all the good countries! Oh well, there is still Easter Island...
Yes! Iceland, at last our own country to stamp on! Damn snooty Iceland with all its um, er, ice...B^F
I guess you didn't read Red Storm Rising.
(nt)
;^>
....just my 2¢
» Mart £ «
Planar Asylum
where the speakers are thin but the music is anything but
Oh! BTW, we Liberals aren't as hard-line as you may think... soft water is yours for the asking! So, have you taken your meds today? 8^)AuPh
... the glass is twice the size required for the job.;^>
....just my 2¢
» Mart £ «
Planar Asylum
where the speakers are thin but the music is anything but
You look at other peoples shoes.No,really some of my best friends are engineers.OK,I probably would be one too but my math is terrible so I became a sculptor.I still get to make and destroy cool stuff,play with molten metal while juggling chain saws, but all on paper first.(grins)
David
... then went to drafting ... then wanted to know more about what I was drawing. Civil Engineering was tedious. Electrical was rather predictable. Nuclear was a tad too both esoteric & empirical for me to feel comfortable predicting. Chemical seemed presumptuous in that they didn't bother explaining left & right hand molecules in biochemistry. So, I stuck with Mechanical because primarily when things move stuff gets damn interesting. Plus, my art background seemed to train my mind to predict vibrational motion & flexture in quasi-stationary complex 3D objects as well as other phenomena.PS: Yes, I was always good in math. However, what I didn't realise was how much writing came with the job.
....just my 2¢
» Mart £ «
Planar Asylum
where the speakers are thin but the music is anything but
(nt)
I agree, when you follow the two most important trails, voting records and money ( contributions, expenditures, budgets) a much different picture develops than what is presented by either "side".www.opensecrets.org
http://www.hc.cc.tx.us/library/voterec.htm
http://www.govspot.com/shortcuts/votingrecords.htm
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
