 
|
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 |
Just got through seeing Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes" and thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it.The ending works for me as well. I don't know what the controversay was about, but it actually works better than the original film. It is more surprising and more of a promise of things to come, than the original.
One thing that struck me about the ape characterizations was that there was more genuineness in the subtext of film reality about the whole concept of the film, than the original.
Follow Ups:
IMHO, the TV, and Cartoon series were a bit better than the new film.
and I'm a big Tim Burton fan
The ending in Tim Burton's film holds about as much logic as a vacuum holds air. First we have to assume the plausability of those time reversal alternative universe changes; if you can get beyond that, how does the ingenious Mr. Walburg take that little escape pod across the vast sea of space in such a short time before landing on the alternative earth? He didn't even run low on oxygen! Naw, the ending had the aroma of being tacked on for it's shaggy dog effect. The original Planet of the Apes was far superior even with Mr. NRA in it!Audiophilander
The remake's ending was just absurd. We're expected to believe that the apes would, given enough time, build a city that looked exactly like Washington DC complete with a Lincoln Memorial (does that mean that there was once an ape Civil War and an ape Gettysburg Address?). It didn't take animal senses to smell a "trick" ending coming when Marky Mark came zooming back to Earth. The original's ending was genuinely surprising at least and didn't require a complete suspension of all critical faculties.
And Hollywood collects my 8 bucks...
Eric
Tokyo*
It was a bunch of special effects looking for a script...I fell asleep after about 30 minutes.
I enjoyed it, particularly Tim Roth who IMHO was the best thing about the movie. His being in it is why I rented it. The ending was cool and, thankfully, nobody spoiled it for me. One thing creeped me out, though, and that was the females. Just too damn attractive, didn't you think?I thought Burton played it safe with this one. Sets are very important to him and I'd have liked to have seen him do something with the Flintstone-y look of the original or go the other extreme and give them vehicles and a bit more technology. I swear there were times I expected to see Gilligan in some scenes.
All things considered it was okay. I'll look at it again but not right away.
IMO it was one of the most disappointing movie experiences I've ever had. The effects were great and etc. but the movie was not good. The original is much better.It's too bad, because the movie could have been so much better with less reliance on gee-whiz effects and more on storyline. And the cheesy ending, while setting up a possible sequel, just didn't work for me. I understood it but I wondered why Burton bothered.
Most filmmakers' work gets better, or at least stays interesting, as they grow older. With Burton, he's less consistent than any director since Roger Corman. He's trying too hard to be clever. He's naturally clever but he used to spice it up with humor - as in Beetlejuice - or pathos ala Edward Scissorhands. Now, he's hitting us with a big hammer and it's so tiresome. He'll follow a good movie with a couple dogs. APES is a DOG in my book.
But I'm glad you enjoyed it. I like lots of films that many others despise. That's one of the things that makes movies so great. There is truly something for everybody.
and made strictly as an inside joke by Burton to thumb his nose at studio execs who green light garbage like this?The actors acting like monkeys acting like monkeys?
It was pathetic! The original B- film was about 10000000 times better and that ain't saying much.
One of the elements that made the original "better" was, no doubt, Charleton Heston and the other Big Name actors. Walberg is not exactly the greatest actor in the world, but here his performance was appropriate for the plot.But in retrospect, that, in and of itself, was no comparison to the remake's ambience created by the Monkees, themselves. To me, in the original, the Monkees were not "real" in that they were wooden, due to the fact of the Monkee Makeup employed. The remake's Monkee's were genuinely feeling and menacing. The original Monkee's were painfully acting, as they were played by their human counterparts. Not that there is anything wrong with this, it's just that, to me, acting should be something unseen, if you will, and natural, a part of every other element of the production. I found it easy to "get into" the film...easier than I thought, compared to other films of this kind.
I was surprised that I liked it. But then that's what makes it a unique viewing experience for me.
Next, I'm going to make the plunge into "Blade". Hope I have as much fun.
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 ]
