La planète des singes

Tim Burton's new "Planet of the Apes" is actually a remake--excuse me, a "re-imagining"--of the first TWO movies of the old series. Its occasional paraphrasing of lines from the original movie (devoid of any meaningful context), and its cameos by members of the original cast (Charlton Heston and Linda Harrison), only underscore that this new version isn't what the original was, i.e., an original. Mark Wahlberg, as Our Hero, has none of the cynical, edgy complexity of Heston's Taylor, and is in fact the sort of can-do flyboy Taylor found laughable. Much as I adore Helena Bonham Carter, her turn as Ari, a sultry, sexy, meddling, annoying human-rights activist, is ultimately tiresome, and absolutely incomparable to Kim Hunter's brave, brilliant, impish Zira of the old series. The role is also a criminal waste of Bonham Carter's beauty, hidden as it is behind a bizarre makeup that looks neither ape nor human. Rick Baker's highly-touted ape makeups (which I've enjoyed since the days of "Schlock" and "Kentucky Fried Movie") are highly uneven here. Tim Roth's villainous Thade has the best, with most of the rest being just adequate and no particular improvement over John Chambers' work in the original. And the socko ending (keep reading; I won't spoil it for you) is simply tacked on: unlike the jolting end of the original, it neither ties together nor arises from the movie's earlier action in a way that Explains Everything. Instead, it begs so many questions (mainly "How the heck did THAT happen?") that it seems engineered (or contrived) solely to set the stage for more sequels. All told, this is "Apes Lite," a comic-bookish caricature of the original, made for the short-attention-span crowd. It made me want to do something I hadn't done in ages: fire up the VCR and roll the original again. It's typical of the 1968 movie's gritty, clever irony that the first word of dialogue uttered by an ape--his entire line, in fact--is "Smile."

I remember the first time I watched the classic series for the first time, not too long ago. My initial impression: Shock. I had never before witnessed such a captivated tale. The series kept getting better with each movie. Not long after I found out that Tim Burton was to remake "The Planet of the Apes" and I asked myself, "Why bother?" The original series have hardly aged a bit and are still vastly entertaining to watch. Even though the original is over 30 years old, it doesn't feel like it at all. I felt there was no need for a remake. I saw the new film on opening day, and I have to say I was disappointed. The movie wasn't as shocking as the original. It wasn't as captivating. It wasn't anything like the original. The only thing that seemed to save it was the truly shocking twist ending. It really made me think for a while, but, eventually, I gave up. It didn't make sense to me at all. Then, I decided to throw all my initial thoughts of the film away and decided to go see it again for a second opinion, and, this time, I was blown away. Rarely do I see a film and loathe it only to go see it again and absolutley love it. I didn't compare it to the original as I did the first time, and I think that's the reason I completely hated it the first time around. Tim Burton really did an amazing job creating a whole new world of apes where humans are slaves. The cinematography, the set designs, and just about every technical aspect of the film is a marvel, especially the make up and costume designs. Danny Elfman's score is one of his best, and at times, very frightening. The acting is also top notch, from Wahlberg's subtle but heroic portrayal of Leo, to Roth who is absolutely stunning as General Thade. This has got to be the most impressive movie of the summer, if not the year, easily on par with "Hannibal". Just don't go see it and compare it with the original. My grade: A-

In the spring of 2001 audiences seemed eager to see Tim Burton's retelling of the 1968 classic, "Planet of the Apes." By the summer of 2001 it seemed to be the movie everybody loved to hate. Were the criticisms fair? Not if you ask me.

2001's Planet of the Apes' biggest downfall, in my opinion, is unfortunately also it's biggest strength. Unlike many remakes which often end up as nothing more than weaker rehashes of their predecessor's this version of 'Apes' dared to be different. The plot has been stripped down to its bare bones and then rebuilt into something completely new. This is refreshing, if you ask me. Especially when rewatching it now, because just a few short years after this film came out we launched into sort of a remake renaissance, where half the tent pole films that come out every year are the same lesser rehashes that I spoke of a second ago. This film does take a moment here and there to wink at the '68 original, but Burton and his merry band of screenwriters has created a world completely original...it could be watched next to any entry of that original series as a wholey different film.

This is also the film's biggest flaw though, or at least financially speaking, because the original 'Apes' franchise has a cult following behind it that could almost rival that of Star Wars or Star Trek. The core audience for this film really only wanted to see their favourite story told with modern day effects and makeup. I don't think we needed that, but I'm not sure how many would agree with me.

Now, if you want to compare the two films plots and decide which one is stronger that's a whole other debate. But I don't think that's fair, that's why I champion it for taking such a different approach. I don't think this movie should be compared to any other movie and with that mindset a much better appreciation can be found. To put it bluntly, this movie ain't bad...in fact it's actually pretty good.

I won't deconstruct the plot for you...if you're interested enough to be reading this you probably at least know the jist of it anyway. But it's a solid and interesting plot that sets up a very fun and entertaining action adventure flick. Visually its in many ways a departure from typical Burton fair but his stamp is definitely evident in its art direction, and the atmosphere he creates in this jungle/desert/urban/high tech universe is really something to behold. The apes are not only impressive in terms of makeup but they are also creatively impressive from the choices of the species to match personalities, the incredible costumes and simply perfect performances by a cast who act through all that latex. And while I'm praising I'll also throw up a shout out for Danny Elfman's great score, which just might be one of his best.

The only caveat I'll lay on the movie is that the twist ending, obviously conceived to rival the famous twist of the original, kind of falls flat. BUT...considering how many instalments the original franchise had I have no doubt that the producers had hoped to make a sequel had this film been more financially successful, and had that sequel been made maybe we would've learned the story behind this twist and all would've been forgiven.

It's a little too late to say, 'long story short,' but I will anyway. Give this movie a fair shot. It may not be without its flaws but how many movies are? Try not to compare it to the original, just watch it with a bowl of popcorn and have fun.

Visually,this film is sometimes a splendor;the light falls on a crepuscular world.The Apes' town is quite scary particularly when you see it from a distance ,as it stands out against an ominous sky.In the very beginning,the cast and credits are also successful,with an adequate martial music.The first third has some funny,parodic and sometimes politically incorrect lines.In the second third,the movie begins to lose steam,although the discovery in the wrecked spaceship is a rather good idea. But that's not all good news.First of all,the hero lacks charisma and the apes and their sensational make-up simply overwhelm him and drown him out.On the contrary,majestic Charlton Heston,even when he was in chains,displayed a Shakespearian grandeur in the first version.

The last third consists in battles,a "second coming" and the "astonishing" ending without which..that would not be "planet of the apes".Actually,the new ending was borrowed from Pierre Boulle 's novel,but not without adding a mathematically unlikelihood which will give you headaches if you begin to think too hard:the least they can do:Everything ,even the proper nouns from the French writer's book have been removed,even if some characters recall some of the Boulle/Shaffner version.Shaffner had contented himself with changing the astronauts' name(eg:Ulysse Mérou=Taylor) Hats off to Helena Bonham-Carter who brings warmth and emotion in a rather vapid cast:in a part close to that of Kim Hunter/Zira,she really asserts her distinctive identity. Tim Roth is effective as well,but his part is less so.David Warner and Kris Kristofferson are wasted.As a tribute to Shaffner(?)both Linda Harrison (an unidentified woman captured with Leo) and Charlton Heston (moaning his curse,which is,admittedly,funny)appear unbilled.

Tim Burton might be a director to remember.Although he has not made a genuine masterpiece yet,his filmography is already rich:"Sleepy hollow","Edward Scissorhands ,the marvelous "Ed Wood" (Martin Landau is unforgettable).But redoing "planet of the apes " was a hard task.Shaffner's movie followed a progression,it moved slowly,from the long introduction showing the three astronauts making their way across desolate landscapes to the stunning final shots with Heston and Harrison 's roaming down by the sea.Remember how long it took Taylor to convince Zira he was a thinking man!Here it seems natural to Ari almost as soon as she sees him,that Leo is no dumb idiot animal.And that's the last straw,even Tim Roth (some kind of cross between Shaffner's Cornelius and a pulp fiction baddie)pretty damn quickly believes too that that human is too clever for his own sake.

Tim Burton's so-so remake epitomizes the dearth of good scripts.Pierre Boulle's book is a golden mine and one could have written a coherent story out of it,different from that of the first version.Why not,for instance,introduce the two "astronauts" whose scenes open and close it,and turn Leo's adventures into a flashback?What about showing the love between the hero and the woman-animal ?And the son they had?And the menace this son represented for the simian race? All these ideas were left over by Shaffner's script writers and could have built a strong new tale.

The main flaw lies in the human beings:here,they speak -English!- ,they can reason,they can swim (!),they are (except for bubble head Warren)clever,so why the hell did the apes tame them?

After seeing Tim Burton's excellent Sleepy Hollow, and superlative Ed Wood, I was expecting much more of a character driven movie, with the characterization and spiritual philosopies that elevated the original movie out of the pure science fiction genre and into a cerebral adventure film with acutely observed social comments.

Unfortunately, the film suffers from poor script and direction right from the minute the astronaut crashlands.

They knew from the outset that they would never produce an ending to rival the original, and any cinema-goer in their right minds would never expect one. But they could have at least got the beginning right. Neither Mark Wahlberg's character nor the tension is ever developed, so when he is confronted by the apes: we feel nothing.

The humans, though they have the benefit of increased intelligence and speech, are poorly utilized. And Kris Kristofferson is criminally wasted.

The make-up and effects are, as you would expect, fantastic. However, despite improved flexibility in the make-up, there is little warmth in either the performances or direction that made millions of kids go ape-nuts in the seventies. Bonham-Carter's Ari, whilst convincing, is not a patch on Kim Hunter's Zira. Roth's quite brilliant performance as Thade virtually carries this film and makes it the one reason to stick with it to the end.

Did I say end? Well, the less said about that the better.