Wednesday 23 July 2014

Film: 'DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES' (in 2D)

I found this, on the whole, humdrum and formulaic, though there is no doubt that a lot of the imagery is quite remarkable, even in the flat-screen version in which I saw it.

Few could deny that Pierre Boulle's original idea in his novel 'La Planete des Singes' (usually translated as 'Monkey Planet') is an arresting one. But it's a concept that doesn't bear stretching over one, let alone several, sequels.
I saw the original 1968 film on its release and would maintain that it finishes with one of the most astonishing endings ever to be encountered in the cinema. It still sends a thrill through me thinking of that first time when I'd been sitting through the film with a friend, only I'd been seething and fuming throughout at such a silly idea as apes, not only talking in English, but English with an American accent! (As though speaking with a British accent would have made it any more plausible!). Then only to be put firmly in my place in the final frames and its jaw-dropping moment of revelation. (My friend had not been so disturbed with talking apes as I was, but he was also a 'Doctor Who' fan back in those days of daft plots, dodgy modelling, shaky scenery, fluffed lines, appalling acting - he just took the lot in his stride).
I saw all the sequels to the original (Beneath/Escape from/Conquest of/Battle for) and each one demonstrated that you can't do much more with the idea other than repeat oneself - the boredom increased with each instalment.

Then we had the forgettable Tim Burton 2001 re-make of the original. Despite its ending being much closer to Boulle's novel (which I read sometime in the 70s), neither on film or in print could the 1968 film be bettered.
I didn't bother with the sequel 'Rise of', though it did get a number of positive reviews. My revisiting of the franchise shows that nothing of note has been gained.


After that long preamble, down to specifics of 'Dawn':-
Directed by Matt Reeves, the extremely convincing anthropomorphising of the apes in this film meant that I didn't have to be concerned, as I normally might have been, with seeing animal suffering. Anyway, so much of it was plainly CGI'd (including opening sequence of hordes of apes hunting wild animals) that I didn't once have to look away.
A negative for me is that there is 'signpost' music almost non-stop - a lot of it, I imagine, intended to indicate what we are to feel, ape faces being rather more inscrutible than human ones. The film-makers seem to think that we need a guide as to our emoting. It got in my way for much of the time.

Andy Serkis as king ape 'Caesar' does as efficient a job as ever in his CGI-superimposed role (he was, of course, also Gollum in the LOTR trilogy). As to the human acting it was fair enough, though I did wish that Gary Oldman had been stretched rather more.
The power-struggle plots, both between apes and man and rebellion among the apes themselves (after we were shown that there are a number of human survivors following the escape of a deadly virus) were not especially original.

I did admire the look of the film, and they are certainly taking what's possible to depict on screen to high levels of excellence. I don't know that if I'd seen this in 3D it would have increased my rating. If you like the idea of this concept in sequels then this should not disappoint you, though I felt its potential had burnt itself out before it had hardly started...............................4/10. 

13 comments:

  1. We are big fans of the original and own it and all sequel. With great reservation, we saw the first remake and it was horrible. However the second one was surprisingly good and we really enjoyed it, although a bit contrived. We do intend to see the latest installment, but not till we can see it through iTunes Netflix or HBO. I really enjoy and appreciate your movie reviews. Keep it up. You see way more than I do, so sometimes I'm just learning about them through you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very flattering, S/b (blush, blush) and much appreciated. Thank you, though whenever I read another blogger's review of a film that I've seen I'm always struck by how much more comprehensive they are than my own. (The fact that we may not agree is neither here nor there)

      Did you really like the sequels to the original of this? I can't say that I'd care to see any of them again - though "In the Name of the Father and the Holy Bomb" was quite funny. In fact I saw that particular one on the very day before my first and, so far, only visit to the USA back in 1969. So I wouldn't mind seeing that again if only for the reason of nostalgia.

      As you're such a fan I'd bet my boots that you like this latest, so do see.
      'Rise' actually got its first terrestrial TV showing here just two days ago - but it only started way past my bed-time - 9 o'clock, for goodness sake! ;-) However, in view of what you (and others) say I must make more of an effort when it comes round again.
      Cheers, Handsome!

      Delete
  2. I loved the original--that ending!--and liked the cheesy sequels.
    I liked 'Rise' as a kind of prequel, though I, too, loathed Burton's vision/version.
    And I may well see 'Dawn' because, well, talking apes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like I wasn't on the right wavelength about those sequels of the 60s & 70s. They suddenly sound more interesting.

      General opinion seems to be that this new 'Dawn' is at least as good as 'Rise' was deemed to be. So if you liked the latter, chances are that you'll get pleasures out of this new one.

      Delete
  3. Yes, my sister and I were forced to endure the end of 'Rise' the other night because my brother-in-law is an avid fan of the films. His excitement at the release of the new film is rather OTT! Luckily, we had just been to the pub so missed most of it. What was the significance of the airline pilot at the end and were the apes heading for New York? Loved the view of SF from the tops of the trees! I like coming here for the great reviews too!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I just don't get it, N.G-G. I can understand fans of a series where every one is significantly different from the others, but after the very original one they quickly seemed to run out of steam - and there's rarely anything like true surprises. Still, what do I know?

      Thanks for your praise (again) - but don't spoil me. It might go to my head - and that would be tragic for both me and my readers. ;-)

      Delete
  4. Ray,
    I saw the original but not the others. I had a feeling the original couldn't be improved upon and reading your review I was right. Thanks for this review.
    Ron

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, after the 1968 original, there was only one direction for sequels to go - downhill, which is exactly what they've all done.

      Delete
  5. After I recovered from the original - it took a long time - I heard there was a sequel in the works, but with few from the original. Like you, after that mind-blowing ending (how's that for 60s lingo!) of the first, I just couldn't imagine not being disappointed in any new film. Proved I was right. Never has been surpassed in beauty and shock value.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, you know now that I agree with you, C. (I wonder if you also first saw it in the cinema).
      It beats me how the sequels must have been profitable enough for them to keep being made, but they obviously are/were. Sign of my age? - or yet another?

      Btw: Is the expression 'mind-blowing' really typical 60s? I still use it, thus confirming in all probability that the answer is 'yes'!

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete