I expected more from the movie. It's a very poor story, it would have been 15 minutes. The monkeys were tortured, they got smarter, they broke through the blockade on the bridge and stayed in the park - what kind of movie is it if I could retell it in one line? In general, I don't understand this hype about monkeys. There are 18 films in the franchise! 5 of them in the 21st century. Filming and filming... Is there a request? Well, it seems to be some alternative to aliens, zombies, mutants and machines, and the alternative is mundane and understandable. There's potential for a couple of movies. But that this could occupy a whole niche in cinema – I do not understand.
The beginning of the magnificent modern trilogy “Planet of the Monkeys” tells about the first years of the life of Caesar – a highly intelligent chimpanzee, who by the will of fate became the leader of the uprising of his relatives and the main initiator of their liberation from human oppression.
Caesar in this picture makes his first, but most important for the future of monkeys steps, turning from a pet dependent on his owner into a born leader, ready for the sake of his “people” to go to the most dangerous events. Mind and ingenuity allow him to act more than once so non-trivial that any person would envy such an inner zeal that will soon help his brothers to emerge from the shackles of total unfreedom that has enslaved the entire animal kingdom for the sake of the self-proclaimed higher beings of this beautiful green-blue planet.
How long will it take a man to realize that he is not alone in this world? There are countless species of flora and fauna that do not need our guidance. To leave them alone is an extremely important task for all mankind. Of course, no one forgets that the animal and plant world also need help. It is necessary to restore certain populations that are declining either for natural reasons or, more often than not, due to the actions of a carefree selfish human hand. Such help is invaluable. However, in no case can not destroy this beautiful world, full of diversity of the most wonderful creatures. Protecting nature is the primary goal of man. After all, it gave us life and always accompanied our development.
As a result, “The Rebellion of the Planet of the Monkey” is an excellent cinematic work that perfectly introduces the viewer to the future alternative world and accurately illuminates the problems of perception of modern man and his environment. He forgets the true things by flirting with Nature. But she always knows what's best for this planet. And if the monkey kingdom is better for her, so be it!
A world populated by monkeys, a world in which they have taken a dominant place on the planet. The idea at first, and not only at first, seems idiotic. But in the sixties, people loved to embody the strangest concepts possible on the screen. Well, in our era of remakes and sequels, it has become fashionable to return already forgotten franchises and breathe new life into them. This time, Planet of the Apes was lucky, in contrast to the first attempt to restart, and the problem of the tape has changed very much.
We see the very beginning of a human mind in monkeys. We see that it was people who caused both the appearance of intelligence in chimpanzees and the formation of their hatred for humanity. In general, I liked the image of the scientist from which the experiment took a very unexpected turn. And of course, the image of Caesar came out perfectly, with whom we spend so much screen time. And even though he is potentially an enemy to all people, he still wants to empathize.
The film was not bad, but taking it seriously is not easy. The idiocy of the main concept still interferes with the holistic perception of the picture.
After a weak picture in 2001, I got to a more modern movie and I confess, it pleased more.
So, part one. Insurrection.
A movie with a very interesting plot, which does not feed the viewer a bunch of surprises (to some extent it is predictable), but firmly holds near the screen to the end. And don’t forget that this is fantastic. The painting also has a good lav story.
The acting was wildly unimpressed. Honestly, people are not particularly focused, although, in the frame they often.
Franko is the same in almost all films. In this picture, he does not cause any emotions.
You can select Felton. In Harry Potter, he perfectly learned to play scum, the image of a person who does not like the viewer is on his heels.
Naturally, Caesar is a colorful, albeit computer-generated character, firmly attracts the attention of the entire film.
And a little negative.
If you think about the meaning of what is happening a little deeper than human cruelty and the superiority of some species over others, you unwittingly understand that the idea of the plot is delusional.
We all learned biology in school, and we know very well that apes are our distant ancestors, modified under certain conditions and for a number of reasons. On the screen, we see this species gaining intelligence and struggling with its next stage of development and what? Imagine that the monkeys will win, then over the years they will turn into the same people and everything in a circle. But all these thoughts come more often after watching the picture.
Bottom line: a beautiful set of film trilogy. Most actors are weak. Caesar is revealed as a personality and key character. Quality effects and graphics.
This kind of blockbusters are quite unusual, have their own original style. As for the film itself, the impressions were pleasant. At one time I saw a tape about intelligent monkeys from Tim Burton, but the story about “Caesar” for me was a discovery only now.
The history of the rapid formation and colossal development of a chimpanzee named "Caesar" is very attractive to him, because with great interest he is eager to watch him, as he rapidly begins to think and assimilate everything on the move from a powerful drug.
The acting game is generally good, but mainly attracts the presented primates and, of course, Caesar himself. The way he differs in intelligence and ingenuity, as well as fulfilling his goals, thereby raising the revolt of primates - all this looks impressive and vivid.
In general, this is a good blockbuster, made quite decently. The picture is multifaceted, endowed with all the necessary components and elements. This is a great foundation, which laid the foundation for a wonderful franchise about unusual and smart monkeys.
This is the slogan attached to the film, but we did not localize it, but in vain. He described the whole film very harmoniously. The story of the smartened monkeys turned out to be interesting again, as in the distant year 2001, when Tim Burton released "Planet of the Apes".
The plot will tell about how a company developed a cure for Alzheimer’s and tested them on primates. But the experiment was shut down. One chimpanzee survived and James Franco's hero protected him and named him Caesar. This monkey showed excellent results and a high level of intelligence. And all would be well if Caesar didn't ask questions. Who is he? He feels like a pet, not a member of the family, although Will, the hero of Franko, tries to correct this.
Will's father is ill, and this drug was his salvation, but the side effects were unavoidable, and new experiments too. But the peaceful life of Caesar ended because of a not very pleasant incident, after which he was placed in a special institution where monkeys were kept. Though clever, but frightened, Caesar did not know what to do, and the first meeting with other primates was not very rosy. But after that, we begin to notice changes in him, as he becomes a leader from a frightened monkey.
I've always liked Franko, especially when he's in serious roles. And Andy Serkis is to be commended for his work as Caesar. It was nice to watch the footage from the shooting, as he mimics his hero. What about the schedule? At first, computer chimpanzees cut their eyes, but eventually you get used to them, and then you try to ignore it. In general, the film is interesting, the plot is dramatic, and the work was done well, but most importantly, it is relevant. How many people are doing experiments. After all, the events of the film directly depend on the person. I wish this movie was over, but no, there are two more parts. And this start of this viewing franchise is worthy.
Despite the huge popularity of the Planet of the Apes universe, I didn’t know anything about it for a long time. I was introduced to her by the Tim Burton film, which left me with a few mixed impressions. So at first my attitude towards the new trilogy, which began in 2011, was almost indifferent. And the desire to see Rupert Wyatt's film was completely spontaneous. I have to admit, I didn’t expect to enjoy the movie so much! Now, for the premiere of the final film of the trilogy, I decided to revise the first two parts, and here is my review of the first one - "Rise of the Planet of the Apes".
In an attempt to find a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, scientist Will Rodman creates a drug that is tested on chimpanzees. As a result of one incident, the project was forced to close, and all the monkeys were put to sleep. However, Will discovers that one of the chimpanzees gave birth to a son, and the scientist decides to take the cub to him. He discovers that the chimpanzee, whom he gives the name Caesar, has extraordinary abilities for monkeys, such as memory development, learning sign language, playing chess, the ability to think creatively and plan. As the years go by, Will moves on to create a cure, trying to create a stronger formula, just as Caesar becomes the smartest monkey. They have no idea how their actions will affect the fate of our world.
Although I have not read the book of the French writer Pierre Boulle, I know a rough plot. The film tells a completely new, unknown story, which is associated with the actions of the book. The backstory of a famous story is not always convincing enough for fans to believe it. But in the Rebellion, the story was very believable, realistic and fascinating. Experiments with a new and unknown drug, experiments on monkeys are serious trials for both our world and the world of primates. I especially like the fact that they spend more time on monkeys. Maybe they don’t have the same abilities as humans, but the fact that monkeys become just as full-fledged heroes of the movie... Here we also want to mention special effects and motion-capture technology. Monkeys here are not actors in complex makeup, where you can still guess human traits. They look like real primates. This makes the events even more realistic.
James Franco played scientist Will Rodman, who seeks to create a cure for Alzheimer's disease to cure his father, which causes respect and sympathy. Will's new character traits are revealed when he takes over Caesar. And yet, watching the relationship of the main characters, we can not help but notice the difference between the two worlds. This becomes the main idea of the film, and the whole trilogy.
Many eminent actors played bright supporting roles: John Lithgow - Charles Rodman, Will's father, who, despite the rapidly progressing Alzheimer's disease, is trying to take care of his son, and also helps Caesar get used to the world; Frida Pinto - although she played a small role of Will Caroline's girlfriend, but she managed to reveal the character of the heroine who is ready to fight for the right cause; Brian Cox - a strict owner of a kenery, who is not alien to such concepts as understanding and compassion; Will's superiority to the guard, he is very evil. The actors played very well, created very convincing characters. But they were not the main characters of the film.
The main characters of the film are monkeys. This is the main advantage of the film and its subsequent sequels: we can observe the development of events from the point of view of primates. With their eyes we see the world, we see how people treat them, we also understand that something is wrong with this. All this we observe with the help of the main character - the chimpanzee Caesar, who since childhood has unusual for monkey abilities, who grew up among people, and is just beginning to understand how this world works. From the moment he learned sign language to the moment he became the leader of primates, I watched with bated breath. Andy Serkis continues to amaze me. Having already introduced the world to two unusual heroes created with the help of motion capture technology - Gollum and King Kong - he plays the role of Caesar. And now I am once again amazed at his skill - because he has to play and reveal the character with movements, gestures, facial expressions, posture. He played magnificently - thanks to Andy's play, there was never a doubt that Caesar was the main character of the film!
Among the many primates, several more characters can be distinguished - this is the militant gorilla Buck, the proud leader of the chimpanzee Rocket and the wise orangutan Moris. These monkeys were also played by actors - Richard Rydings, Terry Notary and Karin Konoval - who endowed their characters with individual character traits, which especially distinguished these characters.
These are films that I really appreciate — which you don’t expect anything special, but as a result, they exceed our expectations. And judging by the development of the story laid down in the Rebellion, I was not alone impressed by the film "Rupert Wyatt". Today I will go to the cinema for the new part of the trilogy, which already collects admiring reviews from viewers and critics. So I recommend watching the movie Rise of the Planet of the Apes to all fans of fiction.
The modern reboot of the famous franchise can be considered a worthy illustrative example for many blockbusters that have appeared on the big screens of the world in recent years. The premiere of “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” in 2011 and the release of the next two films every three years was not accompanied by an aggressive marketing part and eerie loud statements about the uniqueness and Napoleonic plans. Two parts of the trilogy even quietly collected excellent reviews and decent box office, showing a powerful master class.
Of course, the "Rebellion of the Planet of the Apes" is not something hitherto unseen. In the days of autobots, comics, fast cars, pirates, monkeys certainly can not occupy the minds (?) of millions of fans of popcorn movies. And yet, thanks to sophisticated technologies for creating high-quality computer images of history, it is possible to capture attention and tell about the competent uprising of primates in a ridiculous 100 minutes. Their leader, Caesar, has such a strong charisma that it is impossible to perceive the actions of the rebels clown of the century.
Despite the morose expression that did not slip from the face of Caesar during the second half of the film, Andy Serkis still showed a madly interesting character. A peculiar version of Tarzan on the contrary, when the chimpanzee baby was raised by humans, provides space for the development of a traditional conflict between the supposedly civilized human world and the good old wilderness. Yes, there is a significant small nuance: it was the product of civilization that allowed the representatives of the fauna to almost equal their enemies.
What really bothered me was the lack of time. The character of James Franco has already worked on the virus for 5.5 years, another 8 years raised in the home realities removed from the laboratory chimpanzees. The doctor would have had some facial hair added to see him grow up. And in general, this whole lab part with the creation and testing of the virus was not equal to how the monkeys got smarter. Whether intentionally or not, the high degree of danger of the virus to people was not disclosed on a larger scale, limited to infection.
Just during the final credits, you can see the scale of the global catastrophe, which does not smoothly transfer the development of the story to the second film - "Planet of the Apes: Revolution" with a gloomy present. Well, at the end of the day, another story about the consequences of human intervention in the affairs of nature-father paints a fascinating picture of the confrontation of two species, when parity is clearly not in favor of homo sapiens. It is not clear how the relatives of the zoo so quickly adapted to the new conditions. Pieces were flying, mother, don't grieve.
I don’t like watching movies where people mock animals. But the many positive reviews about this franchise encouraged me to watch the entire trilogy.
The graphics are excellent, the idea is original, only the title, allegedly referring to the “Planet of the Apes” of 2001, is not in the topic here, because the plot unfolds a little in the other direction.
Nature is a bad joke. We should not interfere with the creation created by nature and change the trajectory of its development, otherwise this very nature can play against us. Indeed, if animals could answer to man for all those abuses of themselves, there would be a world apocalypse. Animals are physically superior to humans, and they only lack the brains to surpass us in everything. If they have the ability to think, then we have Kirdyk.
The paradox is that, in order to save ourselves, we make dangerous experiments on our smaller brothers, who, unfortunately, are the most similar to us. It seems that we are pursuing a good goal - trying to find a cure for humanity for everything: cancer, for insanity, for aging, eventually for death, while putting the lives of innocent chimpanzees at risk, exterminating them by hundreds or even thousands.
James Franco in the role of the main experimenter frankly misses, because this role is almost no different from his friend-enemy “Spider-Man”. I did not notice any development of this actor professionally, but in this film he does not have to be particularly emotional.
His excellent facial expressions, very similar to human, the main chimpanzee Caesar owes Andy Serkis, who has already given us the facial expressions of Gollum from The Lord of the Rings. If Serkis is great at portraying graphic creatures, why not make it his thing? There is nothing wrong with that.
I understand this film is just a backstory that explains how we got to the point where we gave monkeys a whole planet and became their slaves. Well, now it is clear that we ourselves dug a hole with our own hands.
10 out of 10
It is these words that are my association with this film, or rather the restart, since it is too annoying with its stupidity, pathos and stereotypes. In the original series of the 60-80s, as well as in my favorite film of 2001, there is also something to find fault with, but not in the same amount!
The general idea of the "great" philosophy and the plot.
First, in this tape, as in other planets, no monkeys ever smell or smell! What nonsense? This is a planet of humans, not primates, but we are much smarter than them, and the fact that they decided to take on too many is another story. No matter how strong they are physically, and in other words, like any other animal – a man with his mind is able to destroy their entire species, I’m not saying that it should be done – but is it real?
A young scientist is testing a new drug on monkeys - it increases the intelligence of primates several times. After that, it’s really strange to see the movie trying to get the audience to feel for Caesar or the other monkeys. They are primates that, only thanks to man, have become a little smarter, but still compete intellectually with him. So what happens? In the healthy body of evolution, monkeys live in the jungle, or in a cage in a zoo, humans are at a much higher level. And then this healthy body gets a foreign body – a monkey, which, as they say, “neither there nor here”: on an equal footing with people – brains are not enough, and in the cage “we are too smart” (and then due to the fact that people allowed them to do it). Of course, evolution will push this absurdity out of its way. For what reason, then, should they revolt against their stupidity, and not against men?
Just in case, I am not bloodthirsty and I have no complaints about ordinary monkeys that live in the real world, and in general I love animals. All exclusively to the characters of this film, or then, if you dig deeper, to the writers that it came up with. They are just behind the scenes, and monkeys, as it were, play the role of an external stimulus.
In addition to all the above, the film itself is just a set of platitudes, and of course, you need wherever you can cram names from the original series, to which this “masterpiece” will never grow, how many modern technologies do not apply, drawing frankly cartoon monkeys. Honestly, Tim Roth as General Tade from the 2001 film is much more impressive. I understand that Andy Serkis plays computer characters well, but he didn’t succeed. I can’t say anything special about Franco, I don’t remember anything, but Tom Felton was like Draco Malfoy, so he remained, by the way, he did not play badly, well, it is understandable.
1 out of 10
If after "Planet of the Apes" in 1968 there were sequels about the confrontation between humans and intelligent apes, then "Insurrection ..." tells how it all began. The idea was successful, and it was justified.
The main character is a special chimpanzee Caesar, who carries in his genes signs that bring him closer in development to man. What a joy to realize that plays this role Andy Serkis, who has already been in the shoes of King Kong in the 2005 film! In his performance, Caesar turned out to be alive as a real primate. An interesting idea turned out with the drug Alz, one of the variations of which is actually deadly to humans. On this basis, a conflict develops between the discoverer Will and a businessman who is extremely annoying with his beliefs that money rules the world. I would call him the main antagonist of the film. Sincere pity is caused by Will's father, suffering from an incurable disease, and through whose fault various misfortunes begin to occur with Caesar.
A feature of the film is that it makes the viewer more empathetic to monkeys than people. Wild primates are also alive and even possess the rudiments of feelings, enhanced in this film by the intervention of chemicals. Caesar evokes sincere pity after a series of disappointments and betrayals, when he freezes lonely and sad in his cage, remembering the happy home life. However, a new disappointment turns sadness into anger and a desire for revenge – the fateful hour has struck. Insinuations that a similar outburst of rage could happen to Caesar come from the beginning of the film, the most memorable being the scene in which he snaps at the dog. Becoming a leader of Caesar by suppressing a bullying relative and finding new friends in the form of a gorilla and orangutan Maurice causes genuine delight, as well as the first revenge on a man who previously caused a lot of problems to chimpanzees. The famous confrontation on the Golden Gate Bridge, where the punishment of enemies and the heroic payment of kindness to Caesar takes place, will not leave anyone indifferent, as will the last meeting of Caesar with Will and Caroline.
Those who have watched at least one of the old films in the series “Planet of the Apes” will be happy and unequivocal references slipping through the events.
The film does not cause any complaints either the development of the plot, nor the finale, which, on the one hand, allows you to consider it complete, and on the other - leaves a wonderful opportunity for logical continuation. I can’t find fault with the actors either, and interesting plot moves, drama and empathy for the main characters make Rise of the Planet of the Apes the most remarkable non-space-themed science fiction film of the early 2010s. It may not be comparable in success to Jurassic Park, but thanks to the touching relationships of the characters and a really interesting idea, it deserves deserved praise.
10 out of 10
Once again I started to look without going into details. One can easily imagine my surprise when it was discovered that this movie had absolutely nothing to do with Planet Apes, except, of course, the monkeys. Moreover, no special uprising, much less a planet, was noticed. Disappointment number one.
From the very beginning, I began to cut the eyes of the graphic - the painted monkeys looked too cartoonish and fake, to this were added also miscalculations of acting, for example, moments when James Franco picked up an adult primate like an empty box, very spoiled the impression and destroyed all atmosphericity. In general, the acting did not impress or please. Everything was sluggish, and in moments pathetic. And moments are just inept. Disappointment number two and three.
The plot completed the process of the disorder. Logic and common sense are completely absent here. Almost everything in the film was pulled by the ears, raised questions and drew a palm to the forehead. The guy finds a cure for a serious illness, and five minutes after he THINKED it was a rescue, without any tests for the consequences, without tests or reports, rushes to the boss and demands to start human trials. In fact, the boss agrees. The action of the medicine is also magical on all sides: it heals, increases intelligence, and is inherited. There was a lot of this throughout the film. Small, but very annoying and nasty shortcomings or miscalculations. The ending is completely insane. In a large city, monkeys are deformed, threatening people’s lives, and ten police cars go to suppress their “rebellion”, whose actions are ultimately useless, after which the monkeys calmly continue the march without any obstacles. Where is it going?
In general, the movie is very pathetic, very bright and colorful, while all its content is faded, dull and uninteresting.
3 out of 10
Officially, this film is considered a remake of a long-released series of paintings, but in my opinion, it is not. The plot was not something that was supplemented - it was radically changed, which only stoked my interest.
It all begins with the fact that a promising scientist, whose father suffers from Alzheimer’s disease, developed a drug whose main task is to additionally stimulate brain cells. It was decided to try the drug on monkeys, which led to surprising consequences: the IQ of animals, which are considered to be the ancestors of humans, began to increase rapidly. However, soon work on the drug was closed, and it seemed that the film can be completed in the 10th minute, but the main character takes home a baby monkey, which was put experiments. Soon it turns out that the mother’s abilities were transferred to him.
The main charm of the “Rebellion of the Planet of the Apes” I consider the decisive mixture of genres. The film begins as a cute family comedy about the growing up of a monkey with human intelligence; then it slides into a drama built on the formation of this monkey and the development of the father's disease. And everything ends with an amazingly beautiful action movie with a mass of shooting, a plane crash and a desperate struggle not for life, but for death.
The film keeps in suspense from the first minute until the very end. Many times he makes you shudder with surprise, so unpredictable individual plot moves. In addition, the “Rebellion of the Planet of the Apes” contains a fairly well-stated idea that every living creature has the right to freedom and, by positioning itself as the crown of creation of nature, humanity makes the biggest mistake since its appearance on Earth.
Among other advantages of the picture should be highlighted the cast. James Franco once again showed that he is good at roles in completely different films - from stupid comedies to fantastic action films. He managed to perfectly convey the whole range of feelings of his hero to Caesar. Watching the history of human-monkey friendship was so fascinating in many ways because of James’ talent.
Other actors do not lag behind Franco: all are in their seats and convincingly play their roles. Musical accompaniment, visual effects (it is a pity that the film did not manage to get an Oscar for them) - everything is performed at the highest level, together with the plot giving the viewer a genuine pleasure from viewing.
In my opinion, the film deserves a 9/10 rating. Maybe this is biased, and there are certain shortcomings in it, of course, but the creators managed to present the picture so that during the viewing they simply do not notice. On the contrary, my only thought after the final credits was that in a few years I will definitely revisit this film.
9 out of 10
“Awesome and very interesting movie,” I thought as the credits began. And at that moment on the screen began something that froze goosebumps. The unsaid secondary story, during the credits, leisurely and succinctly demonstrates to the viewer just the bombshell development of the script.
The plot is very logical. Everything is smooth and correct, there are no contradictions.
Amazing animation, monkeys like real. Graphics at the highest level.
The scene with the horse was very spectacular.
I would call it a prequel to the main story, which is likely to be in the second film. This is a film about how monkeys evolved and got smarter. This one hasn't been shown in any of the movies I've seen, only briefly mentioned in between. “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” is a completely wrong name. The film should be called “The Rise of the Planet of the Apes” or “The Formation of the Planet of the Apes.”
In all the films seen, the writing style of The Planet of the Apes is absolutely the same, which reminds of its roots (the 1968 film, and maybe even the books).
8.8 out of 10
The authors of the picture relied on special effects, with everything else in the film is very scanty. Most likely, it is the fault of the writer and the selection of actors, which is also relevant to the director. Making monkeys digital, rather than using makeup as before, gave the film a drawback. Not all of these monkeys looked believable. Against this background, actors who play people should have shown themselves, but they did not come out convincingly. For example, the main character is not convincing in the role of a scientist, neither external nor psychological data. In general, almost all actors are not convincing in their roles, ranging from a sick father to an "evil" neighbor. During the 8 years of the film, only Caesar aging, the rest of the actors did not almost change in flesh to hairstyles or clothes. The actions of the authorities and enforcement bodies cause surprise and many questions.
Curiosities in the film, too, I believe the attitude of this film to the genre of thriller is wrong. Even the so-called “spoiler” for the film will be difficult to come up with. The situation is given and the course of its incident is shown.
But in general, shot for the viewer, a small number of words, more landscapes and action, viewing the picture does not cause disgust or expectations of an early end. It's good for one-time viewing.
So, as you may have guessed, before us another version of the film adaptation of the famous Planet of Monkeys. Screenwriters keep telling us a story about the “brothers of our lesser,” in which humans and monkeys essentially swap places. The new remake invites us to think again about what would have happened if evolution had gone a different way, giving our smaller brothers not only strength and agility, but also human intelligence.
I must admit, in this film, the writers approached the question of thoughtfulness of the plot with due seriousness. The plot was divided into several films, and in this part we will show only the beginning of the story - how the young ape civilization was born. Of course, once again, people are to blame, or rather scientists. It was they who invented the “medicine”, which eventually became a catalyst for brain activity in primates, putting them on the highest stage of evolution along with humans. The plot describes in detail all the stages of evolution of the monkey “pet” in the monkey “reasonable” with all the ensuing consequences. The process of “humanization” is accompanied by the formation of a monkey society, in fact very similar to human. It is interesting to watch this from the very beginning of the film. In addition, the main thread of the plot also tells about the direct relationship between a man and ape, which develops between the main character and his fairly smartened brother. We are finally being made to understand that intelligent apes are not so much bloodthirsty and cruel conquerors, but above all individuals who are capable of showing kindness and devotion, like humans. And this aspect will greatly diversify the narrative, giving, in general, a very “meat” action movie dramatic component. In their behavior, monkeys strongly resemble humans, showing similar emotions in similar situations. Caught in a flock (a kind of alliance of chimpanzees, macaques and gorillas), they first of all try to find their new place in a foreign and hostile world, simultaneously responding with aggression to aggression, which, in principle, looks very logical. In short, the plot of the film, despite the “remake”, fresh and unusual.
It is also worth noting a good game of actors. Despite the complexity of assessing the acting skills of primates, the monkeys performed excellently. However, people who were assigned a secondary role (which is not surprising) also coped with a very decent. Especially want to note the father of the protagonist Charles, suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, and his relationship with “Caesar”.
Special effects. In terms of entertainment, this remake compares favorably with the previous parts by the presence of very good special effects and modern computer graphics (in fact, it is a drawing of all monkeys). Credit.
The complaints can only be attributed to some ill-conceived authors of the physiological aspect of evolution. The fact is that the virus affects only the mental activity of primates, but does not change the physiology of monkeys. Therefore, the erect monkeys shown in the film, throwing spears (without the development of the thumb this is impossible), and also talking (and the vocal cords of monkeys do not give this opportunity) look unconvincing. In addition, it is not entirely clear (or rather, it is not clear at all) why the virus, despite the similarity of the genomes of monkeys and humans, makes some smarter, and others kill at all? However, such scientific blunders practically do not affect the impression of viewing, and most of the audience will not notice them at all.
Result: before us a fresh version of "Planet of the Monkeys", which is advantageously distinguished by entertainment, logic of the narrative and dramatic component, while being a very good action movie with explosions, chases and shootouts.
So, "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" is another example of how Hollywood likes to reanimate old tapes and restart them, because stories about the planet of the apes were filmed in the seventies. However, Rupert Wyatt took a new path. He decided to show how it all began, so to speak, from the beginning.
The plot revolves around a scientist working on the problem of inventing a drug for Alzheimer's disease, when one of the monkeys on which the experiment was conducted produces a cub that has already absorbed the drug in the womb. Of course, he's growing smarter and smarter. And in the meantime, research goes further and this leads to quite serious consequences.
The actors scored interesting, although mostly their work was secondary, James Franco adequately coped with his work, Frida Pinto, her role is not quite clear, and her heroine appeared here only in the load. Everything else Andy Serkis filled with his computerized facial expressions, and the rest of us who played monkeys were on top.
And indeed, the special effects are very well done, congratulations to the special effects team. The camera work is very commendable, Andrew Lesney, whose track record includes the Lord of the Rings trilogy, featuring top aerobatics, especially in action scenes. The soundtrack leaves a positive impression. it successfully fits into the narrative.
"Rise of the Planet of the Apes" does not claim to be a very serious movie, but raises interesting questions. Is it worth joking with nature? What if people with good intentions once again create a new way to destroy themselves? Sometimes animals are more “human” than humans. Sometimes, getting to the advanced inventions, it is better to stop. Maybe other films showed the same, but still very interesting work.
7 out of 10
No wonder scientists believe that man came from a monkey. It is quite real that this statement is something to offend the feelings of reasonable humanity, saying that “we have not gone so far from collecting bananas and happy tree climbing.” Rupert Wyatt took this judgment as a compliment to the monkeys. Speaking unexpectedly as a lawyer on their side, the director not only announced the accusation, but delivered the final verdict. Part of humanity was condemned to imminent destruction, and the other, sitting behind the other side of the screen, to long mental agony. The infringed rights of masterfully made and played monkeys so touch the heart of the audience that it seems to sit for the fifth hour at a lecture of an environmental organization, I do not understand why, unable to break away from the words of the lecturer. Although Rupert Wyatt doesn’t tend to be too sentimental, like the last scenes from King Kong, the effect he achieved is much more significant than that of his predecessors, the monkey-themed directors. Wyatt gives animals a chance, and humanity time to make a decision, as if she really believes in the possibility of compromise.
Once upon a time, smugglers kidnapped a monkey and sold it to a reputable company for scientific experiments. The experiments were successful, but the presentation of the project failed. The test monkey was doomed to death, but shortly before death gave birth to a baby. Kroch was incredibly intelligent and, for very good reasons, received the name Caesar. Our time is famous for good computer technology, thanks to which the director manages to create a high-quality picture with believable, live monkeys. The image of Caesar does not feel a man, but the game of Andy Serkis. It’s not even Star Wars, where the actors had to play against a blue wall, but Life of Pi with a small pool instead of an ocean. In opposition to such technologies, real acting work is completely lost. Both James Franco and Frida Pinto seem indistinct. As if Rupert Wyatt once again emphasizes which side he is on and where he calls the viewer to go.
“Rise of the Planet of the Apes” gives perfect pleasure to the eyes, while maintaining common sense and a correct view of the director’s events. Hardly anyone watching the movie will seem predictable or ridiculous. Whatever it seems until your eyes see the mysterious world of the jungle, the film will make you think for a moment and not run ahead. Personally, after watching it, I definitely changed the idea of films about animals. It's a fresh look at the old things, which seems to be just as logical, but it looks completely different. Rupert Wyatt's truth is to be believed. Why not try it? It is not a matter of fantasy like the capture of the world by monkeys, but quite real things. Showing respect for animals will hardly make a person less human than he is now. Revolutions, too, are not born for no reason, much less with the help of a domesticated leader. In fact, the demands of the rebels were so modest that the situation in which everything turned out would have looked comical a few months before the revolution. Looking for the little one always takes more. To do little is still within human power, to stop more is impossible, with very few exceptions.
It’s great that a franchise as rich as Planet of the Apes didn’t die and end with a Tim Burton movie. The idea of opposing two sentient species in the fight for survival and a place under the sun is still relatively fresh, and seeing its realization in various forms is quite interesting. Not quite typical and similar, but still an illustrative example will be the ageless “Star Troops” by Paul Verhoeven, as a role model for films of this format.
Rupert Wyatt’s new painting has one main quality that makes it so stunning – and that’s touching. “Planet of the Monkeys” is a really touching and heartwarming film, in which, in addition to the main large-scale story arc, a smaller, but dramatic story of scientist Will Rodman and his “son” is simultaneously developing. And this story is not limited to only two of its participants: there is a place and the difficult relationship of Will with a sick Alzheimer’s father, and the rebirth of Caesar, both personally and emotionally in relation to himself, his fellow men, people; and several other small but interesting storylines. The great arch of the emergence of the deadly virus and the uprising of the monkeys itself, in turn, also does not let the viewer get bored anywhere. And together, this whole set of plots gradually harmoniously combines into one, complementing and bringing each other to perfection.
And yet, despite the global theme of the franchise, this film highlights Will and Caesar’s relationship. Two different but similar species. One achieved dominance on the planet, the other became something of a hand toy for zoos and laboratory experiments. Suddenly, the oppressed receive their opponent’s main weapon – high intelligence, which essentially equalizes them in rights and claims. And a person within his society cannot exist in harmony, let alone peaceful coexistence with another species. After all, only one can rule.
There is no difference between Will and Caesar. They are practically equal, at least Will sees his younger brother as equal. But his position does not coincide with the position of others, and therefore Caesar, suffering humiliation and cruelty, is forced, like his great namesake, to make a revolution, proving to people the viability and rights of a kind. It is especially funny that the weapon of his extermination (both weapons: intelligent primates and a virus) man creates himself. But the goals were always good.
Wyatt's film boasts a rather stellar and organically looking cast. Skipping the secondary, but perfectly played Lithgow, Cox and Felton, it is worth turning to the main cast, because James Franco, for example, played here, perhaps his best since “Spider-Man” role. In its significance and plot, it is very similar to the role of Richard Gere in Hachiko. And Andy Serkis, having filled Peter Jackson’s hand, plays Caesar so convincingly that sometimes even trembles. And despite the fact that the actor would like to step away from the role of the heroes of “Motion capture”, sometimes it is better to do what you do best.
The picture, of course, should be recommended for viewing. It not only brings fresh breath and its zest to the franchise, but also looks great as an independent work in which you do not need to know the context.
10 out of 10
The fact that the Rebellion of the Planet of the Apes is not a masterpiece will not surprise anyone. With the release of the second part, the first one seems to be a very long introduction, and not a full-fledged film.
All the attention in the film is paid to the primate Caesar, who, thanks to experiments to combat Alzheimer's disease, becomes unusually intelligent. Looking at Caesar and his facial expressions is very interesting. Motion capture technology is doing its job, and Andy Serkis once again proved that it would be time to give at least an Oscar nomination for such roles.
Andy Serkis’ primacy of Caesar is not the only key character in the film. There is also a talented actor James Franco, who for a certain period of the film trained and educated Caesar. I can’t say that he was remembered in this role, and in the second half it was possible to remove him and look at the primates. In general, they did not reveal his character as such. The episodes with Franco's father, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease, looked much more soulful than all the appearances and attempts of James Franco to show sympathy for Caesar for the entire film. I assume that it is more the fault of the script than the actor himself.
Now let’s look at everything in order.
Plot. When I first watched this movie, I felt like I wasn’t watching a full-length movie, but a short film. Not bad, sometimes soulful, but short. That’s because there are a lot of superfluous and absolutely empty episodes in the film. For example, the role of actress Frida Pinto, playing the role of the girl of the main character. It quickly appeared and quickly disappeared, so it is absolutely unclear what function it performed, and no one will remember about it. Conclusion on the plot: As an excursion to the second part - not bad, but delayed.
Actors. The roles of James Franco and Frida Pinto in this film played almost no significance. Their heroes do not sympathize and here they are more like props. Who is worth highlighting is the actors who play the role of primates and in particular Andy Serkis.
Conclusion: It turned out to be a fairly average film with a good idea and a preparation for the sequel. It is worth seeing so that there are no questions when watching a wonderful sequel.
In one of the pharmaceutical companies in San Francisco put inhumane experiments on chimpanzees. After the failure of the crown of research and presentation, the head of the scientific group takes care of a baby monkey, who is smart beyond his years and generally “a smart mountain will bypass.” While the baby named Caesar grows, the professor of sour (not the best role of Franco) continues to improve the formula of the vaccine, which treats people with sclerosis, and makes primates much smarter. But soon, because of the offenses of the grown-up Caesar is sent to a kennel of strict regime, and he, waving his furry legs, like Chapaev a checker, organizes a right-wing radical movement of monkeys.
A great marketing move is to paint a socio-political sketch on the body of a fantastic film about a minority and humanity. The humanities institution is no doubt driven more by the monkeys themselves (this is a film from the Planet of the Apes series) than by blatantly soaking up a cheap African banana instead of chocolate ice cream with crumbs. In terms of modern trends and monogamous soulfulness, studio bosses were extremely lucky with the English director Wyatt, who, moreover, did not shoot an adventure action movie, as Tim Burton did, so he almost completely expanded the topic on public discipline, and carefully treated the mythology of film classics of the late 60s, which Matthew Vaughn did not do with his first Hollywood blockbuster X-Men, referring to the loose prequel Wolverine. Even on the debut work “Prison Escape” it became clear that Wyatt, no otherwise, is close to the topic of infringements in the prison. And if you put it more succinctly - a third of the film consists of the intellectual slaughter of spirited primates on the streets of Dirty Harry, and only the first hour - the birth of the story and about the monkey house, where they are expected to feed not fruits, but Porridge Bystrov, and do not stroke their heads.
With an economical budget of up to a hundred million paper Washingtons, Wyatt still could not make a voracious summer movie, but originally had to shoot something different. The script was hewn with blunt and rusty production scissors, many of the fragments were subject to uneasy simplification and dead-end transformation without answers. A team of fabulous writers took the narrative of District N9 about the convincing scourge of the zoo-sociological group. Playing chips were put on absolutely computer characters created with the help of the Veta Digital laboratory (creators of special effects for King Kong, Avatar, and, of course, Andy Serkis jumps in the role of Caesar), whose compressions, for all the unnaturalness, look subtile to the touch. Reconstruction of the franchise is more like the pilot of some new overseas series with the slogan: "We don't need people to make drama." Making soap with moralizing overtones can be at least in the universe of “Terminator”; and since the series about “Planet of the Apes” was in the 70s.
If Pierre Boole had written his canonical sci-fi novel in our time, it would have been eaten alive by the antagonists of Darwinism, no matter how the intelligence of our lesser flea-brothers is attained. And this is not looking back at the evolutionary moment of Neanderthal degeneration under the onslaught of physically weaker and more ferocious, cunning Cro-Magnons. But for them to attack the temporal story of the interplanetary wanderings of two species of intelligent animals, it would be necessary to become famous on a global scale, and it is good that the old “Planet” found a place in the sun at the end of the era of naive film fiction in parallel with the start of “Star Trek”. For a moment, anticipating all forecasts, for the first weekend, the new film almost paid off, which means that the content of the suffering fate of the talking and growling chimpanzee is extremely in demand. And judging by the statistics of women to a greater extent. Although who to judge, and what “minority” we are talking about, just look at the loving neighbor on the armrest of the chair in the cinema, with whom at the exit of the hall you will want to hug and kiss. The revolution is coming. Hail to the king, baby!
The picture jumped all forecasts, after the upcoming announcements, the problem is that people who were going to watch this sequel, set themselves up to watch the next fantastic action movie, without any esoteric meaning, but Ruppert Whitet, managed something incredible, he was able to put in one film, based mostly on scientific fantasy, modern problems of all mankind, he was able to perfectly combine tragedy and thriller.
The painting, not for one viewing. The film was insightful and soulful, making us think about our immoral actions, and attitude towards others.
We list all the main topics that Whitet and the team raised.
1)'The relationship of fathers and children' This theme is revealed at the beginning of the film Will Rodman (James Franco) working in the laboratory specializing in genetically modified experiments, trying to create a drug-virus that can rehabilitate his own father, suffering from Alzheimer's disease. James Franco, with his brilliant acting abilities, was able to fully convey the experiences of the main character and his desire to return his father to his former health by any means. Note also the coolness of the protagonist, who as the first test of the virus in humans, chose his own father, although he did not know how the human body would react.
2)'The attitude of people to animals as inferior beings' Monkeys are captured in the wild and taken to the barriers of the gen sys laboratory. They put on them, as if there were a variety of experiments, and then throw & #39; as a worn thing', such actions and unfold in the real world. The filmmaking team wanted to convey to the audience that all living beings have the right to freedom and good treatment. Also, they are all able to feel both physical and mental pain, and they too, may eventually get bored. People, treating animals in the most careless and mocking way, expect love and adequate behavior from them again, without noticing that they themselves drive animals to the point that they hate them.
3)'Any species tries to preserve only its own 'Ruppert Wight and the team hint that man is given such intelligence, not to dominate and experiment on other species, but to be a benefactor, a link that will keep balance and balance throughout the world. The person, having received this role, turned it inside out and interprets quite another, does not help, but prevails.
10 out of 10
How awful! I never cease to wonder how cruel people are!
The main character is looking for a cure for Alzheimer's disease, which his father suffers from. The goal is noble. Why is it always at the cost of someone’s life? Yes, we value our lives above all else, why do we not put a penny on the lives of creatures who just live next to us and have not done us anything wrong? The experiment is over, but what about the animals? It will not be investigated, it will not be judged or imprisoned. You paid for it, no one cares.
It’s a movie where chimpanzees play better than humans. Although, as I learned, the main character was made with the help of a man - well, then he plays best of all. Because the other actors played that way. Maybe because the roles are like that, but some even managed to annoy. Like Frida Pinto as the main character's girlfriend. And the head of the lab, who seems to have only one word in his lexicon: money. He was rather annoyed by his role. In any case, this is a film in which chimpanzees elicit more sympathy and respect than humans.
I don’t think animals are better than us. They have no such feelings: vengeance, hatred, hypocrisy. Not in this film, of course, is not because chimpanzees have become too similar to humans.
“Rise of the Planet of the Apes” (and what does “planet” have to do with it?) reminded me of another movie, “Deep Blue Sea”. What did the sharks want? Just go home and live freely. What do chimpanzees want? Same thing! So, can we finally give them that opportunity?
I don’t want to complain about the technical side of the film – Americans know how to make a good picture. But I don’t know, why make a movie like that? What good does it mean? Someone after watching it will think that maybe you should be kinder to the world around you? I doubt it very much. I'm sure most people watch it because it's a cool, publicized movie. But why cultivate cruelty?
The film is not talentless - it is meaningless. In the sense that it does not carry anything good. Moreover, this film is a fraud: expecting to see a quality movie with an intellectual accent, you get some incomprehensible genre picture with a bunch of corpses.
I just can't bet more.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a reboot of monkey adventures directed by Rupert Wyatt. The film, as predictable as it sounds, shows the emergence of conflict between two factions: humans and, therefore, monkeys. James Franco as Mom and Andy Serkis as Caesar. Unconscionable tear presser. “Rise...” – a film about a pet that the owner will have to part with – does it remind you of anything? If Caesar were not a clever monkey, but, say, a dog breed of Setter or Akita Inu, then the viewer would have another touching story about dog friendship and human cruelty. Although the crowns of creation can mock not only their best friends, but also mammals close to us in physiology. Because of the similar structure, man decided that life like himself is sacred, and animals for the sake of universal progress can be sacrificed.
Will Rodman (James Franco) is one of the same scientists who use an innocent monkey, previously poached, to experiment with the Alzheimer’s virus. She herself dies of the immeasurable “intelligence” of people, but leaving offspring – a son who later Rodman will call Caesar – the idea will be planted by the scientist’s father (John Lithgow), when he lifts a monkey over himself, just like Rafiki little Simba. Genetically inheriting the Alz-112 virus from his mother, Caesar knew sign language, recognized human speech and was smarter than some human individuals by the age of three. At the same time, Caesar had a unique character, which he showed in situations unpleasant to him. After an attack on a person, he is sent to an institution of something like a nursery, where a monkey resentful of the world attempts to rebel against neoanthropists.
"Interesting" director Rupert Wyatt, who directed - nothing, got his ticket to Vegas with "Rise of the Planet of the Apes." The picture, although it has a classic development of events (although the plot twists can be counted on his fingers, even the man-grind Nick Vujicic), but still not for this we loved the universe of Pierre Boole. For us, it’s like going to the zoo and looking through the bars at the exhibits hidden in their burrows. In the cinema, macaques are always in sight, and they are more beautiful. What's my point? Visually, Caesar and his brothers look better than in real life. Technological progress is a paradise for a graphodrocher, especially he will like the technology of motion capture, with the help of which a character like Caesar was brought to life. Andy Serkis, whom all sorts of smart people do not consider an actor at all, humanized the monkey and gave it a languid, heavy look, turning it from an ordinary CGI model into the main and, importantly, a living character, because of which Franco refused to participate in the second part, just he would be overtaken by a flea primate again. But we must pay tribute to the actor, finally he cut off the umbilical cord, akin to Seth Rogen, and went to the free conquest of the planet. And as a companion chose a sweet Frido Pinto. One million helped to earn, now another to raise a hairy baby. True, its talisman magic this time misfired: the uprising has taken place, the revolution awaits us further.
8 out of 10
The interaction between humans and animals is always interesting. And yes, I think of monkeys as animals, even though they were human in the film, maybe smarter and better than humans, but they are animals. And then there is a misunderstanding, there are monkeys better than humans, and sometimes vice versa. After all, people catch monkeys for the sake of scientific experiments, and then give them to cages as a “worn thing”.
And here's the protagonist, Caesar. A very intelligent and wise monkey. He was angry with people, but he did not want to take revenge on them. He loved his dad Will and he cared about Charles. And of course, he doesn't belong in the city, especially in the room. And I'll never forget Caesar's look when he said goodbye to Will, he knew he might never come home again. I think everyone was touched by this moment. It was hard to watch the monkeys being abused. Yes, they may have some deviations. But who made them like that? I think everyone knows the answer to this question.
What about the actors? I didn’t immediately recognize James Franco, I remember him from Spider-Man, where he looked much older. And I also want to mention the character that Tom Felton played, throughout the film, while he was alive, I wanted to put him in a cage and also bully him, sorry. Somehow the other actors I do not remember very much or they did not impress me very much, but I say to everyone: “I believe!”
The beginning, I thought, was a little long. As always at the end of the heat of emotions, actions. And everyone was surprised that Caesar spoke. Caesar's home. He loves his father, but they both know where Caesar will be better off. And so, we return to the phrase of the Little Prince, familiar to us since childhood, I believe that this phrase can be one of the slogans of the film.
10 out of 10
I watched "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" when I came back from the theater after watching the sequel to that film, "Planet of the Apes: Revolution." But I decided to write a review for the first part, because after seeing the continuation in my eyes somehow faded. But everything in order.
The plot in the film is based on experiments on monkeys in order to find a medicine that would help cure people from Alzheimer's disease. Of course, it’s a good thing, but the film focuses on the back of the coin, on what animals go through for people.
As for the cast, I really liked the main character performed by James Franco. I've seen a few pictures of him, but in this movie, every second he was in the frame, he was very convincing. He is a hero, and he does not leave the viewer indifferent. Frida Pinto looked very beautiful and it was nice to see her in this film. Well, a surprise for me was the appearance in the film Tom Felton. I’m a huge Harry Potter fan with all its pluses and minuses, and I’m really excited for the success of all the actors in this franchise. Although it is time for Tom, of course, to get out of the role of a mean boy.
To me, another advantage of the film, along with the cast and a good plot, is the presence of so many monkeys in it. In addition to the amazing Caesar, we are shown many different representatives, from monkeys to the most exotic breeds, and all of them are charming, and at the same time dangerous. I think the main special effect of this film is the monkeys themselves! We see their behavior, friendship, choice of leader, I think the directors did a lot of work, because it all looked very natural.
In general, “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” is a fascinating, touching, and sometimes cruel and instructive story, which I will review more than once. Thank you to the creators for creating a film in which the main role is played not by special effects, but by feelings.
9 out of 10
The last "Planet of the Apes" I watched in the distant 2001, which was shot by the great storyteller Tim Burton, it was an absolute remake, from all sides, what do not touch, this film presents a lot of surprises, this is a completely independent picture, while watching, which asks a quite logical question - and here the planet?, it was the only joint, in my humble opinion, which turned into a script highlight, the main thing is not to turn off the TV as soon as the credits appear, patience, then there will be a scene that leads to a surprise!
All this monkey wataga moved to the modern world, to the laboratory of scientists who were experimenting on primates to invent a panacea. Naturally, everything went a little differently, people were not in a hurry to get healthier, and monkeys became smarter not by days, but by seconds - the battle of intelligences is on the way, the division of territory is inevitable.
The film is very long to promote, stretches, all this man-monkey affection takes exactly half of the film, yes, a little even begins to bother, you already want a conflict and not at all spiritual, but the film claims to depth, which, by the way, is present, we must pay tribute. Spectator patience will be more than rewarded - a beastly grin, a frightening roar and a good strategy, which turned out to be simple, but very effective, it is not for nothing that the leader is called Caesar and a great desire to be free, all this is accompanied by a hurricane action, where my sympathies were on the side of the beast, since all these soulless, often thoughtless experiments on animals are not in my honor, and where understanding, there is participation.
The main difference between this film and the previous ones is that monkeys have now become a computer imagination and it catches the eye, for me, costumes looked so better, and the phenomenal work of makeup artists, but here it is a matter of taste and only.
I will recommend the film for viewing, it is no worse than previous works about monkeys, in some places even more lookable, the more this part came out much more relevant in terms of moralizing, and on the nose is the continuation of Caesar’s adventures, which promise to be equally spectacular.
As a CG fan of Andy Serkis, I am ashamed that I saw this movie only a couple of days ago. And then just to be aware of what the sequel will be “Planet of the Apes: Revolution”.
Viewers who saw the 1968 film will appreciate Rebellion because it reflects the spiritual ideas of that film. Although in content they do not overlap in anything except the name of the main character. Speaking of the hero, I bow my head to Andy’s skill, originality and grace of the special effects group’s work: Buck's touching death can only be compared to the death of Seth from Twilight. Saga. Dawn. Caesar’s gaze, full of malice and ideas from the “evil genius” series, is frightening. And immediately you realize that these are the eyes of Andy Serkis, and after all, not everyone brags about playing with their eyes. The shooting is very colorful and rich, not loaded with extra action, although the fall of the helicopter is very much to the point.
I'll move on to the idea of the film itself... As I watched it, I thought, Viruses have found the best way to enslave humans, by symbiosis with our ancestors. It seems that they decided to teach us a lesson, to show who really is the master on the planet, for monkeys, as one of the most intelligent animals, but still more adapted to life in urban and wild conditions. And if they are also supported by viruses that increase intelligence tenfold, then we should clearly think about it. I don’t like crowds of people in the movies, they never deserve to be saved, and this film is a vivid example of that from the first minutes.
Caesar gathered around him a rather motley team, generally depicting a political model: The spiritual ally Maurice, the military chief who had to be overthrown from the beginning to prove his superiority (unfortunately never recognized his name), the devoted guard Buck, and even the Grey Cardinal Koba, no less intelligent than Caesar himself. The superiority of their union lies in their animality, far more human than ours. Perhaps I sympathized with them much more because they were graphically humanized. But what is the magic of cinema?
Finally, I wanted to say a few words about the actors: To all the actors who played this or that kind of monkey, thank you very much. For a minimum of screen time, they showed themselves as much as possible. James Franco, I can’t stand the fact that he’s in a movie. As an actor, I do not perceive him, but in this film he did not require much - scientists are quite emotional. Tom Falton - I'm afraid he will soon forget to play positive characters. And Frida Pinto is making her way to Hollywood, and she knows how to do it. Now I can proudly say that I have watched all the films related to Planet of the Apes in one way or another and look forward to the sequel.
"Rise of the Planet of the Apes." A normal Russian, hearing this name, will certainly think: Oh, my God, has a whole planet of monkeys rebelled against anyone? He'll hit the sky. The fact is that the “rebellion” itself, and the “Planet of the Apes” itself. And the literal translation of "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" played a cruel joke with our distributors. Why? We'll figure it out.
A long time ago, in 1968, the first Planet of the Apes came out - a film adaptation of the novel by Pierre Boole. Then followed a few more sequels of varying degrees of delusion and, finally, a more or less successful remake from Tim Burton, for some reason spit by critics (They all went crazy there, did they?). As for “Rebellion”, it is, oddly enough, a remake of the fourth series of the cycle, which in itself is a prequel to the original picture. It may be confusing, but it’s actually simple: Hollywood primatophiles decided to go back to the origins of the ape revolution and show how apes evolved from humans. And since man is a beast, especially in relation to our smaller brothers, there is no way to do without rebellion on a ship. So the rebellion, though small, is expected (Well, Planet of the Apes in the title is just a reference to the old series, no more).
And so Rupert Wyatt, who was entrusted with another return to the big screen of the famous film series, decided to approach the matter cautiously, without much scope, without too implausible assumptions (speaking chimpanzee does not count), as realistic and emotionally as possible. Down with space travel and wormholes, down with the ape civilization that conquered the Sapiens. Before us is a very lifelike story about an intelligent chimpanzee who was first loved, taken out for walks and all that, and then taken to the zoo and locked up. In the frame drama, family values and pranks with an unexplored virus. And so much of the movie. The viewer is gradually drawn into history, entertaining with adventures beyond the measure of the intelligent Caesar. And if it were not for Caesar and his first steps on the way to the monkey throne, there is nothing more to look at.
In addition to the magnificent Andy Serkis, who gave Caesar a facial expression of the whole body, other beautiful actors are also engaged in the tape, but no one especially forces them to play. So neither Franco, nor Cox, nor Felton cause much excitement. And the wonderful Frida Pinto doesn't even undress. And only John Lithgow from the heart plays the old madman (bravo John!).
But we have to be patient, and closer to the finale we will find something really exciting. Wyatt, as it were, coming to his senses that we are talking about an uprising, accelerates the pace of the narrative to the maximum. And here on the screen is no longer a tearful drama about animals, but some kind of action. Monkeys jump, people run away in panic, and viewers finally get what they came for. And although three dozen monkeys terrorizing the American inhabitants and their valiant police, if you think about it, the spectacle is quite amusing, in the last half an hour in the film there will be no shortage of both spectacular staged shots and fascinating and unbanal action.
Bottom line: a slightly drawn-out but sometimes entertaining film with an intriguing ending. For greater effect, only scope was lacking. But it's a start. Beware of the monkeys!
It's amazing how much love a part of a monkey movie is recreated, and how faceless the part about humans is made. James Franco diligently builds dramatic views, but all in vain, this is not his film. His conflict is made as pale as possible, and is quickly pushed into the background. But the story of the ascent of Caesar’s intelligent monkey attracts eyes.
However, it is as if the creators are between two fires. They diligently justify monkeys, showing them typical human feelings. Look, they're protecting each other. They don't leave. They don't just get killed. But is it necessary? After all, the best moments of the film are those when they have an animal nature. Screaming, animal rage, ruthlessness. That’s when the movie gets scary. That's when it looks real.
The people in the film are frankly funny. Their rigidity is presented as a given, as something that requires no explanation. However, once the monkeys break free, it turns out that there is absolutely no one to fight them back. Police frankly reluctantly shoot at animals, either because of children's ratings, or fearing the punishing hand of Greenpeace.
This is the main anachronism of the film. People are presented as absolute evil. But this evil, as it turns out, is much easier to deal with themselves than to offend an animal.