list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Planet of the Apes on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Planet_of_the_Apes/26840/default.aspx Title: Planet of the Apes
Year: 1968
Director: Franklin J. Schaffner
Plot: Originally intended as a project for Blake Edwards, the film version of Pierre Boule's semisatiric sci-fi novel came to the screen in 1968 under the directorial guidance of Franklin J. Schaffner. Charlton Heston is George Taylor, one of several astronauts on a long, long space mission whose spaceship crash-lands on a remote planet, seemingly devoid of intelligent life. Soon the astronaut learns that this planet is ruled by a race of talking, thinking, reasoning apes who hold court over a complex, multilayered civilization. In this topsy-turvy society, the human beings are grunting, inarticulate primates, penned-up like animals. When ape leader Dr. Zaius (Maurice Evans) discovers that the captive Taylor has the power of speech, he reacts in horror and insists that the astronaut be killed. But sympathetic ape scientists Cornelius (Roddy McDowell) and Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter) risk their lives to protect Taylor -- and to discover the secret of their planet's history that Dr. Zaius and his minions guard so jealously. In the end, it is Taylor who stumbles on the truth about the Planet of the Apes: "Damn you! Damn you! Goddamn you all to hell!" Scripted by Rod Serling and Michael Wilson (a former blacklistee who previously adapted another Pierre Boule novel, Bridge on the River Kwai), Planet of the Apes has gone on to be an all-time sci-fi (and/or camp) classic. It won a special Academy Award for John Chambers's convincing (and, from all accounts, excruciatingly uncomfortable) simian makeup. It spawned four successful sequels, as well as two TV series, one live-action and one animated. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 20
Number of Lists: 32
Number of blog posts: 6
Number of discussion threads: 15
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 02:34:07 GMTPlanet of the Apes1968Franklin J. SchaffnerOriginally intended as a project for <a href="/players/P____88685/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Blake Edwards</a>, the film version of Pierre Boule's semisatiric sci-fi novel came to the screen in 1968 under the directorial guidance of Franklin J. Schaffner. <a href="/players/P____94233/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Charlton Heston</a> is George Taylor, one of several astronauts on a long, long space mission whose spaceship crash-lands on a remote planet, seemingly devoid of intelligent life. Soon the astronaut learns that this planet is ruled by a race of talking, thinking, reasoning apes who hold court over a complex, multilayered civilization. In this topsy-turvy society, the human beings are grunting, inarticulate primates, penned-up like animals. When ape leader Dr. Zaius (<a href="/players/P____22281/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Maurice Evans</a>) discovers that the captive Taylor has the power of speech, he reacts in horror and insists that the astronaut be killed. But sympathetic ape scientists Cornelius (Roddy McDowell) and Dr. Zira (<a href="/players/P____34023/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kim Hunter</a>) risk their lives to protect Taylor -- and to discover the secret of their planet's history that Dr. Zaius and his minions guard so jealously. In the end, it is Taylor who stumbles on the truth about the Planet of the Apes: "Damn you! Damn you! Goddamn you all to hell!" Scripted by <a href="/players/P___110843/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Rod Serling</a> and <a href="/players/P___116994/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Michael Wilson</a> (a former blacklistee who previously adapted another Pierre Boule novel, <a href=/films/4445/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Bridge on the River Kwai</a>), Planet of the Apes has gone on to be an all-time sci-fi (and/or camp) classic. It won a special Academy Award for <a href="/players/P___159090/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Chambers</a>'s convincing (and, from all accounts, excruciatingly uncomfortable) simian makeup. It spawned four successful sequels, as well as two TV series, one live-action and one animated. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide20Tag Target (>10)326153http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t75440r2k4f.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Planet_of_the_Apes/26840/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/9/38148.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/9/2008 6:01:19 PM
Body: Last week, Roger Ebert finally got around to destroying reviewing Ben Stein’s anti-evolution film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Ebert’s rant is as cerebral as it is merciless, and it’s worth a read even if you haven’t seen the film. He makes some good points about how the film completely misunderstands the concepts of probability and selection, forming flashy but ultimately useless argument. Ebert’s rage is thinly veiled. He’s obviously upset that clear logical fallacies can go unnoticed by so many people. Sure, misreading Darwin while attempting to refute him is a lame move when engaging in scientific debate, but the practice is quite common when it comes to filmmaking. When movies deal with evolution, there’s an unspoken understanding that they can completely distort the theory beyond recognition. It’s kind of like calling someone a pedophile during a Friar’s Club Roast, everyone knows it isn’t true, and it’s all in good fun. When you look at it in this way, Expelled is just the latest in a long line of films that distort the theory of evolution to make a buck. Here are 5 more that are guilty of crimes against the origin of humanity: Evolution This 2001 sci-fi/horror/comedy, directed by Ivan Reitman (of Ghostbusters fame), makes one of the most common errors in depicting evolution on film: the process happens much too quickly. It’s the result of an understandable dilemma. Evolution is cool and scary because species can transform into other species and become more advanced, but it takes too long! In the film, a meteor strikes the Earth and deposits a pile of primordial goo. The goo starts evolving like crazy, so that it’s a serious threat to the world in like, a week. While it’s true that simple life forms, left to there own devices, can evolve into something more advanced, it takes soooooo much longer than that. I know it’s a comedy and everything, but still, the real process is mind-numbingly slow. Planet of the Apes At first glance, Planet of the Apes seems to jive with Darwin’s theory pretty well. Not so fast, there are several problems. In case you haven’t seen it, Chuck Heston and friends have spent 2,006 years frozen on a space mission when they crash-land on a planet inhabited by intelligent apes and savage humans. (Spoiler alert) The planet is Earth, humans lost their superiority due to some calamity, allowing other primates to evolve into an advanced intelligence. There are two big problems here. One, there is no reason why the humans who survived the apocalypse would devolve. Sure, their society was destroyed, but that wouldn’t cause natural selection to reverse. If anything, the tough conditions would speed human evolution by eliminating the weak. The second problem is speed issue again. Heston and his pals were only gone for about one hundred human/ape generations, not nearly enough time to account for the changes to either species. The Descent This killer British horror film features an all-female cast of cave explorers who are attacked by pale humanoids known as “crawlers.” Writer/director Neil Marshall described the crawlers as cavemen who stayed in the caves, adapting perfectly to that environment. Sounds pretty good, except that there were never any cavemen in the Appalachian Mountains, where the film takes place. Humans first sprang up in Africa, and spread out from there, fully capable of dwelling on the surface of the Earth. While the nomads who came to North America probably did duck in caves to avoid rain, there would be no logical reason to stay there, because all the good food was outside. Waiting for wayward spelunkers to eat just isn’t a viable survival tactic in the long term. Jurassic Park The problems with Spielberg’s classic CGI dinosaur romp have more to do with cloning than evolution, but because both rely heavily on a proper understanding of genetics, it still counts. First of all, harvesting dinosaur DNA from mosquitoes lodged in amber would be extremely difficult. The film (and book) accounts for this by stating that missing chunks of the genome are replaced by genes from frogs and reptiles and such. Even if this could work, the resulting animals would not be dinosaurs, they would be part dinosaur and part frog, which sounds cool, but the organism would probably just die right away. Even if they could create a viable dinosaur cell nucleus, they wouldn’t have a dinosaur host cell, or oocyte, to put it into, which you need to make a clone. If that weren’t enough, most of the dinosaurs in the film aren’t from the Jurassic period, but the Cretaceous period. Creature from the Black Lagoon In this classic monster movie, a team of scientists hunt for fossils in the Amazon in hopes of finding a complete skeleton to match a webbed humanoid hand discovered on a previous mission. The hand is said to be a link between land and sea animals, which is total bullshit. If a crafty amphibious humanoid were the link between land a sea animals, the evolution of life would have to be caught in some weird time loop, connecting and overlapping species across hundreds of millions of years (which would actually be pretty cool). If such a creature existed it wouldn’t be a link at all, but a completely separate strand of evolution tracing back to a distant common ancestor, something like a fish with a taste for land-dwelling insects. Despite the obvious differences these separate evolutionary paths would create between the Gill-Man and humans, the monster in the film is sexually attracted to female humans, which makes no sense. Also, he seems to have evolved as an individual, which is impossible. Where was the Gill-Man’s family? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:01:19 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/9/2008 6:01:19 PM Last week, Roger Ebert finally got around to destroying reviewing Ben Stein’s anti-evolution film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Ebert’s rant is as cerebral as it is merciless, and it’s worth a read even if you haven’t seen the film. He makes some good points about how the film completely misunderstands the concepts of probability and selection, forming flashy but ultimately useless argument. Ebert’s rage is thinly veiled. He’s obviously upset that clear logical fallacies can go unnoticed by so many people. Sure, misreading Darwin while attempting to refute him is a lame move when engaging in scientific debate, but the practice is quite common when it comes to filmmaking. When movies deal with evolution, there’s an unspoken understanding that they can completely distort the theory beyond recognition. It’s kind of like calling someone a pedophile during a Friar’s Club Roast, everyone knows it isn’t true, and it’s all in good fun. When you look at it in this way, Expelled is just the latest in a long line of films that distort the theory of evolution to make a buck. Here are 5 more that are guilty of crimes against the origin of humanity: Evolution This 2001 sci-fi/horror/comedy, directed by Ivan Reitman (of Ghostbusters fame), makes one of the most common errors in depicting evolution on film: the process happens much too quickly. It’s the result of an understandable dilemma. Evolution is cool and scary because species can transform into other species and become more advanced, but it takes too long! In the film, a meteor strikes the Earth and deposits a pile of primordial goo. The goo starts evolving like crazy, so that it’s a serious threat to the world in like, a week. While it’s true that simple life forms, left to there own devices, can evolve into something more advanced, it takes soooooo much longer than that. I know it’s a comedy and everything, but still, the real process is mind-numbingly slow. Planet of the Apes At first glance, Planet of the Apes seems to jive with Darwin’s theory pretty well. Not so fast, there are several problems. In case you haven’t seen it, Chuck Heston and friends have spent 2,006 years frozen on a space mission when they crash-land on a planet inhabited by intelligent apes and savage humans. (Spoiler alert) The planet is Earth, humans lost their superiority due to some calamity, allowing other primates to evolve into an advanced intelligence. There are two big problems here. One, there is no reason why the humans who survived the apocalypse would devolve. Sure, their society was destroyed, but that wouldn’t cause natural selection to reverse. If anything, the tough conditions would speed human evolution by eliminating the weak. The second problem is speed issue again. Heston and his pals were only gone for about one hundred human/ape generations, not nearly enough time to account for the changes to either species. The Descent This killer British horror film features an all-female cast of cave explorers who are attacked by pale humanoids known as “crawlers.” Writer/director Neil Marshall described the crawlers as cavemen who stayed in the caves, adapting perfectly to that environment. Sounds pretty good, except that there were never any cavemen in the Appalachian Mountains, where the film takes place. Humans first sprang up in Africa, and spread out from there, fully capable of dwelling on the surface of the Earth. While the nomads who came to North America probably did duck in caves to avoid rain, there would be no logical reason to stay there, because all the good food was outside. Waiting for wayward spelunkers to eat just isn’t a viable survival tactic in the long term. Jurassic Park The problems with Spielberg’s classic CGI dinosaur romp have more to do with cloning than evolution, but because both rely heavily on a proper understanding of genetics, it still counts. First of all, harvesting dinosaur DNA from mosquitoes lodged in amber would be extremely difficult. The film (and book) accounts for this by stating that missing chunks of the genome are replaced by genes from frogs and reptiles and such. Even if this could work, the resulting animals would not be dinosaurs, they would be part dinosaur and part frog, which sounds cool, but the organism would probably just die right away. Even if they could create a viable dinosaur cell nucleus, they wouldn’t have a dinosaur host cell, or oocyte, to put it into, which you need to make a clone. If that weren’t enough, most of the dinosaurs in the film aren’t from the Jurassic period, but the Cretaceous period. Creature from the Black Lagoon In this classic monster movie, a team of scientists hunt for fossils in the Amazon in hopes of finding a complete skeleton to match a webbed humanoid hand discovered on a previous mission. The hand is said to be a link between land and sea animals, which is total bullshit. If a crafty amphibious humanoid were the link between land a sea animals, the evolution of life would have to be caught in some weird time loop, connecting and overlapping species across hundreds of millions of years (which would actually be pretty cool). If such a creature existed it wouldn’t be a link at all, but a completely separate strand of evolution tracing back to a distant common ancestor, something like a fish with a taste for land-dwelling insects. Despite the obvious differences these separate evolutionary paths would create between the Gill-Man and humans, the monster in the film is sexually attracted to female humans, which makes no sense. Also, he seems to have evolved as an individual, which is impossible. Where was the Gill-Man’s family? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/1/37801.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/1/2008 4:03:57 PM
Body: Is it that odd to imagine a Waterworld musical on Broadway? After all, Xanadu made it to the big stage, so anything is possible for infamous turkeys like this one. Sure, it looks rather silly in the video below, the way Patrick Warburton and company have made it, but with the right creative team Waterworld could really work as a kitchy cult attraction. Maybe team up two randoms, the way Marvel has with the upcoming Spider-Man show directed by Julie Taymor and featuring music by Bono. Honestly, there seems to be nothing that Broadway producers could announce that’s any more ridiculous than what’s already been done there. So, terrible movie-turned-musical ideas may continue to be easy gags, and they’re possibly even going to make me laugh, but ultimately I would like to go see Con Air: The Musical (from 30 Rock) and Planet of the Apes: The Musical (from The Simpsons) and musicals made out of Waterworld, The Postman, Battlefield Earth and especially Ishtar. Who would love you, Mariner? I would. Check out the commercial for Waterworld: The Musical after the jump. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:03:57 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/1/2008 4:03:57 PMIs it that odd to imagine a Waterworld musical on Broadway? After all, Xanadu made it to the big stage, so anything is possible for infamous turkeys like this one. Sure, it looks rather silly in the video below, the way Patrick Warburton and company have made it, but with the right creative team Waterworld could really work as a kitchy cult attraction. Maybe team up two randoms, the way Marvel has with the upcoming Spider-Man show directed by Julie Taymor and featuring music by Bono. Honestly, there seems to be nothing that Broadway producers could announce that’s any more ridiculous than what’s already been done there. So, terrible movie-turned-musical ideas may continue to be easy gags, and they’re possibly even going to make me laugh, but ultimately I would like to go see Con Air: The Musical (from 30 Rock) and Planet of the Apes: The Musical (from The Simpsons) and musicals made out of Waterworld, The Postman, Battlefield Earth and especially Ishtar. Who would love you, Mariner? I would. Check out the commercial for Waterworld: The Musical after the jump. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/sci_fi/Re_Sci_Fi_Trivia/4/37744/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: csprague
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 11/29/2008 5:13:32 PM
Body: [quote user="mciocco"] I'm guessing Planet of the Apes! [quote user="csprague"] To what 1968 film did The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences give a special award for makeup (which at that time was not an Oscar category)? [/quote] [/quote] You are correct:) (Was that too easy?) Well, it's your turn to post a question now. Give us a tough one.
]]>Sat, 29 Nov 2008 22:13:32 GMTcspraguesci-fi11/29/2008 5:13:32 PM[quote user="mciocco"] I'm guessing Planet of the Apes! [quote user="csprague"] To what 1968 film did The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences give a special award for makeup (which at that time was not an Oscar category)? [/quote] [/quote] You are correct:) (Was that too easy?) Well, it's your turn to post a question now. Give us a tough one. http://www.spout.com/groups/sci_fi/Re_Sci_Fi_Trivia/4/37730/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mciocco
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 11/28/2008 10:21:20 PM
Body: I'm guessing Planet of the Apes! [quote user="csprague"] To what 1968 film did The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences give a special award for makeup (which at that time was not an Oscar category)? [/quote]
]]>Sat, 29 Nov 2008 03:21:20 GMTmcioccosci-fi11/28/2008 10:21:20 PMI'm guessing Planet of the Apes! [quote user="csprague"] To what 1968 film did The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences give a special award for makeup (which at that time was not an Oscar category)? [/quote] http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_MADAGASCAR_2_Giveaway_Win_a_prize_pack_or_mo/563/37037/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Spout-Contests
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 11/6/2008 5:08:00 PM
Body: It is with great joy that today we announce the first Madagascar 2 prize pack winner. Drum roll please... Congratulations Leeroy! To everyone else who submitted, don't worry -- you still have a chance to win a Madagascar 2 poster and soundtrack. Be sure to check this page Friday, 11/7 at 5:00 EST to see if you've won. leeroy711 Top 3 talking animals: 1. Dr. Zaius from Planet of the Apes 2. Mr. Ed 3. Harry the bunny from Meet the Feebles
]]>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:08:00 GMTSpout-ContestsFilmgaming11/6/2008 5:08:00 PMIt is with great joy that today we announce the first Madagascar 2 prize pack winner. Drum roll please... Congratulations Leeroy! To everyone else who submitted, don't worry -- you still have a chance to win a Madagascar 2 poster and soundtrack. Be sure to check this page Friday, 11/7 at 5:00 EST to see if you've won. leeroy711 Top 3 talking animals: 1. Dr. Zaius from Planet of the Apes 2. Mr. Ed 3. Harry the bunny from Meet the Feebles http://www.spout.com/blogs/aidanbrack/archive/2008/9/7/34862.aspx Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 9/7/2008 8:17:12 AM
Body: As in the original 1968 film, Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes tells the story of an American astronaut in the future who finds himself stranded far in the future on a strange and inhospitable world ruled by apes. Aside from a shared concept however, this ‘reimagining’ is a very different picture from its inspiration. Where the original film attempted to debate philosophical and moral issues and was, at points, a little pompous and melodramatic in tone, Tim Burton’s film is much pacier, more conventional action picture. Gone are the debates and court hearings and in its place is a focus on the politics of the ape society and more running around. The film’s opening is promising as we are introduced to a reckless astronaut, Leo, played by Mark Wahlberg, and see him crash and escape from his burning spacecraft. Emerging into a jungle, he finds himself in the middle of a hunt where humans are the prey, getting captured and sold to an orangutan slave trader. The hunt scenes are some of the most memorable of the picture as the characters bob between trees and leap into the undergrowth in an attempt to escape. The camerawork here is impressive, clinging tightly to the action to create a claustrophic, intense feeling as the humans are picked off one by one and herded up. In one particularly effective shot, a child is plucked from the arms of a protective parent - fearsome stuff. Whilst the ape make-up from the 1968 film was quite serviceable, Burton’s apes are clearly a different breed. Attention has been given not only to their make-up, which is much more detailed, but also to their posture and movement, particularly in battle. Rather than merely hopping they scarper, leap and roll their heads and shoulders. Leo is taken to the ape city where he encounters Ari, an ape who believes that humans should have rights. Convincing her to buy him, Leo then concocts an escape plan and convinces her and his fellow slaves to join him in running away. And that’s where the story really stops, degenerating into an extended chase sequence and then a set piece battle. Without those philosophical debates from the original, the film offers little opportunity for its characters to establish themselves or develop and so there is no emotional payoff when the world’s secret is revealed. It was the humbling of Heston’s character that makes the earlier film work on an emotional level, providing an interesting arc and giving the events their context. Burton attempts to give Leo a similar affecting moment in this film but it lacks impact emotionally or visually. Tim Burton’s film misunderstands the success of the original, choosing to emulate the wrong aspects of the formula. The original film worked firstly because it was a spectacle, offering exciting and interesting visuals that caught the imagination, and secondly because of the characterisation of its main characters and the themes it explored. Burton’s version emphasises action, not characterisation, and just one of the themes, that of racial equality. The film also tries to emulate the humour of the original movie but breaks a cardinal rule; it’s characters do not take themselves seriously. An entire character, the slave trader played by Paul Giamatti, seems to exist primarily to crack jokes and never feels like a living, breathing creature. It is hard to take the film seriously when its characters mug for the camera and it is disappointing to see an actor of Giamatti’s quality give such a dull, one note performance. Perhaps the most significant shift that Burton makes in his ‘reimagining’ is in the recasting of the villains. In the original movie whilst the apes are the threat, humans are the off-screen villains of the film. Here Burton allows no such complexity, creating an out-and-out villain in the form of General Thade who is played by Tim Roth. Thade’s attitudes seem similar to those of Dr. Zaius from the original but his position as head of the army makes him seem more dangerous. Tim Roth is excellent as Thade, investing energy and a malevolent cunning into a character that is shallow and undeveloped in story terms. It is a shame that the script does not give him much to do beyond lurk menacingly and attempt to persuade Ari, played by Helena Bonham Carter to marry him. Bonham Carter is quite good as Ari, making her playful but also suggesting a possible romance between her and Leo. Unfortunately the film never sees fit to develop this, possibly wary of a condemnation for beastiality. It is a shame because she has far more chemistry with Wahlberg’s Leo than Estella Warren’s Daena shares with him. Unfortunately Ari is a missed opportunity for the film which never explores her character in detail, nor does it discuss her animal rights activism, missing a golden opportunity for satire. Burton’s Planet of the Apes is a missed opportunity. It is never terrible but does very little well and does nothing original with its story or characters. Instead its action lies flatly on screen and the film relies too heavily on pretty ordinary visual effects to try to generate interest, rather than its themes or characters. Compare the ape city to the elven city of Lothlorien in Lord of the Rings and it comes off a poor, stagey second. Compare its final, big battle to that at the start of Gladiator and it fails to impress either in visuals or in its scale. The problem with Planet of the Apes is that it lacks ambition and never pushes boundaries in terms of technical limitations or its plot. It is not a bad film but it never escapes the shadow of the film it pays homage to, being too similar to avoid comparison and not different enough to feel truly fresh. If it had shown us a different ape civilisation, one closer to Pierre Boulle’s original novel where the apes had a higher level of technology, or if it had told an entirely new story this film could well have distinguished itself more. However I have to agree with Roger Ebert’s assertion than in forty years time, film fans will be returning to the 1968 version ahead of the 2001 ‘reimagining’; the earlier film is simply more interesting and entertaining.
]]>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 12:17:12 GMTaidanbrackThe Bigger Picture9/7/2008 8:17:12 AMAs in the original 1968 film, Tim Burton&rsquo;s Planet of the Apes tells the story of an American astronaut in the future who finds himself stranded far in the future on a strange and inhospitable world ruled by apes. Aside from a shared concept however, this &lsquo;reimagining&rsquo; is a very different picture from its inspiration. Where the original film attempted to debate philosophical and moral issues and was, at points, a little pompous and melodramatic in tone, Tim Burton&rsquo;s film is much pacier, more conventional action picture. Gone are the debates and court hearings and in its place is a focus on the politics of the ape society and more running around. The film&rsquo;s opening is promising as we are introduced to a reckless astronaut, Leo, played by Mark Wahlberg, and see him crash and escape from his burning spacecraft. Emerging into a jungle, he finds himself in the middle of a hunt where humans are the prey, getting captured and sold to an orangutan slave trader. The hunt scenes are some of the most memorable of the picture as the characters bob between trees and leap into the undergrowth in an attempt to escape. The camerawork here is impressive, clinging tightly to the action to create a claustrophic, intense feeling as the humans are picked off one by one and herded up. In one particularly effective shot, a child is plucked from the arms of a protective parent - fearsome stuff. Whilst the ape make-up from the 1968 film was quite serviceable, Burton&rsquo;s apes are clearly a different breed. Attention has been given not only to their make-up, which is much more detailed, but also to their posture and movement, particularly in battle. Rather than merely hopping they scarper, leap and roll their heads and shoulders. Leo is taken to the ape city where he encounters Ari, an ape who believes that humans should have rights. Convincing her to buy him, Leo then concocts an escape plan and convinces her and his fellow slaves to join him in running away. And that&rsquo;s where the story really stops, degenerating into an extended chase sequence and then a set piece battle. Without those philosophical debates from the original, the film offers little opportunity for its characters to establish themselves or develop and so there is no emotional payoff when the world&rsquo;s secret is revealed. It was the humbling of Heston&rsquo;s character that makes the earlier film work on an emotional level, providing an interesting arc and giving the events their context. Burton attempts to give Leo a similar affecting moment in this film but it lacks impact emotionally or visually. Tim Burton&rsquo;s film misunderstands the success of the original, choosing to emulate the wrong aspects of the formula. The original film worked firstly because it was a spectacle, offering exciting and interesting visuals that caught the imagination, and secondly because of the characterisation of its main characters and the themes it explored. Burton&rsquo;s version emphasises action, not characterisation, and just one of the themes, that of racial equality. The film also tries to emulate the humour of the original movie but breaks a cardinal rule; it&rsquo;s characters do not take themselves seriously. An entire character, the slave trader played by Paul Giamatti, seems to exist primarily to crack jokes and never feels like a living, breathing creature. It is hard to take the film seriously when its characters mug for the camera and it is disappointing to see an actor of Giamatti&rsquo;s quality give such a dull, one note performance. Perhaps the most significant shift that Burton makes in his &lsquo;reimagining&rsquo; is in the recasting of the villains. In the original movie whilst the apes are the threat, humans are the off-screen villains of the film. Here Burton allows no such complexity, creating an out-and-out villain in the form of General Thade who is played by Tim Roth. Thade&rsquo;s attitudes seem similar to those of Dr. Zaius from the original but his position as head of the army makes him seem more dangerous. Tim Roth is excellent as Thade, investing energy and a malevolent cunning into a character that is shallow and undeveloped in story terms. It is a shame that the script does not give him much to do beyond lurk menacingly and attempt to persuade Ari, played by Helena Bonham Carter to marry him. Bonham Carter is quite good as Ari, making her playful but also suggesting a possible romance between her and Leo. Unfortunately the film never sees fit to develop this, possibly wary of a condemnation for beastiality. It is a shame because she has far more chemistry with Wahlberg&rsquo;s Leo than Estella Warren&rsquo;s Daena shares with him. Unfortunately Ari is a missed opportunity for the film which never explores her character in detail, nor does it discuss her animal rights activism, missing a golden opportunity for satire. Burton&rsquo;s Planet of the Apes is a missed opportunity. It is never terrible but does very little well and does nothing original with its story or characters. Instead its action lies flatly on screen and the film relies too heavily on pretty ordinary visual effects to try to generate interest, rather than its themes or characters. Compare the ape city to the elven city of Lothlorien in Lord of the Rings and it comes off a poor, stagey second. Compare its final, big battle to that at the start of Gladiator and it fails to impress either in visuals or in its scale. The problem with Planet of the Apes is that it lacks ambition and never pushes boundaries in terms of technical limitations or its plot. It is not a bad film but it never escapes the shadow of the film it pays homage to, being too similar to avoid comparison and not different enough to feel truly fresh. If it had shown us a different ape civilisation, one closer to Pierre Boulle&rsquo;s original novel where the apes had a higher level of technology, or if it had told an entirely new story this film could well have distinguished itself more. However I have to agree with Roger Ebert&rsquo;s assertion than in forty years time, film fans will be returning to the 1968 version ahead of the 2001 &lsquo;reimagining&rsquo;; the earlier film is simply more interesting and entertaining. http://www.spout.com/blogs/aidanbrack/archive/2008/8/24/34312.aspx Post By: aidanbrack
Post To: The Bigger Picture
Post Date: 8/24/2008 3:05:27 PM
Body: Inspired by a novel by Pierre Boulle, Planet of the Apes is the story of a group of four American astronauts who volunteer to be cryogenically frozen and sent into space. When the flight crash lands on a seemingly desolate planet in the year 3978, the surviving astronauts venture into the desert where they encounter a race of primitive humans ruled by fearsome simian overlords. Charlton Heston stars as Colonel George Taylor, a cynical man who volunteers for the mission to escape mankind and its inhumanity towards one another. Captured and isolated, he is unable to speak after being shot in the throat and must persuade the apes holding him prisoner that he is intelligent and that he deserves his freedom. Do I detect the distant sounds of allegory? I think I do. Yes, Planet of the Apes turns our world on its head to make points about man's barbarism to one another, the negative influence religion can have on free scientific inquiry, racial injustice, blood sports and keeping animals caged. Most of this is laid on heavily in philosophical discussions and in a memorable court sequence. Yet these sequences do not slow the film. In fact, they are amongst the most compelling in the picture, energetic and fascinating as we see the ruling apes refuse to allow their beliefs to be challenged. Heston shines in these sequences, full of moral superiority and later frustration as he attempts to reason with his captors. It is not a subtle performance but without the energy he injects into the piece it could easily have fell flatly in its moralistic middle section. Praise should also be given to Roddy McDowall, Kim Hunter and Maurice Evans for achieving captivating performances despite being behind rubber masks throughout the picture. The maks, whilst more flexible than many and simulating speech reasonably well, are not able to indicate emotion particularly clearly and so it falls to the actors to communicate those feelings vocally - no mean feat. The ape characters are handled nicely by the script, being given strong personalities and characteristics. From the inquisitive Cornelius, who privately doubts that apes have always been the dominant lifeform but is scared to speak out, to Dr Zaius, who is scared of order being undermined, it is easy to believe in these characters and their motivations. This film rarely gets it wrong but when it does can provoke unfortunate chuckles. The sight of the three male astronauts naked and running through the woods yet with their modesty completely in tact is ridiculous, and several traditional sayings switched to refer to humans ("human see, human do") sound ridiculous. You may also find yourself questioning why the apes are able to speak perfect twentieth century English whilst the humans cannot. Despite these weaker elements the film still holds up reasonably well if treated as a campy science fiction adventure rather than a more serious effort. It is entertaining and intense, leading to a highly satisfactory ending. Unfortunately the film's shocking twist is now so ingrained in pop culture that its effect is slightly dulled. Yet Heston sells it so well that it still has a powerful impact as we watch Taylor realise what has happened. Planet of the Apes features compelling performances, a couple of exciting set pieces and a fanastic conclusion. It is a less serious movie than it clearly considers itself to be but is no less enjoyable for that.
]]>Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:05:27 GMTaidanbrackThe Bigger Picture8/24/2008 3:05:27 PMInspired by a novel by Pierre Boulle, Planet of the Apes is the story of a group of four American astronauts who volunteer to be cryogenically frozen and sent into space. When the flight crash lands on a seemingly desolate planet in the year 3978, the surviving astronauts venture into the desert where they encounter a race of primitive humans ruled by fearsome simian overlords. Charlton Heston stars as Colonel George Taylor, a cynical man who volunteers for the mission to escape mankind and its inhumanity towards one another. Captured and isolated, he is unable to speak after being shot in the throat and must persuade the apes holding him prisoner that he is intelligent and that he deserves his freedom. Do I detect the distant sounds of allegory? I think I do. Yes, Planet of the Apes turns our world on its head to make points about man's barbarism to one another, the negative influence religion can have on free scientific inquiry, racial injustice, blood sports and keeping animals caged. Most of this is laid on heavily in philosophical discussions and in a memorable court sequence. Yet these sequences do not slow the film. In fact, they are amongst the most compelling in the picture, energetic and fascinating as we see the ruling apes refuse to allow their beliefs to be challenged. Heston shines in these sequences, full of moral superiority and later frustration as he attempts to reason with his captors. It is not a subtle performance but without the energy he injects into the piece it could easily have fell flatly in its moralistic middle section. Praise should also be given to Roddy McDowall, Kim Hunter and Maurice Evans for achieving captivating performances despite being behind rubber masks throughout the picture. The maks, whilst more flexible than many and simulating speech reasonably well, are not able to indicate emotion particularly clearly and so it falls to the actors to communicate those feelings vocally - no mean feat. The ape characters are handled nicely by the script, being given strong personalities and characteristics. From the inquisitive Cornelius, who privately doubts that apes have always been the dominant lifeform but is scared to speak out, to Dr Zaius, who is scared of order being undermined, it is easy to believe in these characters and their motivations. This film rarely gets it wrong but when it does can provoke unfortunate chuckles. The sight of the three male astronauts naked and running through the woods yet with their modesty completely in tact is ridiculous, and several traditional sayings switched to refer to humans ("human see, human do") sound ridiculous. You may also find yourself questioning why the apes are able to speak perfect twentieth century English whilst the humans cannot. Despite these weaker elements the film still holds up reasonably well if treated as a campy science fiction adventure rather than a more serious effort. It is entertaining and intense, leading to a highly satisfactory ending. Unfortunately the film's shocking twist is now so ingrained in pop culture that its effect is slightly dulled. Yet Heston sells it so well that it still has a powerful impact as we watch Taylor realise what has happened. Planet of the Apes features compelling performances, a couple of exciting set pieces and a fanastic conclusion. It is a less serious movie than it clearly considers itself to be but is no less enjoyable for that. http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Games/Re_Sci_Fi_Movies_A_Z/598/29639/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: glowbugg
Post To: Movie Games
Post Date: 5/21/2008 2:30:54 AM
Body: Planet of the Apes (1968) [/quote] Planet of the Apes
]]>Wed, 21 May 2008 06:30:54 GMTglowbuggMovie Games5/21/2008 2:30:54 AMPlanet of the Apes (1968) [/quote] Planet of the Apes http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/4/23/27711.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 4/23/2008 5:01:36 PM
Body: Everyone is familiar with the major controversy of the 1969 Oscars, but the real problem may not be that Oliver! was named Best Picture over Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, which wasn’t even nominated in that top category. No, the bigger issue may be with Planet of the Apes receiving a special award for make-up — consider someone associated with that production may have stolen from or attempted to sabotage the ape wardrobe of Kubrick’s film. In a Vulture blog interview with 2001 ape performer and choreographer Dan Richter, the former mime implies something to that affect: We had stuff stolen. I can’t say it was Planet of the Apes, but they were the only other movie shooting at the same time and same place we were. Stanley and I even had someone steal a mask and some ape hands right out from under our noses on the backlot, where someone had hid in a drainage ditch. We were in lockdown all the time. However, Richter also mentions that he can see a lot of mistakes in the 2001 costumes, so it’s possible the Academy was right to overlook the film in the Best Costume category. And it’s a bit of a moot point, anyway, since Planet lost the costume Oscar to Romeo and Juliet. Personally, I think both films’ apes look kind of silly (I know, the Planet apes weren’t meant to necessarily look like real apes), though Hollywood hasn’t really done much better since (see Congo, Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes remake). But Richter is probably right about getting the behavior down better than anyone before or after. Just watch the clip above, and if you’re in NYC Sunday night, check out the special screening of the film at the Tribeca Film Festival. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:01:36 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com4/23/2008 5:01:36 PM Everyone is familiar with the major controversy of the 1969 Oscars, but the real problem may not be that Oliver! was named Best Picture over Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, which wasn’t even nominated in that top category. No, the bigger issue may be with Planet of the Apes receiving a special award for make-up — consider someone associated with that production may have stolen from or attempted to sabotage the ape wardrobe of Kubrick’s film. In a Vulture blog interview with 2001 ape performer and choreographer Dan Richter, the former mime implies something to that affect: We had stuff stolen. I can’t say it was Planet of the Apes, but they were the only other movie shooting at the same time and same place we were. Stanley and I even had someone steal a mask and some ape hands right out from under our noses on the backlot, where someone had hid in a drainage ditch. We were in lockdown all the time. However, Richter also mentions that he can see a lot of mistakes in the 2001 costumes, so it’s possible the Academy was right to overlook the film in the Best Costume category. And it’s a bit of a moot point, anyway, since Planet lost the costume Oscar to Romeo and Juliet. Personally, I think both films’ apes look kind of silly (I know, the Planet apes weren’t meant to necessarily look like real apes), though Hollywood hasn’t really done much better since (see Congo, Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes remake). But Richter is probably right about getting the behavior down better than anyone before or after. Just watch the clip above, and if you’re in NYC Sunday night, check out the special screening of the film at the Tribeca Film Festival. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/4/8/27103.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 4/8/2008 4:01:04 PM
Body: In this week’s New York, David Edelstein lists a number of films that significantly represent the Big Apple. Because it’s a celebration of the magazine’s 40th anniversary, though, it only goes back as far as 1968 (the year of Planet of the Apes and Rosemary’s Baby). So, tragically no timely mention of The Naked City, which lost both its director and star recently. Edelstein claims to be upset about having to be exclusive, though he seems more concerned with the fact that there aren’t many recent films in the bunch (he asks if I Am Legend has cultural impact). There are a couple films from this decade cited, both of them bearing post-9/11 significance, though he glaringly avoids referencing Cloverfield. Even if he didn’t like the film — though I think he did — it would still be noteworthy. If not just for the sake of the subtext, at least for the fact that, in the last twenty years, the destruction of this city has been a huge part of its cinematic identity. New York even did a top ten list last year. Sure, it’s a little sad to have disaster movies and other fantasies like Spider-Man and Enchanted be the primary representations of New York these days, especially considering most of them look less authentic than Stanley Kubrick’s manufactured Manhattan of Eyes Wide Shut. But as long as he’s including a film acted out with Barbie dolls, there’s got to be room for a giant menacing creature, even if its the more popular Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:01:04 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com4/8/2008 4:01:04 PMIn this week’s New York, David Edelstein lists a number of films that significantly represent the Big Apple. Because it’s a celebration of the magazine’s 40th anniversary, though, it only goes back as far as 1968 (the year of Planet of the Apes and Rosemary’s Baby). So, tragically no timely mention of The Naked City, which lost both its director and star recently. Edelstein claims to be upset about having to be exclusive, though he seems more concerned with the fact that there aren’t many recent films in the bunch (he asks if I Am Legend has cultural impact). There are a couple films from this decade cited, both of them bearing post-9/11 significance, though he glaringly avoids referencing Cloverfield. Even if he didn’t like the film — though I think he did — it would still be noteworthy. If not just for the sake of the subtext, at least for the fact that, in the last twenty years, the destruction of this city has been a huge part of its cinematic identity. New York even did a top ten list last year. Sure, it’s a little sad to have disaster movies and other fantasies like Spider-Man and Enchanted be the primary representations of New York these days, especially considering most of them look less authentic than Stanley Kubrick’s manufactured Manhattan of Eyes Wide Shut. But as long as he’s including a film acted out with Barbie dolls, there’s got to be room for a giant menacing creature, even if its the more popular Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantasy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantasy
Number of films tagged: 1044

Number of people who tagged: 128

Number of times used: 480

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT1044128480Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/action/MemberTagFilms.aspxaction
Number of films tagged: 319

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 460

]]>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:49:02 GMT319111460Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drama/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrama
Number of films tagged: 527

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 627

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:29 GMT527102627Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sci-fi/MemberTagFilms.aspxsci-fi
Number of films tagged: 217

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 375

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:33:53 GMT217102375Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/adventure/MemberTagFilms.aspxadventure
Number of films tagged: 229

Number of people who tagged: 96

Number of times used: 369

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:00:50 GMT22996369Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mystery/MemberTagFilms.aspxmystery
Number of films tagged: 156

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 208

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:30 GMT15682208Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/thriller/MemberTagFilms.aspxthriller
Number of films tagged: 201

Number of people who tagged: 74

Number of times used: 247

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:30 GMT20174247Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/stranded/MemberTagFilms.aspxstranded
Number of films tagged: 551

Number of people who tagged: 15

Number of times used: 30

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:53:34 GMT5511530Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/evolution/MemberTagFilms.aspxevolution
Number of films tagged: 217

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 21

]]>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:02:27 GMT2171421Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/astronaut/MemberTagFilms.aspxastronaut
Number of films tagged: 252

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 21

]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:07:18 GMT2521221Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/forbidden/MemberTagFilms.aspxforbidden
Number of films tagged: 59

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 10

]]>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:23:35 GMT59910Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/ape/MemberTagFilms.aspxape
Number of films tagged: 63

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 11

]]>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:16:15 GMT63811Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dvd/MemberTagFilms.aspxdvd
Number of films tagged: 43

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 43

]]>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:19:24 GMT43843Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/planet/MemberTagFilms.aspxplanet
Number of films tagged: 353

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 10

]]>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:02:14 GMT353610Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/jawesome/MemberTagFilms.aspxjawesome
Number of films tagged: 113

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 118

]]>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:03:02 GMT1135118Tag