It appears decent because it creates suspense that doesn't deliver, with serious plot holes that makes every actor unconvincing. They perform like it's a mega psychological thriller but it's just far fetched money drama. Did I mention plot holes?
Reviews
3 Reviews
It is an alright movie... but... come on...
29 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
In this review I will focus on what I thought was negative.
Post 2000's, three directors made "origins" movies for the Planet of the Apes classic about the distant future of an Earth ruled by apes. Three movies about a self-evident prequel implied in the classic. The first by Tim Burton being a little bit more of a remake, the two others offering a plot that's just a total conversion of a zombie apocalypse plot.
Because "origin" movies are a trend we have to get one for each classic, but at some point it has got to stop with the "almost there" episodes for Planet of the Apes and it's time to make a real story. I am an idiot to think that with "Dawn" in the title the movie would deliver something about a Planet of the Apes, but with a high rating of 8/10 on IMDb as of today I didn't expect Dawn of the Planet of the Apes to be just this: the dawn. Again. Second time, and without James Franco (Then what's the point?). "Origins" movies that redundantly repeat the implied preceding events from a cultural classic need to add something, and I don't think an uprising of very-humanly reasoning and communicating apes is an addition to what we already knew. We imagined it, we've seen it, maybe not in Full HD, but we definitely got it, only we come back for something new, which this movie doesn't really deliver.
So what else didn't I like?
The visual technology has maybe advanced a little bit, and the apes look even more real, and with human-like facial expressions (Serkis- like) and posture that the viewer can detect, you can tell the difference between the apes, you can start to learn their names as they are repeated several times, but here's the problem: by the time the Earth becomes the Planet of the Apes, the characters will change, be replaced and the public will not really remember because we're human and can't even distinguish separate species among the apes family to begin with.
The bad guys. Unsurprisingly Gary Oldman had to be "that guy", you know, like Stephen Lang in Avatar. "That guy" who from the very first appearance represent the narrow minded, the conservative, the pepper in humanity. The guy who ruins a good thing by being too stereotypical. Whenever that happens in a movie, the real bad guys are the unimaginative writers.
The good guys. What did they do again? They talked. Past the few scenes you might think they helped in the plot, but you'll actually have to thank chance and miracles that affected the turn over of events nearing the end. So basically they have good will, and they are supposed to balance out Gary Oldman's character's bad influence. Which by the way is just this, bad influence. His character did little to no damage in the events of the movie (in a city that was already in ruins), so he could have just kept quiet during the entire movie and it would have ended the same.
The end. Remember Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes from 2001? It was barely an open ending, more like a big twist acting like a final question mark to mess with you, but it feels in no way like a "to be continued." 13 years later, it was not continued, so I was right to assume so when I watched it in the theaters. Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes both end with an obvious "to be continued..." open ending. What's next? "Just two more hours before the Planet of the Apes"? "Please Bear with Me, it's Almost the Planet of the Apes"?
Yes, it is visually entertaining, but if you're going to make sci- fi, write a story already!
Post 2000's, three directors made "origins" movies for the Planet of the Apes classic about the distant future of an Earth ruled by apes. Three movies about a self-evident prequel implied in the classic. The first by Tim Burton being a little bit more of a remake, the two others offering a plot that's just a total conversion of a zombie apocalypse plot.
Because "origin" movies are a trend we have to get one for each classic, but at some point it has got to stop with the "almost there" episodes for Planet of the Apes and it's time to make a real story. I am an idiot to think that with "Dawn" in the title the movie would deliver something about a Planet of the Apes, but with a high rating of 8/10 on IMDb as of today I didn't expect Dawn of the Planet of the Apes to be just this: the dawn. Again. Second time, and without James Franco (Then what's the point?). "Origins" movies that redundantly repeat the implied preceding events from a cultural classic need to add something, and I don't think an uprising of very-humanly reasoning and communicating apes is an addition to what we already knew. We imagined it, we've seen it, maybe not in Full HD, but we definitely got it, only we come back for something new, which this movie doesn't really deliver.
So what else didn't I like?
The visual technology has maybe advanced a little bit, and the apes look even more real, and with human-like facial expressions (Serkis- like) and posture that the viewer can detect, you can tell the difference between the apes, you can start to learn their names as they are repeated several times, but here's the problem: by the time the Earth becomes the Planet of the Apes, the characters will change, be replaced and the public will not really remember because we're human and can't even distinguish separate species among the apes family to begin with.
The bad guys. Unsurprisingly Gary Oldman had to be "that guy", you know, like Stephen Lang in Avatar. "That guy" who from the very first appearance represent the narrow minded, the conservative, the pepper in humanity. The guy who ruins a good thing by being too stereotypical. Whenever that happens in a movie, the real bad guys are the unimaginative writers.
The good guys. What did they do again? They talked. Past the few scenes you might think they helped in the plot, but you'll actually have to thank chance and miracles that affected the turn over of events nearing the end. So basically they have good will, and they are supposed to balance out Gary Oldman's character's bad influence. Which by the way is just this, bad influence. His character did little to no damage in the events of the movie (in a city that was already in ruins), so he could have just kept quiet during the entire movie and it would have ended the same.
The end. Remember Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes from 2001? It was barely an open ending, more like a big twist acting like a final question mark to mess with you, but it feels in no way like a "to be continued." 13 years later, it was not continued, so I was right to assume so when I watched it in the theaters. Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes both end with an obvious "to be continued..." open ending. What's next? "Just two more hours before the Planet of the Apes"? "Please Bear with Me, it's Almost the Planet of the Apes"?
Yes, it is visually entertaining, but if you're going to make sci- fi, write a story already!
Tell Your Friends