War also features perhaps the best score in the franchise's history, which is particularly impressive considering just how crucial earlier scores were to their respective entries in the Apes franchise. Rather, it remains faithful to the characters and the environment that had captivated fans for so long. Reeves takes obvious inspiration from classic war movies like Apocalypse Now and Bridge on the River Kwai, but the film never feels derivative. The film is nothing short of epic, putting Serkis' Caesar through unprecedented turmoil on both a physical and emotional level. And yet, Matt Reeves achieved exactly that with 2017's War for the Planet of the Apes. Closing out a trilogy with one of the greatest sci-fi films ever made? Even harder. Still, its ability to bridge the gap between two distinct generations of the Apes franchise is laudable.Ĭlosing out a trilogy is no easy task, as can be evidenced in everything from the Matrix trilogy to Christopher Nolan's Batman trio. Serkis and the rest of Rise's cast do a great job of setting up all the dominos that will fall in the next two films in the trilogy, but the film does feel a little formulaic in its storytelling. Serkis' performance is mesmerizing, and his work only improves through each iteration of the new films. Their relationship, and the journey it sends them on, ultimately becomes the driving force behind apes' rise to dominance.Ĭaesar is brought to life via motion-capture by actor Andy Serkis. The film follows Alzheimer's researcher Will Rodman (James Franco) as he bonds with Caesar, a young ape who he rescued from the lab. Rupert Wyatt's Rise of the Planet of the Apes offered a bold new vision for what the Apes franchise could be. Its triumphant return in 2011, however, proved to be worth the wait. In the wake of Tim Burton's disastrous attempt at rebooting Planet of the Apes in 2001, the franchise faded into obscurity for a decade. Still, considering the uneven nature of the early sequels, Conquest has a lot going for it. Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong with opting for spectacle over substance, but the action in the film is far from spectacular.
It refrains from fully engaging with the many themes bubbling beneath its surface, and behaves more like an action-packed blockbuster instead. Like many of the original sequels, Conquest does play things a bit safe.
#GUANO APES PLANET OF THE APES BEST OF MOVIE#
Related: Every Unmade James Cameron Movie (& Why They Didn't Happen) The recent trilogy's tight focus on its version of Caesar likely made him a more memorable character, but Conquest still told a compelling story of an ape wrestling with his mistrust of humans. Indeed, 1972's Conquest marked audiences' introduction to Caesar, the young ape who would go on to lead a revolution in later films. Burton, who is not the first director to consider an Apes reboot, offers enough in the way of spectacle to make his take on the franchise worthwhile, even if the film's script is mediocre at best.Ĭonquest of the Planet of the Apes likely bears the worst name out of any film in the Apes franchise, but it does have one important thing going for it: Caesar.
#GUANO APES PLANET OF THE APES BEST OF UPGRADE#
Sure, Planet of the Apes is the definition of mindless entertainment, but the film's ape prosthetics are pretty impressive, and are a clear upgrade from the costuming in the original films, which still remains impressive in its own right. Related: Planet of the Apes: All Movie Timelines Explained Instead, it operates like a silly B-movie. 2001's Planet of the Apes remains blissfully unconcerned with the politics that have so heavily defined the other eight films. It's technically a remake of the first film in the franchise, but it simultaneously works as a sequel to the film, taking place several hundred years in the future.
It pretty much makes no sense, particularly its bizarre ending. Tim Burton's take on Planet of the Apesis a difficult film to assess. The premise has gained greater traction in the wake of the recent trilogy, leading to some fascinating fan theories, but it did not make a particularly strong impression as the initial follow-up to one of the most innovative sci-fi films of all time. In truth, the greater threat posed to the franchise by Beneath was the film's nonsensical story, which drew attention away from the titular apes and instead focused on a group of telepathic humans who worship an underground nuclear bomb. The vanishing of earth at the end of Beneath could have killed the franchise altogether, but a whole bunch of time-traveling shenanigans ensured that Planet of the Apes could live on. Heston ultimately returned for 1970's Beneath the Planet of the Apes in the form of a cameo, and only under the condition that he can blow up planet earth by the film's end. So, when the success of the first film prompted 20th Century Fox to consider a sequel, star Charlton Heston was skeptical. When Planet of the Apes first emerged in 1968, Hollywood franchises were few and far between.
0 kommentar(er)
