Dawn of the Planet of the Apes: will it be good?

Out July 11.
Final trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpSaTrW4leg

Maybe

This is great:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbaTNiWx5d0&index=2&list=PLgM-K3_MKyZlGsavoO_-bAmzPK656Vpri

Dawn of the DeadPlanet of the Apes.

I'm looking forward to seeing this, but that scene with the two guards and the ape is straight out of "Prometheus" dumb behavior.

I hope it'll be good, Rise was great! But it was great largely because of the emotional pull. I hope they manage that again but it's going to be harder since so many more monkey smashing shit up.

getting good buzz from early screenings. i love this series, still weirdly unsettling after all this years.

Track listing for Michael Giacchino's soundtrack:

1. Level Plaguing Field
2. Look Who’s Stalking
3. The Great Ape Processional
4. Past Their Primates
5. Close Encounters of the Furred Kind
6. Monkey to the City
7. The Lost City of Chimpanzee
8. Along Simian Lines
9. Caesar No Evil, Hear No Evil
10. Monkey See, Monkey Coup
11. Gorilla Warfare
12. The Apes of Wrath
13. Gibbon Take
14. Aped Crusaders
15. How Bonobo Can You Go
16. Enough Monkeying Around
17. Primates for Life
18. Planet of the End Credits
19. Ain’t That a Stinger

loooooooool

Don't you mean Michael Giacchimpo?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n8BPv43vhE

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/dawn-of-the-planet-of-the-apes

few tasty reviews coming in

oh shit - just read the capsule reviews on metacritic... I'm not reading anything else until I see it. ery encouraged by the "if you liked Rise yr gonna love this" tone of the word so far

does this movie evidence any interest or knowledge in ape society, which is a thing that has been studied? or do they just make the apes a kind of funhouse mirror of humanity? b/c a film that actually engaged with the similarities and differences between human and ape societies (even presuming the hyperintelligent apes that are the basis of the series mythology) would be pretty interesting. i suspect this will be good, but i'm doubtful that it will be that intellectually rewarding.

that founding mythology is so great, so ripe for a million different treatments. i actually am not a huge fan of the original film (I think Franklin Schaffner's staging is efficient and even elegant, but too stodgy and literal) but it's no surprise that it was a huge success. some of the early sequels have even more evocative premises, even if they aren't fully realized.

has anyone noted that some critics are going "apeshit" for this new one?

i still think that caesar's first "NO!" in the previous film is the high point of blockbuster cinema of the past decade or so

Enjoyed it. Has dead spots, especially everything with the human characters. (Gary Oldman barely bothers to play a character at all, he's just generic Gary Oldman.)

But the apes are great, and the whole thing is well made, visually and technically. I wanted to hang out in the ape village more, was disappointed when the action moved to the city.

loved RISE. this was... less. caesar is still a great character but here he doesn't have much to do but noble savage about and Learn some Important Lessons. he doesn't drive the action. we don't follow his POV.

it's never really clear whose story this is because it's really no one's. there's no This Guy Who, just Some Things That Happen on the way to The Planet of the Apes. Still, baby minkey is super cute, the Phantom Gas Station is a nice moment, and Andy Sirkus for Best Actor.

Serkis obv wth autocorrect

Afterward we were talking about the inevitable Serkis Oscar debate. He needs his own category.

Yeah the movie hedges its bets by giving good guys and bad guys on both sides of the species line. But it's still really Caesar's story -- he wants things to be one way, but realizes they're another way. It will be an even trickier line to walk in the next movie, unless they just skip ahead past the ape-human war.

overall this was pretty great. i was 10,000x more emotionally invested in this than any recent franchise film i can remember. i know because (a) i actually teared up at one point and (b) I never got that flash of existential dread that i get halfway through i see any other big franchise film in a theater, where i remember that my life is finite and what the fuck am i doing watching iron man 9?

it wasn't perfect though. i found myself less compelled by it in the last one or two reels. in retrospect i think the issue was this: the film maintains a difficult and impressive balance of motivations for most of the film—each character, no matter how likable or dislikable, has a pretty-much understandable reason for being as they are and thinking as they do. i'm thinking above all of the gary oldman character and koba.

**SPOILERS AHEAD**

as the film moves into its climactic phase, the filmmakers move to make koba less and less reasonable, and more and more obviously motivated by jealousy, vainglory, pure meanness, etc. there's a similar if not as pronounced movement with the oldman character. the result is that the movie begins to feel more and more like a more conventional blockbuster-movie climax. there is still the fundamental antinomy of the series, which makes it so fertile. but this episode's particular antinomies (i.e., characters with two emotionally convincing goals that are irreconcilable) are muted in favor of a good/bad dichotomy. we should FEEL for koba, even understand how in all his excess he may have a fundamentally sound point. but they turn him into a more routine baddy, to the point where caesar can say "koba is no ape" and we're expected to agree, even though this makes hash of the film's themes, which until pretty late have been developed with exceptional clarity and intelligence.

anyway, that i even bothered to think about this film long enough to have these objections is testament to its power/effectiveness.

i also thought the filmmaking was smart and elegant and the occasional flourishes (like the tank POV long take) were truly impressive and effective. i've noticed that big-budget films seem to be moving away from the antic cutting and shaky camera, a change i'm grateful for. this film was especially tasteful in that regard.

but this episode's particular antinomies (i.e., characters with two emotionally convincing goals that are irreconcilable) are muted in favor of a good/bad dichotomy. we should FEEL for koba, even understand how in all his excess he may have a fundamentally sound point. but they turn him into a more routine baddy, to the point where caesar can say "koba is no ape" and we're expected to agree, even though this makes hash of the film's themes, which until pretty late have been developed with exceptional clarity and intelligence.

this is OTM and would have made all the difference

Agreed, Koba is for most of the movie a much more interesting character. Even when he confronts Caesar at the dam, his motives still seem legit. Then at a certain point he just becomes Stalin. (Which his name signals from the beginning, but the shift is too abrupt.)

Koba's performing-monkey stuff for the guys at the armory were my favorite scenes in the movie.

Koba turning into a monster is actually quite consistent with the type of "emotionally convincing" position he takes. the point doesn't change: "us or them", "military chain of command". as ugly as it gets it still might be the "right" way to handle the situation. scarcity of resources and all that.

the fear and hate on both sides makes war seem inevitable and I felt every ounce of this tragedy in each and every shot of Caesar's face. he has no right to be this expressive! I was tearing up out of intensity whenever he was on screen. don't know if it's all Serkis or not but this is an epochal performance. and yeah, "NO!" is a decade highlight.

Koba's performing-monkey stuff for the guys at the armory were my favorite scenes in the movie.

yeah. people in the theater were laughing, but i thought those scenes were among the most utterly terrifying in the whole series.

btw folks who like this film might like "the indian fighter" (and a few other "indian westerns" of the 1950s), it's basically the same plot...

btw i like joshua clover's take on the previous film: http://www.filmquarterly.org/2012/01/fall-and-rise/ (it's the last section of the review)

Will is coded in every regard as the good guy, in comparison both to his avaricious corporate boss and the brutal preserve master, played by Brian Cox, with his yellowed veneer of humanity. Will loves Caesar. Surely this is the moment—an hour in, already!—when good joins with good and the malefactors are given what for, in a rousing finale.

This is precisely what does not happen. His cage thrown open, Caesar spots the leash in Will’s hand and, seeming to reach out to him, he instead closes the door, locking himself in. No pretending that even the most enlightened bondage is more tolerable than an iron cage.

It is a heartbreaking moment: the sorrow of serious politics. To understand the real situation is to understand that the categories of good and evil, of humane and inhumane, of compassionate and cruel—the humanist bedtime tales—do not apply. There is an irreducible antagonism between one group and another, and no amount of moral or ethical grace can remedy it. Love cannot help with it. Working to change things from within cannot help with it. There is no yes that doesn’t come with a leash.

Lest we miss this, the film offers a second fulcrum, ten minutes later. Still in the preserve, Caesar tangles with the gamekeeper’s vile son. After being shocked several times, he manages to grab his tormentor’s arm. “Take your stinking paw off me, you damn dirty ape!” cries the human, reprising in reverse a line from the original. There is a pause, and for the first time Caesar speaks: “No!” He goes on to repeat the word several times as he drags the poor fellow away, sets free his fellow captives, cries havoc, and lets slip the apes of war. Wallace Stevens began one poem, “After the final no there comes a yes and on that yes the future world depends.” Rise sets that formula on its head, or perhaps its feet, with adamantine force.

there was an audible shudder through the audience when caesar yells "NO!" followed by one woman toward the back appreciatively yelling "damn!".

charles burns must be tickled that black hole is the only comic to survive the apepocalypse.

haven't seen this one yet but I caught the last one on TV again and it's really a good, well-thought out film, it really shattered my expectations (which were quite low, but still)

I haven't seen this one yet (won't unless I hit a discount matinee) and hence skipped the spoilerrific stiff, but...

Reeves’ earnestness is the only emotion you’re given to respond to, and the film eventually stalls out, offering dozens of variations of the same scene in which apes misunderstand humans or vice versa. You twiddle your thumbs awaiting the inevitable warfare, a.k.a. the good stuff. In terms of narrative scope, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is similar to the original film, as both choose to represent Earth’s evolving societies through the conflicts of a handful of ape and human characters. The vistas of the new film are, of course, much larger—and lifeless. You look at these decimated cities and see the toil that goes into making a huge tent-pole summer film....

The evolution of the Apes films is as good an illustration as any of how American pop cinema has evolved. Schaffner’s film was made to make money, and there was no shame in it about that. The film isn’t afraid to be amusing, and, though it’s pitched at children as well as adults, there’s a distinct carnality and liveliness to it.... But Planet of the Apes is still essentially a joke, and a funny and occasionally scary one....

There isn’t a single joke in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, and the primary romantic couple is played by the attractive and normally charismatic Jason Clarke and Keri Russell with so little sense of sexual tension that one could easily mistake them for siblings. There isn’t a line of dialogue that’s memorable....

The contemporary blockbuster takes pride in pushing derivative doomsday aesthetic expansiveness at the cost of playfulness—filmmakers don’t seem willing to risk money on the implication that an audience might pay to simply enjoy itself, and it’s easier to numb than to stimulate anyway. The blockbuster justifies that fifteen-dollar theater ticket by pummeling you: You’ve seen something, but what? Are American blockbusters now catering to your sense of nihilism, or vice versa?

http://www.fandor.com/keyframe/monkey-business

That last paragraph could be Pauline Kael talking about west side story

Or anybody talking about Cecil b demille

he was an excellent filmmaker (I'm guessing you've seen Ten Commandments '56 and ...?), so you're wrong again

You left off the addemdum to that review, Morbs:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7068/6841249186_627d8fc0f9.jpg

I'm old enough that I'm not without sympathy for "it was better before," just noting that if you're accusing the cinematic blockbuster of being apocalyptic pummeling for the sake of pummeling you don't have to say "contemporary" because that's always been the accusation

There isn’t a single joke in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,

This is very rong.

morbs, i'm glad to hear that you endorse a review of a film that you haven't seen that flatters your own prejudices

the review is pretty vague (it seems to deliberately stay at a very generalized level, without a single citation of a particular moment from either film), but i think it's saying something about the contemporary blockbuster stewing up intimations of "significance" and "seriousness"--and yeah, that's a thing. it sucks much pleasure out of the christopher nolan batman movies foe me. but it's not new to this decade. and i don't really thing it applies to "dawn of the planet of the apes," or at least not to an objectionable extent. i don't see (or enjoy) movies b/c of their "messages" or "significance," i thought this was a fairly engrossing, compelling film that was not w/o its flaws.

sorry for typos, i'm on pain pills and typing is a little strained.

My distaste for the "contemporary blockbuster" isn't centered on this movie, but what I experiences whenever i succumb to seeing one: atomized incomprehensible "action," nonstop high volume, the pompous "darkness" exemplified by the Nolan cartoons, etc. These things have NOT "always" been present in big mersh films no matter how reflexively you claim so.

I quite liked the last Apes film and was surprised this one has a different director (whose Let Me In I like better than the Swedish original).

Morbz just hates when people respond reflexively

let me get my hammer

Go watch the monkeys do their thing, Morbs. It's a terrific picture.

i wrote above that i usually have a pretty bad reaction to contemporary tentpole/franchise movies, and didn't have that reaction to this one. there's a certain kind of self-seriousness present in some contemporary blockbusters (i'd posit the last superman movie in addition to the nolan films as obvious examples) that might be new-ish, but there are other forms of self-importance that beset the blockbuster since its earliest days.

the director of the last film wanted for pre-production time (i.e. more time to write the film) and was replaced since they wanted a new film this year (honestly, three years seems like more than enough time to make a movie to me). it would be easy to use that fact to lambaste the new film but i think it's surprisingly thoughtful. might be even better made, from a stylistic standpoint, than the previous one. the big emotional moments are less unexpected and unusual than in the first one (no big "NOOOOO!" scene, more "so sad, he misses his family").

there's something about the juxtaposition of the sheer size/length, pointlessness, and self-seriousness (or at least bombast) of contemporary blockbusters that causes me to have a really bad reaction in the theater—usually in the form of a temporary existential panic. i didn't feel that way watching either of the recent planet of the apes films.

xpost

wanted MORE pre-production time

sorry again for typos

http://on.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/apes-raises-a-common-question-about-reboots-why-so-serious/2014/07/14/c6682966-0795-11e4-a0dd-f2b22a257353_story.html?tid=hpModule_1f58c93a-8a7a-11e2-98d9-3012c1cd8d1e

I laughed all throughout this movie (double guns kobo on horseback a+++) but Noah was funnier.

Yes

Sold!

haha yes they do, one of the best scenes

monkeys = feces flinging

i assumed this took place between northern california and washington

I wasn't so much talking about the real-world geography as much as where events took place in relation to one another

trajectory appears to be from marin to sierras to camp at the california/nevada border

then what was the desert?

why can't these monkeys provide a map

how does cornelius get all the way to new york

lol akm i stopped at the camp for a reason

"and then they crossed Nevada by foot and set up in Salt Lake City"

when are all the monkeys going to start wearing clothes

these things keep me up at night

when are all the monkeys going to start wearing clothes

Ask Chewbacca.

Monkeys seem to do OK in climates both cool and tropical, so unless modesty is a concern they probably don't have to worry too much about cover. I bet given a choice they'd get a trim in the summer, though.

How is food production going in this post-monkey apocalypse? What is the North American monkey diet? Yes, we have no bananas.

btw Cornelius would get violent if you called chimps "monkeys"

(bcz they are not)

"Monkeys seem to do OK in climates both cool and tropical, so unless modesty is a concern they probably don't have to worry too much about cover."

yeah I know but Cornelieus and Dr. Zaius wore full on tunics.

Affectations, most likely, but I think they mostly wore them to hide the zippers, tbh.

apes wore clothes in the Boulle book

apes wore clothes in the Boulle book

yeah it's the humans who wore no clothes to make clearer the distinction/inversion : civilized/animals (but also lol@"mostly wore them to hide the zippers, tbh.")
this latest movie seems pretty good with WH going full Brando/apocalypse now, apparently.

and I guess it allowed to throw more gratuitous nudity too !

ape nudity

the more I think about the new movie, the less I like it

So having just seen the trailers, this seems like another one, like "King Kong," jammed full with Vietnam-referencing imagery. Or at least Vietnam movie references. Or maybe just First Blood references.

honestly Skull Island handled the Vietnam angle better

And yet in Skull Island it was afaict totally pointless.

ape nudity

There is a steamroom scene w/ Dr Zaius and the gorilla general in Beneath, the first sequel to the original.

And yet in Skull Island it was afaict totally pointless.

I disagree! I think "pointless military adventures are bad" worked just fine as a throughline. Hell, the residents of Skull Island were basically commies.

meanwhile this movie literally has "Ape-Ocalypse Now" scrawled on a wall

In any 2017 movie about voyaging to a distant secret island to capture a giant ape, Vietnam allegories are totally superfluous.

I'll take that over 100 minutes in Ape Auschwitz.

"There is a steamroom scene w/ Dr Zaius and the gorilla general in Beneath, the first sequel to the original."

yes. sadly the conservatism of the time made them edit out the mutual ape massage scene that was in there.

"meanwhile this movie literally has "Ape-Ocalypse Now" scrawled on a wall"

that was so good. obv the references are over the top and over done but it is a movie with sentient monkeys

how subtle do you want it to be

I would watch a "The Doors" movie with apes.

love me two times baby
pnce cuz i'm an ape

about Jimbo, the ape king.

The Doors movie could only have been improved by more ape

how subtle do you want it to be

I don't need subtle, I just found that the wink-nod stuff and the extreme grimness made for a really odd and kind of offputting tonal mismatch

The Doors movie could only have been improved by more ape

honestly I would watch just about anything remade with the humans replaced w/ photorealistic apes. instant improvement

i can't wait until we can get rid of SAG completely and make all upcoming movies with CGI ape

don't even need to get rid of the acronym, it can be the Screen Apes Guild

will no one think about the live apes who are losing jobs?

why does Donald, for instance, wear a top but not a bottom ? anything else would make more sense (fully dressed, wearing only a bottom or nothing...) !

This is a good joke in Friends: something like, why does Donald wear a top but no bottoms, yet ties a towel around his waist when he gets out of the bath?

Invisible pants

Porky Pig Style

ahah, topic covered (and very good point about the towel) !

I was reading that AV Club thing with David Warner, and they mention his role in Planet of the Apes, and I kept thinking, huh, I don't remember that character at all. Then I realized I had completely forgotten the Tim Burton movie existed.