Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes in Current Horror, Sci-Fi and Fantasy Films Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes

Author	Comment
tabletopjoe		#201	[-]
Aug 12 11 6:39 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Joe Karlosi wrote: DonM435 wrote: I saw CONQUEST when it was new, and it was the most boring thing I'd seen in years. All these lookalike apes scuttling about these ultra-bland sets . . . . And yet, we already knew that another sequel was already a given. BATTLE was marginally more interesting, but every scene looked cheaper than the last. It was interesting that the producers pulled off a five-chapter epic -- give them credit for that. But really, they could have showed some care for those last two efforts. They still didn't really bring the saga full circle, and were riddled with inconsistancies. Budget-wise, what did y'all want? Flying Saucers? Starships? Apes with Laser Guns? I just don't know what people are talking about when they say "if only the budgets were expanded". The films did not require this, they were about characters and prejudices. And after the first two movies, we are placed in modern-day society where extravagant futuristic flourishes and mega-million dollar budgets are not important. (Is 12 ANGRY MEN a lesser experience because it takes place in one small, confined jury room throughout?). The epilogue of BATTLE is brilliant, in that it never does reveal whether we've come full circle or not. The first PLANET OF THE APES occurred in the 3900's, while the epilogue of the series is 2670. We all seem to be getting along much better at the end and there is hope - although a few signs are present that ape and human children may still occasionally struggle. I think CONQUEST and BATTLE definitely attempted to have an epic scope in terms of their storyline, but the budget held them back and as a result parts of those moives come off unintentionally goofy and kinda gives both films a sort of b-movie vibe, which is too bad because I think both films on the whole are more than just b-movies. As I mentioned before, the actual battle in BATTLE was kind of laughable and a huge example where budget constraints harm the films. In regards to the free pass the original film gets - for one, it is simply a much better movie than all the sequels- I don't even think that's debatable- it's smarter, better written, better acted and just all around better in every way. Whatever flaws it may have then or now, are only magnified in the sequels. More importantly though it was the first and for many people, myself included, it had a huge impact on them when they first saw it. I mean the ending is easily one of the greatest twist endings in movie history. The whole film is sort of a lightening in a bottle kind of thing- and that kind of magic is hard to replicate, least of all in a handful of cash grab sequels, which for as much as I love and enjoy them is exactly what those sequels are. The epilogue of BATTLE?...is that with the great John Huston in ape make and the final shot with the Ceaser statue shedding a tear?....eh...I don't know about brillant.
	Remove this ad
Great Ape		#202	[-]
Aug 12 11 8:12 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Joe Karlosi wrote: DerGolem wrote: As much as I love the original POTA I have to say that that bit in the desert at the start does indeed go on, and on, and on, and on.... with nothing but Taylor's nihilistic misanthropic dialogue to keep us going. Honestly I'm not quite sure what the point of it is. We understand that Taylor hates people from practically the get go and it can't be to build suspense or surprise when they finally encounter the apes because, hey, the movie is called Planet of the Apes, so one would imagine that you know what you are getting yourself into before you even buy your ticket. I think it must just have been the fact that Heston loved the sound of his own voice. I think the desert scenes, the interaction between Taylor and Landon - all are wonderful, character-building moments. All put to a fabulous soundtrack. We also get to learn a bit more of Landon, perhaps to make us sympathize later when he undergoes his lobotomy and is reduced to a vegetable. You also have to feel the relationship between these men for later on, for the impact later when Taylor tries to identify him. I have never found the sequences "long and talky" (I was being facetious about it earlier). It's marvelous, being a part of that desolate landscape and really getting the sensation of the "planet". It's actually not really that long and is supposed to be several days. I agree 100% with Joe here.
creepycrawley		#203	[-]
Aug 12 11 8:48 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Just returned from seeing ROTPOTA with the family and really enjoyed it. I had no problems with it other then the interminable tips of the hat to the original. They need to create a special reward at the Oscars for Andy Serkis. He was phenomenal as Caesar. I also liked the extra bit of story during the credits. Guess humanity will have something bigger to worry about then a group of smart apes.
Bill Warren		#204	[-]
Aug 12 11 8:57 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Perhaps CONQUEST should be discussed in the existing topic on PotA sequels? Planet of The Apes Sequels in '70s Horror and Sci-Fi Forum
Joe Karlosi		#205	[-]
Aug 13 11 5:56 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	tabletopjoe wrote: As I mentioned before, the actual battle in BATTLE was kind of laughable and a huge example where budget constraints harm the films. It was a battle, not a World War. It was between two small city communities who survived. There weren't any more apes than that seen in the first POTA film. Nor was there anything going on elsewhere on Earth other than that one tiny isolated Ape City in POTA. The "faults" zinged at some of the sequels are in the original film too. They danced around budget costs by making it a primitive society instea dof a high-tech one. Even though it's supposed to be a "PLANET" of Apes, it was really one itsy-bitsy and tiny populated community in the middle of a desolated Earth of nothingness. There are obvious actors in masks seen as well. In regards to the free pass the original film gets - for one, it is simply a much better movie than all the sequels- I don't even think that's debatable- it's smarter, better written, better acted and just all around better in every way. Whatever flaws it may have then or now, are only magnified in the sequels. "Acting"-wise, I think: James Franciscus and James Gregory are very good in BENEATH. Roddy McDowall, Kim Hunter and Eric Braeden are marvelous in ESCAPE. (Kim and Roddy are better here than they were in PLANET, by far). Roddy McDowall should have been Oscar nominated for CONQUEST. More importantly though it was the first and for many people, myself included, it had a huge impact on them when they first saw it. I mean the ending is easily one of the greatest twist endings in movie history. I think you're right - that PLANET had such a huge impact on people when they saw it, that they're sort of blocked against enjoying the rest of the saga as much. The ending of PLANET was certainly powerful in its day. But I'd bet anyone seeing it for the first time today (and with no knowledge of anything regarding APES) would automatically guess they were actually on Earth. The epilogue of BATTLE?...is that with the great John Huston in ape make and the final shot with the Ceaser statue shedding a tear?....eh...I don't know about brillant. I think it's very neat having John Huston as the Lawgiver, and he was a good choice for the brief part, with a resonating voice. We don't have to agree on the brilliance (or not) of the ending, but the shedding of the tear by the statue is just a symbolic thing. I think it's a great way to show that we've all finally come together, but perhaps by our very natures we may sadly not be able to completely eliminate prejudice. a handful of cash grab sequels, which for as much as I love and enjoy them is exactly what those sequels are. I'm not sure how you can "love and enjoy them" yet bash them. That's not to say we cannot be objectively critical about things we like, but why pick on this particular series? All sorts of movies have a long line of sequels, and they were all to make money. But in the case of APES, it is far more than just monkeys running all around... they have social commentary and meaning, and try to say something. "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel." Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi Aug 13 11 6:00 AM. Edited 1 times.
Joe Karlosi		#206	[-]
Aug 13 11 6:03 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Bill Warren wrote: Perhaps CONQUEST should be discussed in the existing topic on PotA sequels? Planet of The Apes Sequels in '70s Horror and Sci-Fi Forum I'd prefer that too. However, I do think it's inevitable that references and comparisons to the older APES movies are bound to arise here too. "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel."
DonM435		#207	[-]
Aug 13 11 8:04 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Joe Karlosi wrote: ... There were really not many inconsistancies. Because the events of ESCAPE, CONQUEST, and BATTLE produce a new second timeline unrelated to the first two movies, and the ape uprising is now accelerated with an all-new history. ... That is your interpretation of it, and it's a reasonable one. At the time of the film's release, I just figured they'd made it up as they went along, with a little fast-forward. I suppose that I'd have preferred a more leisurely pace, with a story involving Milo/Caesar's upbringing and other plots that brought things up to the eventual ape takeover. So we'd have a cycle of eight or nine films instead of five? I do promise to put the preconceptions out of my mind next time I watch the later ones.
tabletopjoe		#208	[-]
Aug 13 11 10:30 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Joe Karlosi wrote: tabletopjoe wrote: In regards to the free pass the original film gets - for one, it is simply a much better movie than all the sequels- I don't even think that's debatable- it's smarter, better written, better acted and just all around better in every way. Whatever flaws it may have then or now, are only magnified in the sequels. "Acting"-wise, I think: James Franciscus and James Gregory are very good in BENEATH. Roddy McDowall, Kim Hunter and Eric Braeden are marvelous in ESCAPE. (Kim and Roddy are better here than they were in PLANET, by far). Roddy McDowall should have been Oscar nominated for CONQUEST. More importantly though it was the first and for many people, myself included, it had a huge impact on them when they first saw it. I mean the ending is easily one of the greatest twist endings in movie history. I think you're right - that PLANET had such a huge impact on people when they saw it, that they're sort of blocked against enjoying the rest of the saga as much. The ending of PLANET was certainly powerful in its day. But I'd bet anyone seeing it for the first time today (and with no knowledge of anything regarding APES) would automatically guess they were actually on Earth. The epilogue of BATTLE?...is that with the great John Huston in ape make and the final shot with the Ceaser statue shedding a tear?....eh...I don't know about brillant. I think it's very neat having John Huston as the Lawgiver, and he was a good choice for the brief part, with a resonating voice. We don't have to agree on the brilliance (or not) of the ending, but the shedding of the tear by the statue is just a symbolic thing. I think it's a great way to show that we've all finally come together, but perhaps by our very natures we may sadly not be able to completely eliminate prejudice. a handful of cash grab sequels, which for as much as I love and enjoy them is exactly what those sequels are. I'm not sure how you can "love and enjoy them" yet bash them. That's not to say we cannot be objectively critical about things we like, but why pick on this particular series? All sorts of movies have a long line of sequels, and they were all to make money. But in the case of APES, it is far more than just monkeys running all around... they have social commentary and meaning, and try to say something. Regarding the orignal Apes ending and an audience viewing it today for the first time- I think the ending holds up just fine and I doubt anyone would figure it out, assuming they walk into the film without any prior knowledge of the series. The problem the original film suffers from is that it's left such an indelible mark on our pop culture that I think everyone know's the twist without even having seen the film...it's kinda like Psycho....I'm sure there scores of people out there who have never seen the film, but everyone knows that Norman Bates is "Mother". I originally saw the Planet of the Apes series when I was a kid in the mid-eighties in the days when our local independent station played the series like crazy. The first one had a tremedous impact on me, and no...I never saw that ending coming. Oddly enough, as a kid I hated the sequels. They always felt cheap and inferior to me compared to the first one, as I've gotten older, however, I've actually grown a greater appreciation for them. I watched the entire series again last year after picking up the boxset rather cheaply and was surprised at how much I enjoyed them this time around. Not trying to bash them...I just don't view them through rose-colored glasses and can see the descrepancy in quality between the first film and the rest of the series. I do agree with you about Roddy McDowall- he was the one consistant greatness through the entire series, no question about that. Again, I don't think the sequels are "bad" films, by any means- I just think they were a little too ambitious for their own good, given the declining budget of the series. It's a fun movie series despite any flaws they may have. Why are we getting critical about them now? Probably because we're discussing how they compare to the new film. Which comes full circle back to why I'm so pleased with RISE- it's a big budgt production that's capable of supporting it's big story. This series hasn't had a film like that since the first one. Last Edited By: tabletopjoe Aug 13 11 10:33 AM. Edited 1 times.
Joe Karlosi		#209	[-]
Aug 13 11 11:01 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	tabletopjoe wrote: Not trying to bash them...I just don't view them through rose-colored glasses and can see the descrepancy in quality between the first film and the rest of the series. I'm not saying you're implying that I am viewing them through rose-colored glasses, but for the record I just want to say that I can discuss my perceived flaws in the sequels as well. That's not the issue to me, it's that most people can't.. or rather won't ... acknowledge similar weaknesses in the first movie . And as I have already explained a few times now, some of the very same "problems" they tend to pick out in the sequels ("Budget constraints", "small scale settings", "over the head ape masks") are also the case with PLANET. I do agree with you about Roddy McDowall- he was the one consistant greatness through the entire series, no question about that. Would you agree that McDowall got even better in ESCAPE, CONQUEST and BATTLE than he was in PLANET? The actor himself felt that Caesar was a much stronger character than Cornelius. Why are we getting critical about them now? Probably because we're discussing how they compare to the new film. Which comes full circle back to why I'm so pleased with RISE- it's a big budgt production that's capable of supporting it's big story. This series hasn't had a film like that since the first one. I have tried to ask this before but nobody has been able to answer. What is it about RISE that is so "expensive looking"? The movie cost an absurd 90 MILLION DOLLARS, and what do we really get? The Golden Gate Bridge? A trip inside Franco's house? A Zoo? A stroll down the street with nice trees? Now, it may be said that the CGI is what cost 90 million... but that's all glitz. I enjoyed RISE OF THE POTA as a thrill ride ... but where's its "big story" that you referred to? It's a pretty basic and familiar type of affair. I think RISE is providing the chance so many wanted to say "it's the best movie since the original", but time will tell how much staying power it has -- or whether it will be forgotten like Burton's, and so many other newer reboots/remakes. I did not dislike RISE, but it's getting to the point where it's really overrated, IMO. And the more days that go by, the more I'm forgetting it and am not in that much of a rush to revisit it. "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel." Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi Aug 13 11 11:06 AM. Edited 2 times.
tabletopjoe		#210	[-]
Aug 13 11 11:27 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Joe Karlosi wrote: tabletopjoe wrote: Why are we getting critical about them now? Probably because we're discussing how they compare to the new film. Which comes full circle back to why I'm so pleased with RISE- it's a big budgt production that's capable of supporting it's big story. This series hasn't had a film like that since the first one. I have tried to ask this before but nobody has been able to answer. What is it about RISE that is so "expensive looking"? The movie cost an absurd 90 MILLION DOLLARS, and what do we really get? The Golden Gate Bridge? A trip inside Franco's house? A Zoo? A stroll down the street with nice trees? Now, it may be said that the CGI is what cost 90 million... but that's all glitz. I enjoyed RISE OF THE POTA as a thrill ride ... but where's its "big story" that you referred to? It's a pretty basic and familiar type of affair. I think RISE is providing the chance so many wanted to say "it's the best movie since the original", but time will tell how much staying power it has -- or whether it will be forgotten like Burton's, and so many other newer reboots/remakes. I did not dislike RISE, but it's getting to the point where it's really overrated, IMO. And the more days that go by, the more I'm forgetting it and am not in that much of a rush to revisit it. In terms of RISE OF THE POTA's budget and production values...it looks like an expensive film. The effects by WETA are nothing short of jawdropping. I don't know how else to quantify this. It feels like a big film. Regarding the film's story- I just think it's a smarter, more plausible (if a film about apes toppling mankind can be plausible?) retelling of CONQUEST's story. I always loved the premise of CONQUEST...just couldn't help but be somewhat critical of the execution of it. As far as people calling RISE the best film since the original- That probably has less of an impact when put in the proper perspective. I think it sort of wins that by default...simply because again, the sequels and the Burton remake are much more heavily flawed films than the first one. Last Edited By: tabletopjoe Aug 13 11 11:29 AM. Edited 1 times.
	Remove this ad
Joe Karlosi		#211	[-]
Aug 13 11 12:13 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Well, I just never subscribed to the idea that bigger always = better. We just aren't going to come together on this one, tabletopjoe. But it's always nice talking to ya. (And by the way - I love your avatar). "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel."
Robert Troch		#212	[-]
Aug 13 11 5:31 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	skull island escapee wrote: Yes, they done a lot on a small budget very effectively, Joe. I only added my thoughts in what I would liked to have seen added,---a five-minute montage of global warfare at the end would have helped establish the events of the fifth film ---if funding had been available. I am happy that was NOT the way it was done. We already know what is to come, and Caesar even says something about what has happened that night will be duplicated by apes the world over the next day. Why do you need more than that? I saw it when it was new and went back 3 more times. I certainly didn't need something like that as my imagination could take care of it. My question always has been how and why did the government become so much more of a police state. Robert T.
Nightwing84		#213	[-]
Aug 14 11 12:31 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'm going to see it again on Monday and I'm really looking forward to it. Will I have a different feeling of it upon a second viewing ? I don't know. Guess we'll see. But I thoroughly enjoyed it the first time so I am planning on enjoying it again. Bottom line is, the movie has really received overall great reviews and it smashed all their expectations on opening weekend. So whether fans like it or not, it appears to be quite a hit. I think it will not fall by the wayside like the Burton film. I think we will see sequels based on the success this film is having and I am looking forward to more !
estiban miranda		#214	[-]
Aug 14 11 1:31 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Joe Karlosi wrote: However, Freida Pinto was forgettable, and her character completely unnecessary. Something more should have been done with her. Her character didn't really seem necessary to me either but I'm reminded of a scene in 'The Princess and the Pirate' where stage performer played by Bob Hope is planning his show including Virginia Mayo and with his back to her he's telling her she has to come up with some kind of song or dance, she can't just stand there on the stage. Then he turns and sees her in her brief costume and changes his mind - "You can just stand there" he decides...
Joe Karlosi		#215	[-]
Aug 14 11 7:15 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Robert Troch wrote: skull island escapee wrote: Yes, they done a lot on a small budget very effectively, Joe. I only added my thoughts in what I would liked to have seen added,---a five-minute montage of global warfare at the end would have helped establish the events of the fifth film ---if funding had been available. I am happy that was NOT the way it was done. We already know what is to come, and Caesar even says something about what has happened that night will be duplicated by apes the world over the next day. Why do you need more than that? I saw it when it was new and went back 3 more times. I certainly didn't need something like that as my imagination could take care of it. Well said, Robert - and a good point about us using our imagination. I too feel the ending of CONQUEST was powerful and rather frightening, just by the strength of McDowall's angry words alone. This current trend about "funding" and "budget problems" is something that has become so overstated whenever it comes to talking about the APES sequels. When I was a youth I loved the APES movies and never once did I sit there thinking to myself "Gawd, this all look so cheap -- if only they had more money it would have been an enjoyable movie". I went through life revisiting the four sequels time and time again, and then in 1998 came the very popular BEHIND THE POTA documentary. While watching this excellent "making of" tribute, it became obvious that the directors and producers went on and on about "reduced budgets". But prior to this documentary I don't believe there was as much overwhelming criticism of the sequels on that level. It is my feeling that ever since this documentary, the learned budgetary constraints have become "the" thing to discuss. I don't ever recall movie fans harping on the budgetary reductions -- and I myself never even noticed until I watched the 1998 doc. Now, I realize that some fans out there will reveal that they DID notice the budgetary decline from sequel to sequel. And that they didn't need the BEHIND documentary to be fed such details. If that's the case, then that's the case and I won't doubt or dispute them. But I do maintain that in all my decades of ApeFandom, it was NEVER the sole cornerstone of topic discussion before that. And I would also challenge the facts in the sense that I feel BENEATH "looks" the most expensive of the 5 movies. Before I'd ever "learned" otherwise, I felt that way.... BENEATH had to have an underground city, and a civilization of mutants - all of whom removed their faces and had makeups underneath. BENEATH probably has more sets than any film (even though they were taken from HELLO DOLLY!). It was a cost-cutting project, I know -- but I'm just saying if you didn't know, the sets LOOK like they had to spend more money on them. Plus, there was the whole elaborate scene in the desert with the Apes seeing the illusion of The Lawgiver. There's just more going on in BENEATH. James Gregory as Ursus the gorilla leader had a much more elaborate costume with that cool helmet. (I later learned that Ursus' metallic uniform was a centurion outfit re-used from BARABBAS - but I would never have imagined it). I also say ESCAPE did not require any big budget at all, and yet it's often considered "The Best Sequel" by critics. As for CONQUEST, as I said before - it looks bigger than it was... I think the Century City locale made it look like a City Of The Future. No matter what viewers think it ought to be, an Ape Revolt had to begin from the Ape Training Center first. And with BATTLE... there simply were no less number of Apes and no smaller community than was featured in the original PLANET. Both the first and last movies gave the impression of an entire planet of wasteland with just one small "city" functioning. (Come to think of it, we had TWO cities in BATTLE -- the apes' and mutants'!). "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel." Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi Aug 14 11 7:26 AM. Edited 3 times.
TheBugGuy	Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes Review	#216	[-]
Aug 14 11 8:12 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Check out the review of RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES on Terror From Beyond The Daves! http://terrordaves.wordpress.com/2011/08/13/rise-of-the-planet-of-the-apes-definitely-worth-going-ape-over/
drmedula		#217	[-]
Aug 14 11 7:38 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I just saw it. Speaking as a lifelong fan of the original series... I'm having trouble expressing how happy I am. There's been some debate over whether Andy Serkis is eligible for an Oscar. Well, if they DON'T give him one, they may as well just stop giving the damn things out.
skull island escapee		#218	[-]
Aug 15 11 10:49 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Robert Troch wrote: skull island escapee wrote: Yes, they done a lot on a small budget very effectively, Joe. I only added my thoughts in what I would liked to have seen added,---a five-minute montage of global warfare at the end would have helped establish the events of the fifth film ---if funding had been available. I am happy that was NOT the way it was done. We already know what is to come, and Caesar even says something about what has happened that night will be duplicated by apes the world over the next day. Why do you need more than that? I saw it when it was new and went back 3 more times. I certainly didn't need something like that as my imagination could take care of it. My question always has been how and why did the government become so much more of a police state. Robert T. In the 70s especially, Robert, I was an avid fan of movie spectacle, in the days before affordable VCRS were available: at the time, a lot of the 70s fantasy movies were a big let-down for me, looking back at them with hindsight now, it's mainly down to limited budgets, coupled with defects in movie technology. Every thing changed [budgetwise] after the huge success of Star Wars, Spielberg, etc, but up until then, the majority of fantasy movies of this decade [excluding the Harryhausen ones] were far short of what I could conjure up in my imagination. Indeed, older works like the b/w King Kong, the Universal classics or Incredible Shrinking Man screening on TV were much more impressive than the fantasy movies throughout the 70s up until Star Wars, which says a lot about the state of fantasy cinema in this decade. Today of course it's very different, with vastly increased budgets [in real terms] for fantasy movies as well as CGI developments, which make anything possible visually----audiences today don't seem any more happier than their 70s counterparts, however. The very title 'Conquest of the Planet of the Apes' encourages mental imagery of apocalyptic, planet-wide warfare, and as a youth in the 70s this is what I would have preconcieved in my mind's eye, and the onscreen actuality falls far short of the sort of thing I would prefer to see in a movie versus what I saw in my imagination. I myself have worked as a comic strip artist, so maybe I prefer SEEING something onscreen or in comics etc, rather than having it merely suggested by an actor. This is why I loved O'Brien's /Harryhausen's movies so much: they offered visual spectacle unavailable in any other medium. If I want to stimualte my imagiination with fantasy sci-fi material , a novel does this infinitely better, but film is a visual medium, and I appreciate imaginitive visuals within this medium [and in comic books]. I only ever saw Conquest on late-night TV, with my eyelids struggling to stay propped up: maybe if I watch the boxed set variation while alert I might appreciate it better: but I found it disappointing, and I'm someone who was always intruiged by cinematic views of the future, and am prepared to approach watching them as someone who is rooting for them. However, there are too many corner-cutting inroads into the premise and promise of Conquest, which for me at least relegate it into the same unimpressive bracket as Rollerball, Soylent Green or Futureworld. None of these movies are in my collection of DVDS, they are just too turgid and shoddy-looking. Conquest is just too modestly mounted, with a claustrophobic, mall-bound microverse that is on par with a mid-budget TV soap opera from the same period, to really impress or satisfy even the casual viewer, especially in light of such a grandiose-sounding title. Part of this is down to the cheapjack production values and lack of epic scope. At the time, I wanted to SEE a Conquest of a Planet, not just have it indicated verbally! I finally saw the movie in the early 90s and I just wasn't struck on it------the new 2011 movie will stay in my mind as surely as Terminator 2 done 20 years back. The new Apes has impressive visual setpieces and sustained production values: it also promises further epic spectacle in the next movie, which is bound to supercede the less-than-impressive sum total of BATTLE, which I can remember very little about, other than the zoom-in close up of the closing shot. Burton's bloated misfire of 2001 has left next to no impression on me, either [other than the ending] so it's not a case of 'newer is better', the moviemakers still need a gripping storyline to impress an audience, which the new film surely provided for me and other members of this board. 'the horror..............THE HORROR!' Cartoon-strip blog here [updated regularly]: http://zoomertoonsrabsmith.blogspot.com/ Last Edited By: skull island escapee Aug 15 11 11:21 AM. Edited 7 times.
Nightwing84		#219	[-]
Aug 15 11 12:03 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I saw an article online yesterday that said despite 4 new releases this weekend, Apes retained the # 1 spot at the box office ! I was very happy to hear that. Last Edited By: Nightwing84 Aug 15 11 12:08 PM. Edited 1 times.
skull island escapee		#220	[-]
Aug 15 11 12:37 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Word-of-mouth raving of this movie is doubtless part of the sustained appeal, Nightwing: cautiously we can expect a decent-budget follow-up at least. Here's hoping there's no Conquest-like paring back of the budget, but this seems unlikely. The follow-up events look like they will be on an epic scale, to put it mildly. 'the horror..............THE HORROR!' Cartoon-strip blog here [updated regularly]: http://zoomertoonsrabsmith.blogspot.com/
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes