OSCARS 2025: Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes (2024)

As far as recent revivals of decades old I.P.s by movie studios eager to mine a recognizable name for whatever cash they can, the modern “Planet of the Apes” films are quite well respected. The commitment to spectacular but grounded special effects and thoughtful storytelling made what I guess you'd call the “Caesar Trilogy” far better received among critics and fans than you'd expect of yet another reboot. Caesar's story, however, came to a natural end in “War for the Planet of the Apes.” Which made some leery when it was announced that Disney would be continuing forward with the series. It's not like the House That Mickey Built is known for not driving an idea well into the ground these days. Matt Reeves had received a lot of credit for making the last two movies so good and he had been replaced with the much less notable name of the guy who directed “The Maze Runner.” Perhaps succeeding against lowered expectations is a factor. Nevertheless, “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes” seems to have continued the “Apes” tradition of being a sci-fi blockbuster a little more character-driven and intelligent than your average CGI-fest.

Smartly, rather than attempting to directly sequelize Caesar's story, “Kingdom” is set hundreds of years after his death. In the shadows of the moss covered structures that were once a city resides a village of intelligent chimpanzees. Noa is the offspring of the chieftain of his tribe, who practice falconry and have built bonding with the birds into their society. Humans have become whispered about figures, referred to as “Echoes.” One fateful night, Noa's village is descended upon by apes wielding staffs with built-in tasers. They kill his father and capture his friends but Noa escapes. He soon meets up with Raka, a follower in Caesar's ways, and they trail a human woman. She can speak, stunning both apes. Named Mae, the female leads them to a beach where a tyrannical ape leader calling himself Proximus Caesar is using slave labor to attempt to break into a massive vault. Proximus desires the ancient weapons that are inside while Mae believes what's within can help restore the human race. Noa emerges as a leader of a slave revolt against Proximus' iron fisted reign. 

The visual effects that made a whole society of walking, talking apes in the previous three films were lauded for their realism and expressiveness. "Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes" uses whatever advancements in digital technology that have been made over the last few years to take the series to loftier heights. The chimps move like real animals. They have the weight and details of flesh and blood creatures. Moreover, their faces as astonishingly detailed. Noah's eyes, Raka's often smirking lips, Proximus scowling muzzle: All convey the same level of emotion you'd get out of photographed actors. The cast – smartly made up of up-and-comers and character actors willing to commit fully to physical, vocal performances that don't show their faces – certainly deserve a lot of credit. However, it's difficult not to think of the special effects crew, the artists and animators, riggers and technicians, as the real stars here. They create a cast of hominid heroes and villains that are not only realistic but also deeply compelling to watch. In that sense, "Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes" represents a phenomenal half-way point between an animated film and a live action production. 

The incredible special effects go a long way towards creating a fictional world the viewer can get absorbed in. By setting "Kingdom" far in the future, long after the fall of mankind as the Earth's dominant species, we are thrust into a place recognizable but also fundamentally different. The visuals of skyscrapers caked in moss, becoming a new jungle for the simians to explore and swing, is certainly striking. Moreover, a lot of work went into conceptualizing a new society that feels plausible. Noa's clan have their own rituals, their own rules and traditions. The bonding with the eagles, gathering eggs that the apes care for until they hatch, resemble manhood rituals from any culture but is definitely something new in this series. Their language has evolved, a mixture of signing and repurposed phrases, such as calling humans "Echoes." The further outside his village he goes, the more glimpses Noa gets at how the apes have developed their own culture, with their own habits and religions. It brings something back to "Planet of the Apes" that the reboot series hasn't focused much on until now: The sense of being dropped into an alien, but fully formed, new world that we can get lost in as we observe how this different culture functions. The term "world-building" gets abused a lot but this is how you do it. 

I'll admit, I haven't seen any of director Wes Bell's other films. He's made animated shorts that seem to deal with a similar level of sci-fi world-building as what we see here. I hear that the "Maze Runner" movies are better than most YA adaptations. In some ways, I wonder if coming from that background didn't serve Bell here as well. A reoccurring line throughout "Kingdom" is characters referring to objects, concepts, and traditions as "important." This seems to be an acknowledgement of how the sequel employs the grand archetypes of the Campbellian Heroes' Journey. Noa is a young protagonist that emerges from unassuming roots, at first wanting nothing more than to achieve his goal of pleasing his father. He has a childhood best friend, named Soona, that he shares a somewhat romantic bond with. Circumstances beyond his control force him out of his childhood home and out into the world, where he quickly gains a wise mentor figure. To free his family and avenge his father, he comes into conflict with a would-be conqueror. Eventually, the knowledge and skills he's acquired over his journey lead him to victory, the boy-ape having grown into a man-ape without loosing the purity of spirit that got him there. Narrative short cuts like these have been used badly before. Look no further than the YA adaptations and other stillborn franchises that flooded theaters after "Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter." At least for me, they totally worked here. I was immediately intrigued by Noa, excited to see him go on this journey. The film knowingly uses classical concepts – a villain after a hidden treasure, a slave rebellion out of "Spartacus" – to add a mythic quality to its world, cast, and story. 

Ball and screenwriter Josh Friedman – whose other credits also suggest this kind of thing is his specialty – are well aware of how they are invoking the most reoccurring story tropes throughout human history. The evolution of legends, beyond the lifetime of their origins, is another branch of the story. Caesar's words continue to spread long after his death. Raka is something like a monk of a sacred order that studies Caesar's teachings, attempting to follow them as closely as possible, even when he doesn't totally understand them. Proximus, meanwhile, uses the name and ideas of Caesar for his own ends. He uses the phrases and words to make compliant slaves, to make himself seem great, while only pursuing power and control for his own benefit. Living in the modern world means we are exposed to, everyday, new and disturbing ways the words of prophets century passed have been diluted, mutated, and misused to promote the power-hungry and keep the masses blinded. Yes, "Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes" presents Caesar as a Christ-like figure, whose writings have spawned faithful practitioners and fanatical followers. It's a heady idea to insert into your talking monkey movie. 

Obviously, sneaking parallels to the modern world and social commentary into its sci-fi setting has always been standard practice for these movies. Caesar is referred to as a "Lawgiver," another of many callbacks to the original "Planet of the Apes" films. Such as John Paesano's excellent score, which recalls and builds upon the familiar motifs of Jerry Goldsmith's classic themes. The biggest way "Kingdom" honors the "Apes" legacy is by centering a big question throughout these movies: Can man and ape ever peacefully co-exist? Proximus believes mankind is too dangerous and wicked to be tolerated. Mae seems uncertain of the apes' intentions throughout. Noa and his kind are peaceful, not wanting any conflict, yet he's also aware that mankind has a history of putting other animals in cages, of using and abusing them. The use of this theme positively recalls the much maligned "Battle for the Planet of the Apes" but it suggests bigger questions too. Can other cultures ever live in harmony? Is the story of mankind one exclusively of conquest and imperialism? That extends to the natural world too, which humanity has repeatedly destroyed and exploited in their selfishness and ignorance. Is that human nature? Is a better way achievable? All of these are ideas "Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes'" grapples with. 

As thoughtful and patient as Rupert Wyatt and Matt Reeves' previous entries, while paying homage to the older films and also moving in an ambitious new direction, "Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes" is an excellent example of the kind of grand storytelling capable in a big budget, special effects movie. I liked it in theaters but, upon revisiting it, I found I loved the sequel. Bell has got a full dance card right now – including the long discussed film adaptation of the "Legend of Zelda" games, which employ a lot of the same themes seen here – but hopefully he gets to make more of these hairy adventures. Ya know, putting apes on horses and giving them pet eagles was likely to win me over no matter what but "Kingdom" actually rocks all on its own, succeeding as a sequel and a new beginning. [9/10]

RECENT WATCHES: War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)

What started as seemingly another cynical attempt to relaunch a long dormant franchise unexpectedly became one of the most beloved modern sci-fi series. The new decade's “Planet of the Apes” series are popular with audiences but have been even better received by critics and serious film fans. Now, as these things tend to, the trilogy seemingly reaches its conclusion. “War for the Planet of the Apes” builds upon the last two films in audacious ways, resulting in a summer blockbuster that is thematically complex and emotionally bracing. The result may be one of the best films of the year.

The war between the humans and the apes have raged for quite some time. Caesar has led his apes into hiding, only fighting back when attacked, making several concessions towards peace. Koba's remaining followers have aligned themselves with an extremist human sect called Alpha-Omega. The group's unbalanced leader, McCullough, leads a strike against Caesar's base, killing his wife and son. Bereaved, Caesar instructs his tribe to leave for greener pastures while he sets off on a mission of revenge. He discovers two things: That the still-lingering virus is transforming humans into mute, unintelligent brutes. And that Alpha-Omega are enslaving apes, running a prison camp, forcing them to build weapons to fight both humans and apes.

Andy Serkis' Caesar continues to be one of the most complex protagonists in modern sci-fi cinema. Motion capture technology has evolved to uncanny heights, as these apes are nearly indistinguishable from the real thing. This allows Serkis' already impressive performance more depth. He carries a heavy, world-weary expression on his brow. Furthermore, the film delves deeply into the cost of vengeance. After deciding he has to destroy McCullough, Caesar is haunted by nightmares of Koba. He worries he is becoming a monster himself, loosing his compassion and level-headedness to grief and madness. This is the cost of war in microcosm, showing that the kind of hard decisions combat forces people to make rots away at the soul.

This theme is further explored in the character of Colonel McCullough. First off, Woody Harrelson is terrifying in the part. He delivers an incredibly intense monologue to a captured Caesar, explaining how he murdered his own son to protect his people. His troops revere him with an almost religious awe. They paint their own symbol over the American flag, branding their weapons and slaves with it. Yet the film goes out of it ways to paint parallels between McCullough and Caesar. Both have lost a child to the conflict. Both are motivated by protecting their people. Both have been forced to make hard decision in the heat of battle. The difference is Caesar struggles with his conscious while McCullough has been overtaken by the madness of war.

In fact, director Matt Reeves and his team seem eager to build deeper references into the film. “War for the Planet of the Apes” is the second simian-themed film of the year to reference “Apocalypse Now,” which is an interesting trend. Caesar being tormented and stoned by his captors bring the Christ story to mind. The ape freeing his people from oppressors and leading them on a journey through the desert recalls Exodus. It also brings “Spartacus” to mind. Yet recent events seem equally on the film's mind. McCullough fills his speech with an anti-outsider rhetoric. He drapes his camp in the American flag but seems ignorant of its meaning. He's also, it must be noted, is obsessed with building a wall on a border. And he's going to make the apes pay for it. “War for the Planet of the Apes” makes its story of the fall of the human empire more potent with parallels to our current political quagmire.

Whatever lofty ideas “War for the Planet of the Apes” has, it also understands that it is still an action movie. It satisfies on that front too. The film begins with a bracing battle sequence, Reeves' camera placed right in the trenches, walking side-by-side apes and humans. The battle gets chaotic but never becomes difficult to follow. Later, we are treated to a tense horse-back chase. The film's conclusion is packed with giant explosions and gun fights. It's viscerally exciting without ever loosing track of the people (and apes) on the ground.  Mostly, “War for the Planet of the Apes” fills its run time with suspense. As Caesar's allies attempt to free him from the prison camp, the audience is constantly left wandering if someone will be caught, if the cast will successfully navigate this new roadblock.

Naturally, “War for the Planet of the Apes” peppers its plot with homages to the original series. The outside of McCullough's camp is decorated with deceased apes, strung up like the scarecrows in the original film. Most pivotal is a new character, a mute girl that is adopted by the apes. She is later named Nova. That's but one lovable new addition to the cast. Steve Zahn appears as Bad Ape, an eccentric ape whose mind has been slightly scattered by years in isolation. Zahn proves a fantastic source of comic relief. Which is nice, considering “War” is an otherwise very serious affair.

I continue to admire the guts of this series. “War for the Planet of the Apes” continues a pricey sci-fi franchise that features few human characters, tackles heavy themes and has long scenes in subtitled sign language. “War” also presents interesting possibilities for the future. One story arc is concluded but future films have some tantalizing opportunities ahead. The latest film is maybe the most entry in the rebooted series, proving amazingly effective as blockbuster entertainment and smartly executed drama. [9/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)

“Rise of the Planet of the Apes” was a surprise hit, insomuch that a big budget reboot of a long-running and beloved film series can be a surprise. Maybe the surprise came from the movie actually being pretty good. A franchise had been reborn. A sequel, “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” would arrive in theaters two years later. Director Matt Reeves, previously of “Cloverfield” and “Let Me In,” would take the directorial reins. Reeves delivered a film nearly as thoughtful and action-packed as its predecessor. Though the generic title would be mocked – seriously, they couldn't have called it “Rebellion on the Planet of the Apes” or something? – the second entry in the new “Apes” would prove to be another success, both critically and financially.

A decade has past since Caesar led his rebellion of apes. In that time, a virus – called Simian Flu by the public – has ravaged the human population. The apes have built a society in the forest, uncertain if humanity even still survives. Until a chance encounter in the woods with a group of survivors. The human are attempting to reach a near-by dam, so they can power their city. Caesar reluctantly allows them to go about their business. However, the truce infuriates Koba, who still hates human. Soon, the enraged ape attempts to kill Caesar and engineers a war against humankind.

“Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” asks the question if peace between two hostile forces can ever possible. Caesar is now in the role of leader and peacekeeper. At film's beginning, he's a father, having beget two sons with his mate. He has found peace in the woods with his ape brothers. He distrust humanity but doesn't want war either, valuing ape life too much. Yet Koba forces his hand, fate making the decision for him. Andy Serkis' motion-capture performance continues to be highly expressive and thoughtful. You can see the quality that went into the character, from both the writing and the actor. “Dawn” is committed to maintaining the complexity of the protagonist displayed in the previous movie.

The other apes are not as complicated as Caesar but are nevertheless interesting. As in the last film, there are long scenes featuring just apes, dialogue mostly told through subtitled sign language. Maurice the orangutan continues to be a likable presence while Caesar's son, Rocket, gets several key scenes. The second most memorable ape is Koba, rising from supporting character to primary antagonist. Toby Kobell plays the part as someone whose heart has been calcified by hate and abuse. Koba has good reason to hate humans, as shown in a powerful scene where he points to his scars. There's not much more to him than that but his tenacity and viciousness makes him a convincing, threatening villain anyway.

“Dawn” focuses more on action than its predecessors. The film begins with a thrilling hunt, where the apes spear several deer and end up struggling with a bear. The CGI is a little wonky in this first scene – the bear and deer don't look as good as the apes – but it still works. The film really ramps up when Koba begins his assault on the human city. The sight of a crowd of apes racing into the streets, hooting and hollering, is effectively chilling. Chimps firing machine guns and riding horses is an irresistible, pulpy image. Reeves throws in an impressive tracking show, showing Koba throwing the drivers from a tank and manning the gun himself in one continuous take. The final struggle between Caesar and Koba, set inside a crumbling tower, makes use of the ape's acrobatic abilities.

The focus is more on the apes than ever before but “Dawn” still features some token, supporting humans. The most notable is Gary Oldman as Dreyfus. The leader of the human settlement, Dreyfus is some sort of war veteran. Oldman brings a shaky desperation to the part, playing him as a man who has lost much and is uncertain of how strong he is. Jason Clarke, that one actor who kept getting cast in big movies a few years ago for some reason, appears as Malcolm. The man who makes contact with the apes, and becomes an unlikely ally, Clarke is sound if unremarkable. Kodi Smit-McPhee has a nice role as Clarke's teenage son, who lugs around a tattered copy of Charles Burns' “Black Hole.” I wish we saw more of Keri Russell as Ellie, Malcolm's wife, who brings some sturdy emotion to her few scenes.

I'd probably consider “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” the weakest of the new “Apes” trilogy. Caesar's conflict in this film is not as compelling as in the other two. The story hits some expected story beats a little too hard. It's still a quality motion picture. The special effects have improved greatly from the first one. The scope is admirable. Reeves' direction is impressive. The cast, especially the mo-cap performers, are really good. The script is still surprisingly complex, considering the kind of movie this is. This is still a planet worth visiting. [7/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Given the “Planet of the Apes” franchise's place in sci-fi cinema history, it was inevitable that Fox would attempt to reboot the series again following Tim Burton's unpopular 2000 attempt. Oddly, the idea seems to have originated outside of the company. Screenwriter-producer Rick Jaffa cooked up an inspired reinvention to the “Apes” series and sold it to the Fox. This new series would be about apes, not humans. After cycling through two titles – the unwieldy “Genesis: Apes” and the too generic “Rise of the Apes” – the project would hit theater screens as “Rise of the Planet of the Apes.” In an age of excessive spectacle, the film would win praise for putting characters and concepts above action. From the moment it arrived, the new “Apes” series has represented a more intellectual form of summer blockbuster.

The film begins, not in the distant future, but the modern day. Dr. Will Rodman is determined to cure Alzheimer's, a personal mission motivated by his father's illness. He tests the experimental compound on a chimpanzee, which immediately becomes more intelligence. The off-spring of Will's best student shows especially impressive skills. Named Caesar, Will and his recovering father treat the chimp like family. Despite his intelligence, Caesar is separated from his human family and placed in a cruel ape preserve. There, the hyper-capable ape sees the way man abuses his kind and begins to plot an uprising, using the same drug to make the other apes as smart as him.

Seeing as how the apes were always the most memorable characters in the classic series, building a reboot around Caesar is an inspired move. “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” also does away with the time travel gimmicktry. There's nothing like the baffling pseudo-twist that concluded Tim Burton's film here. The reboot draws inspiration from  “Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.” However, by setting the story in our modern day and putting a more grounded spin on the concept, “Rise” becomes a thought provoking post-human blockbuster. His family may treat him kindly but even they see Caesar as less than human, despite his intellect. When faced with the cruelty of the rest of the world, the inevitable revolt seems perfectly justified. “Rise” puts the audience in the shoes – or bare feet, as it were – of animals too often abused by mankind.

It's a deeply empathetic approach and it wouldn't have worked if Caesar wasn't a compelling character. “Rise's” special effects were widely praised upon release. It's been six years and the CGI has aged a little. The eyes and faces aren't quite right. But Caesar and his simian friends are still convincing, expressive creations. The heart of the character is ultimately more important. Andy Serkis' motion capture performance is one for the ages. Caesar's reaction to seeing a dog on a leash, while he himself is leashed, is touching. The audience feels his pain, when he's separated from his human family. When Caesar finally speaks – screaming “NO!,” as foretold in the original series – the emotion is overwhelming. Caesar may be a CGI chimpanzee but he's a fully formed character, beautifully brought to life by Serkis and the effects team.

Filling the movie entirely with apes probably wouldn't have been feasible for a franchise-launcher like this. (Though the movie, admirably, still features long stretches without any humans on-screen.) Luckily, the human cast is pretty good too. James Franco can be a love-it-or-hate-it screen presence. He doesn't bring anything special to the role of Will but he's not unlikable either. His romance with Freida Pinto's nurse isn't much to write about though. Better is John Lithgow as Franco's father. Lithgow makes the character's dementia heartbreaking. His struggles are tear-jerking, Lithgow's performance being especially vulnerable, but never become sappy. Other familiar faces appear as the film's trio of villains. Tom Felton is entertainingly broad as the cruel zookeeper who tortures Caesar. Brian Cox is fittingly callous as the ape center's owner. David Oyelowo is a bit unbelievable as the crooked business executive that unwittingly makes the ape's rebellion possible.

As far as big budget genre films go, “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” is pretty low-key. The first hour is almost entirely character based, save for a somewhat extended sequence of Bright Eyes attempting to escape the research compound. There's very little action until the last third, when Caesar escapes and engineers his primate insurrection. The apes seize the bars of their cages, using them as spears, piercing police cars. The film's climax is a spectacular finale on the Golden Gate Bridge. There's plenty of car crashes, eventually leading to an impressive scene where the apes are shot at with a machine gun. Probably the coolest moment involves a gorilla leaping into a flying helicopter, bringing the vehicle down with his brute strength. It's not the biggest summer tent pole action scene I've seen but is thrilling precisely because you care about the characters so much.

“Rise of the Planet of the Apes” is sprinkled with callbacks to the original. Caesar's mother is named Bright Eyes, just like Charlton Heston was on the original “Planet.” A half-completed jigsaw puzzle of the Statue of Liberty puts in a brief appearance. Two of Heston's most notorious lines are quoted, in amusingly hammy ways. The film also looks toward the future, setting up a sequel with a human-hating ape partner of Caesar and a homosapien devastating virus sweeping the globe during the credits. It speaks to the reboot's overall quality that these callbacks and set-ups are neither too cute nor distracting. The film is a very clever reinvention of the series, bolstered by sturdy writing and direction. Yet its greatest success in rooted in its stunning central performance. [8/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973)

The “Planet of the Apes” franchise had been a reliable money-maker for Fox throughout the early seventies. However, each sequel made less than the film before it. The fifth film was rushed into production, going before cameras without a finished screenplay. Director J. Lee Thompson, returning from “Conquest,” was displeased with what script they had. Maybe the Fox executives were aware of this. By the time “Battle for the Planet of the Apes” hit theater screens, someone had clearly decided that these monkey movies had run their course. The film was sold as the final chapter in the series. At least for now.

In the years since “Conquest's” theatrical ending, a nuclear war has leveled the western world. The cities have been reduced to rumble. Only irradiated subhuman mutants live in the ruins. Caesar has built a society in the country, where humans and apes live in an unsteady peace. Factors within Ape City attempt to undermine Caesar's accomplishments. Aldo, a power-hungry gorilla, hates humans and dreams of overthrowing Caesar. In hopes of finding information about his parents, Caesar enters the mutant's city, provoking their violence. Aldo uses this conflict as a chance to seize power.

It's pretty clear that “Battle for the Planet of the Apes” was a rushed production. The film's story is seemingly comprised of leftover plot points from the previous sequels. The plots concerning the mutants, the lingering conflicts between apes and humans, and Aldo's disloyalty never come together into a satisfying whole. The ape society here is an awkward attempt to fuse what we saw in the first film with “Conquest's” revised ending. The mutants are inspired by “Beneath the Planet of the Apes” but are way more boring. The human/ape tension feels recycled from the last two installments. The pacing is directionless, the movie sloppily trudging from one event to the next. To learn that “Battle” was quickly pushed through production is not surprising at all.

The film's two central conflicts aren't especially compelling either. Aldo is a weak villain. His hatred for humans is vaguely defined. His earlier depiction as blatantly unintelligent doesn't pair well with his treacherous ambitions. The mutants' motivations are also poorly planned. They aren't interested in attacking apes until Caesar randomly shows up in their neighborhood. The film tries to give the mutant's attack some meaning but it doesn't wash. Ultimately, the film uses both story threads to wimp out. Caesar beats the mutants back but doesn't kill any of them, doesn't take prisoners, and allows them to leave. In other words, he sticks to his moral high ground. However, Aldo and his apes then show up to kill the mutants. So the bad guys get punished but the hero is freed of any consequences. Lame.

Despite its obvious weaknesses, I don't entirely dislike “Battle for the Planet of the Apes.” The early scenes in Ape City are, honestly, kind of cozy. It's a simple existence, explicitly vegetarian in nature. (Even though the gorillas are clearly wearing leather.) Weapons are carefully guarded and only used as a last resort. Apes and humans, both adults and children, learn in the same schools. This comfy sense of community is mostly thanks to the likable cast. Roddy McDowell continues to be a highly affable presence, even if Caesar has mellowed out to the point of almost being unrecognizable. The relationship between his wife and son are sweet. Paul Williams gets a “introducing” credit despite this being his third film role. He plays Virgil, the town genius who is amusing despite his smarty-pants antics.

Maybe the producers were aware that “Battle for the Planet of the Apes” felt a little thrown together. In hopes of granting the film a mythic quality, a framing device is added. Far in the future, an orangutan Lawgiver tells a mixed audience of humans and apes the film's story. Getting John Huston for this part, his reverberating voice making the narration seem more important, was a good idea. The film concludes on an ambiguous note. After the Lawgiver finishes his story, the camera zooms in on a statue of Caesar. The statue weeps. Which is super cheesy but interesting. Does Caesar's statue cry out of joy, that humans and apes eventually find peace? Or out of sadness, because that peace is ultimately impossible? It's an interesting note to take things out on, at the very least.

“Battle of the Planet of the Apes,” predictably, became the lowest grossing film in the series. It's undeniably a sloppy affair. However, there's enough of the old charm, even in this one, to make it worth seeing. The franchise wouldn't quite end here either. A television show, also starring Roddy McDowell, would air the next year. An animated series would follow the year after that. Both would only run for one season. Despite these setbacks, the “Planet of the Apes” series' place in sci-fi – and cinematic – history is secure. These older films might be slightly cheesy by modern standards but they continue to entertain and provoke thought even today. [6/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972)

20th Century Fox's band of writers had learned from their mistakes. The totally close-ended conclusion of “Beneath the Planet of the Apes” was not repeated for “Escape from the Planet of the Apes.” Instead, a window was left open for a future installment. Zira and Cornelius' child lived on and so did the franchise. Accordingly, “Conquest of the Planet of the Apes” followed the next year, picking up where the last one left off. Veteran action filmmaker J. Lee Thompson, who nearly directed the first film, would put his stamp on the “Apes” universe with this one. The film would prove to be one of the more controversial entries in the series, being more violent and politically volatile than any of the previous “Apes” adventures.

In the early 1980s, a strange plague has killed off all the cats and dogs in the world. Apes would take their place as the common household pets. Soon afterwards, the population of the world realized apes could be trained to do complex tasks. Some time after that, America is overtaken by a militaristic police state. Now, it's 1991 and Cornelius and Zira's son has come of age. Naming himself Caesar, he is sold into slavery and witnesses, first hand, the cruelty apes face from humans. The time for revolution is at hand. Caesar leads a bloody uprising against the humans, apes rising up to attack their oppressors.

Cornelius was dead but Roddy McDowell's association with the series was far from over. In “Conquest,” McDowell is called upon to play Caesar as well. The son presents different challenges than the father. Caesar is more vulnerable than his dad ever was. He runs and hides, terrified. A fantastic scene occurs when Caesar realizes Armando, the human who raised him, has died. His silent tears rise towards anguished cries. Yet he's more passionate than Cornelius was too. Seeing an ape beaten by a human cause him to cry out in anger. He silently plots a revolution, building an army and an arsenal, planning acts of insurrection. McDowell's performance is impressive. He creates a separate character, finding new expressiveness beneath the make-up, his shouted words of protest leaving a mark on the audience.

Caesar is a believable character. Less so is the world “Conquest of the Planet of the Apes” inhabits. America's transformation into a police state is left unexplained. The entire film is set in a sterile city, composed of straight-lined, modern architecture. Jackbooted officers in black leather watch every street. There's odd future technology, like invisible force fields or a glowing light that can force people to tell the truth. The idea that apes would evolve from pets to a disposable workplace within twenty years strains plausibility. Most unbelievable is the film's villain. Governor Breck is a cartoonish evil dictator, all of his dialogue relating to how inferior the apes are. It doesn't help that Don Murray barks every line in an authoritative tizzy. It's odd that the series' version of 1991 seems far less plausible than its version of 3159.

Despite this serious flaw, “Conquest” does work well as the story of a vicious rebellion. The film takes great pains to show how brutal Caesar's revolution is. Mobs shatter windows and set fire. An especially memorable moment has a gorilla setting a guard on fire. Knives and meat cleavers are the apes' primary weapons, stabbing their enemies to death. The unrated version includes even more intense violence. There are graphic close-ups and apes and humans being shot. One especially grim scene shows the apes piling up dead guards, each one with their throat slit. J. Lee Thompson's direction is intense and frenzied, making these sequences feel especially vicious.

The social commentary inherent in the “Apes” franchise reaches a boiling point in “Conquest.” Caesar, along with countless other apes, are sold at auction. They are paraded before a crowd, touted for their obedience. Eventually, someone buys them and puts them to work in their house. Does this remind you of anything? The film runs with this parallel between the oppressed apes with slavery and black revolution. The scenes of apes rioting were directly patterned after the Watts Riots. The guards, who beat protesters with truncheons, also bring the civil rights movement to mind. It's an interesting but uncomfortable choice, due to the tradition of racists comparing black people to apes. That the film casts a black man as one of the humans that help Caesar, but still in a somewhat patronizing manner, makes this barely subtext even more awkward.

After eighty-five minutes of ape revolution, Caesar gives a rousing speech to his troops, promising a world where man is subservient to ape. It's a powerful moment, Roddy McDowell screaming his lines with an unnerving conviction. What happens next depends on which version you're watching. As originally conceived, and as presented on the unrated Blu-Ray, the  apes beat Governor Brock to death and the film ends, continuing the series' tradition of downbeat endings. In the theatrical cut, Caesar gives another speech. He urges ape to rule with compassion, to peacefully co-exist with humans. Even to audiences in 1972, the truth must have been apparent. This second ending was the result of poor test screenings, who demanded a less brutal conclusion, I guess. It was hastily assembled, using-dubbed over dialogue and pre-existing footage. The theatrical ending runs against everything the rest of the film was attempting to accomplish. The original ending, finally restored, is obviously superior.

“Conquest of the Planet of the Apes” is, in some ways, one of the most audacious films in the series. The film's embrace of a racial subtext is daring. It's sequences of brutal violence are bracing. The conclusion, as originally intended, is impressively bleak. Yet other factors hold “Conquest” back. Such as the odd setting, slightly unbelievable story, and preposterous re-cut ending. The result is a decent film that will never be my favorite trip to the Planet of the Apes. [7/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971)

“Beneath the Planet of the Apes” seemed to provide a rather definitive conclusion to the franchise. The titular planet and all the apes on it was destroyed. Yet commerce finds a way. The continued popularity of the series meant a new film must be made. “Escape from the Planet of the Apes” came up with a rather clever solution to the previous film's apocalyptic ending. What if the apes reverse-engineered Taylor's ship, went back in time, and landed on Earth in the early 1970s? The resulting film earned the best reviews out of any of the sequels, was another box office hit, and remains popular with fans. It's probably my personal favorite of the series.

A mysterious ship has crashed-landed off the Western Coast of America. It is piloted, not by humans, but apes. Cornelius, Zira, and a new character named Dr. Milo managed to escape their world before the Doomsday Bomb destroyed it, traveling through a time warp into the modern day. At first, the trio of apes hide their intelligence from the scientists. After Milo is killed by a modern day gorilla, their true intellect is revealed. Cornelius and Zira are presented to the public and become media darlings. Yet forces in Washington are concerned about what the apes' presence means for the future of mankind. When Zira reveals that she's pregnant, the apes are forced to go the run.

“Escape from the Planet of the Apes” does a canny switcharoo on the original's premise. Instead of being about the sole intelligent man in a world of apes, the sequel is about a trio of intelligent apes in the world of men. This choice solved the budgetary problems that faced “Beneath,” as it only necessitated three costly ape make-ups. Yet it also, smartly, makes Cornelius and Zira the stars of the show. The two apes were already beloved by fans. Making them the proper protagonists was a natural next step. Giving Rodney McDowell and Kim Hunter lead roles allows both performers to shine. McDowell is hilarious, charming, and sympathetic in the lead part while Hunter also shows off an impressive sense of humor and pathos. I've always really liked both characters and am more than happy to spend a whole film with them.

“Escape” seems to flee the last film's dark tone, at first anyway. After revealing their true character to the public, Cornelius and Zira become something like celebrities. This turns “Escape from the Planet of the Apes” into an diverting, fish-out-of-water comedy. McDowell and Hunter trade snippy but sweet dialogue. The apes grow use to such human amenity as fancy clothes, wine, television, and bubble baths. Zira speaks at a woman's lib meaning while Cornelius is taken to a boxing match, which he watches with bemused horror. There's even a genuinely amusing montage of the two trying on fancy clothes. The material probably wouldn't have worked if McDowell and Hunter weren't such affable actors. In execution, it's goofily charming.

That is until the film takes a deliberate tonal shift. Despite its sunnier first half, “Escape” maintains the franchise's tendency for downbeat endings. It might be the most downbeat ending of them all. Probably the franchise's most popular characters are gunned down in cold blood, cruelly and graphically, including their infant off-spring. What was essentially a children's film up to that point ends with all its main characters dead. Yet “Escape” manages this drastic change in direction nicely as well. The “Apes” series has always traded between humor and tragedy. The film smartly follows its situation out to its natural conclusion. Likewise, the mid-story shift towards becoming a chase picture is effective. (Jerry Goldsmith's zippy, spy-movie score also helps facilitate that feeling.) We care about Zira and Cornelius. Their fates are important to us. The film juggles humor, suspense, and calamity in equal measure.

McDowell and Hunter are excellent in the leads but the supporting humans are pretty good too. Bradford Dillman and Natalie Trundy are likable as the veterinarians that are Cornelius and Zira's sole confidants. Eric Braeden plays Dr. Otto Hasslein, the film's de-facto villain. Braeden's performance is surprisingly complicated. He does what he must gravely, considering his severe actions as beneficial to the human race. He delivers a rant, comparing the ape problem to pollution and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, other issues that were seemingly out of control in the early seventies. Almost stealing the show is Ricardo Montalban as Armando, the kindly circus owner that takes the chimps in. Montalban's theatricality and humor adds some much needed levity to the film's darker latter half.

The social commentary present in the first two entries takes something of a back-seat in “Escape,” though feel free to read into a minority couple being persecuted by a ham-fisted government. (The film also contains some obvious Biblical references, for those into that kind of thing.) Shining the spotlight on the franchise's most fascinating characters makes “Escape from the Planet of the Apes” the entry I revisit the most. The mixture of light-hearted humor and surprisingly downbeat denouncement adds a tonally eccentric aspect that I also really enjoy. The original is undoubtedly the better film – one flaw this has is a sequence devoted to explaining time travel, which grinds the pace down – but I probably enjoy this one more for strictly selfish reasons. [9/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970)

Ambitious science fiction series were not as common in 1970 as they are now. Yet Fox was clearly understood that they had something special with “Planet of the Apes.” Following the first film's success, a sequel was immediately greenlit. Production on “Beneath the Planet of the Apes” was not exactly smooth. Original scripts by Pierre Boulle and Rod Serling were rejected. The budget was slashed to three million. Charlton Heston was disinterested in returning. Despite these issues, the film would still be a success upon release. Looking back on it now, “Beneath” shows the “Apes” series displaying some growing pains during its sophomore effort.

After uncovering the beached Statue of Liberty at the end of the last film, Taylor and Nova ventured further into the Forbidden Zone. After being assaulted by strange visions, Taylor disappears. Another Earthly astronaut, named Brent, follows Taylor to the future planet of apes. He meets Nova, Zira and Cornelius. He also witnesses a gorilla general, named Ursus, convince the ape politicians to launch a military raid into the Forbidden Zone. Brent and Nova, still on Taylor's trail, head into the abandoned area. What they uncover is a bizarre subterranean society and a threat that may mean the true end of the world.

Sequelizing “Planet of the Apes” was probably not an easy task, as the original's ending was fairly definitive. “Beneath” gets around this problem but essentially retreading the first film's story during its beginning half. We have a suspiciously similar substitute for Charlton Heston's Taylor arriving on the planet. He experiences many of the same events, such as journeying through a seemingly barren world, being shocked by the ape society, and getting help from Zira and Cornelius. This not only bores the audience, it slightly insults their intelligence. Brent following Taylor's footsteps exactly, ending up in the same future Earth as him, pushes suspension of disbelief past its breaking point. Combined with some maudlin action scenes, such as an uninspiring fight scene on a carriage, and you get the impression that “Beneath the Planet of the Apes” is nothing but a quickie sequel.

And then the movie takes a charmingly nuts turn. Brent and Nova journey deep into the Forbidden Zone, uncovering the submerged, blasted remains of New York City. They also discover a race of telepathic, scorched skinned, quasi-human mutants. If that wasn't weird enough, the mutants worship a doomsday bomb, with a religious awe bordering on the Pentecostal. These scenes contain some delightfully nutty moments. Like Brent being commanded to kill Nova, fight with Taylor, or overwhelmed with telepathic communications. The image of a church full of skinless weirdos praising a world-killing bomb is unforgettably bizarre. You do feel a bit like you wondered into a totally different film but I can't help but love weird shit like this.

Another problem facing a “Planet of the Apes” sequel is making it mean something, the same way the original's satire and commentary meant something. Director Ted Post – previously of “Hang 'Em High” and later of “Magnum Force” and “The Baby” – decides on an anti-war message. The ape's warmongering is their undoing. They marched into the Forbidden Zone, destroying everything around them with little care for the consequences. In a none-too-subtle reference to Vietnam War protest, they also imprison some hippy ape youths. Yet the film's anti-war message eventually degrades into an ugly nihilism. The apes gun down everyone in ways that push the limits of the PG rating. The mutants die, Brent dies, Taylor dies, even innocent Nova dies. Taylor activates the super-bomb with his dying breath, deciding none of this life is worth living. The sudden conclusion, and curt narration that tops it off, strikes the viewer as careless and sloppy.

Another problem with “Beneath the Planet of the Apes” is how it diminishes the first film's cast. Zira and Cornelius disappear halfway through the film, not appearing again after helping Brent escape. An attempt is made to maintain Dr. Zaius' complexity but he's ultimately too willing to go along with General Ursus' mindless destruction. Ursus, at the very least, is a good villain. James Gregory's hawkish speeches are delivered with a gravelly conviction. He's certainly a lot better than James Franciscus as Brent. Franciscus is a poor imitation of Heston, unconvincing as an action star and generally kind of whiny. You're probably expecting me to complain about David Watson replacing Rodney McDowell as Cornelius. Watson doesn't share the same chemistry with Kim Hunter. It is odd hearing someone else's voice come out of Cornelius' mouth, considering how associated with the series McDowell would become. Otherwise, Watson does okay. Truthfully, the character's role is so small that you'll hardly notice another actor is playing him.

Perhaps the producers of the “Apes” series would quickly realize they couldn't so closely imitate the first film after this. The sequels would head off in a very different direction. Even with its routine set-up, overly downbeat ending, and weaker leading man, I ultimately can't dislike “Beneath the Planet of the Apes.” Those bomb-worshiping mutants, man. Who thinks of that stuff? The sequel probably needed more wildly imaginative elements like that but still provided me with enough entertainment value. It's one of the weaker entries in the series but I can still dig it. [7/10]

RECENT WATCHES: Planet of the Apes (1968)

It began with a book. Pierre Boulle's novel, known in some parts of the world as “Monkey Planet,” immediately caught the eye of Arthur P. Jacobs, a producer at 20th Century Fox. The adaptation, entitled “Planet of the Apes,” would become a huge success. The film would spawn a series that would, in many ways, be the predecessors to many modern day sci-fi franchises. It was one of the first on-going genre film series to be made with A-budgets and to be heavily merchandised, now standard practices. Nowadays, the original “Planet of the Apes” is an iconic classic, referenced and parodied countless times over the decades.

As an adaptation, “Planet of the Apes” follows the general outline of Boulle's short novel while changing most of the details. In both, the crew crash-land on a strange planet, loose their clothes while swimming in a lake, encounter primitive humans, and eventually get hunted by upright apes. In both, the protagonist impresses a pair of chimp scientists with his speech and bonds with a female human named Nova. As for the differences, Boulle's French astronauts become American, of course. In the book, the ape civilization is as advanced as modern man, with cars, planes and television. This is in stark contrast to the film's more primitive society. Boulle uses the premise for social satire, while the film focuses on rousing adventure. The twist ending is entirely different though clearly inspired by the book's switcharoo conclusion.

I think the reason “Planet of the Apes” most captured the public's imagination is the way it transports the audience to another world. The production and special make-up were groundbreaking at the time. Even today, the ape make-up is charming, expressive, and fantastically assembled. More importantly, the ape society strikes the viewer as fully formed. The apes have their own religion, entertainments, and political divides, just like people. The scientific chimps bristle against the leadership of the orangutans, all of them conservative politicians, while gorillas function as a working class, soldiers and blue collar individuals. The world of the apes works as both an absurdist parody of human civilization, mirroring and subverting our Earth, and a strange sci-fi world that was completely new in 1968.

That satirical element, taken from the original book, is sometimes married to a goofier sense of humor. Images of humans being purged by ape hunters, their dead bodies strung up like freshly killed deer, the hunters posing with their kills, place us in a chilling world where humans are prey and animals rule. A mid-film trial, devoted to determining if the intelligent human has any relation to the resident apes, is obviously a darkly humorous twist on the Scopes trial. There's even an ape hippy, as Zira's teenage nephew is part of a youthful rebellion the includes vegetarianism and questioning authority. Yet, sometimes, “Planet of the Apes” is happy to admit that monkeys are just funny. Such as the simian hoots of the ape guard that sprays Heston with a hose. Or the orangutan politicians imitating the “See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil” image.

Though he'd probably prefer to be remembered for “Ben Hur” or “The Ten Commandments,” “Planet of the Apes” remains the most iconic role of Charlton Heston's great career. Heston's histrionic performance here has largely overshadowed any other acting he's ever done. Of course, Heston's sweaty, shouting, gnarled Tyler is perfect for a slightly over-sized film like this. (And, it must be said, that Heston's quieter moments are equally effecting.) Overall, the cast is entirely iconic. Kim Hunter's Zira is loyal, charming, and unforgettable. Roddy McDowell's Cornelius is funny, thoughtful, and immediately likable. Maurice Evans' Dr. Zaius is an impressive anti-villain, duplicitous and self-interested but for understandable reasons.

“Planet of the Apes” was Franklin J. Schaffner's fifth film. It was also his breakout film, as his first four features have been mostly forgotten while, afterwards, he made popular hits like “Patton,” “Papillon,” and “The Boys from Brazil.” Schaffner's direction is colorful and energetic. He frequently employs a roaming camera or spastic zooms to create a sense of motion and shock. The reveal of the apes' faces or the spaceship crash are oddly kinetic, in a herky-jerky way. The action sequences, like Taylor being chased through the ape village, build upon this movement. I also like the use of color during a scene where Taylor and Zaius talk in his office, bathed in warm oranges and evening purples.

If you're going to talk about “Planet of the Apes,” you have to talk about that ending. The twist ending famously came from the pen of Rod Serling, even if most of his draft was rejected. In retrospect, the conclusion that the Planet of the Apes was Earth all along is hardly surprising. The film foreshadows this fact repeatedly, eventually confirming that an advanced human society existed on the planet before apes. Yet the conclusion means something more. It makes the film's earlier satire more bitter. At the film's beginning, Taylor is practically a misanthrope. His interaction with Nova and the apes seems to convince him that humanity must not be so bad... Until he sees the Statue of Liberty on the beach, confirming his belief that mankind is destined to destroy itself.

Nearly fifty years later, “Planet of the Apes” is still a delightfully entertaining film. It's a brisk adventure, full of lovable characters and fascinating details. It's also still has the ability to provoke thought, it's apocalyptic ending still packing a punch even if you know its coming. Even if it hadn't launched a franchise, it's likely the movie would've been remained a classic. I admire its qualities as an eccentric cult classic, intriguing sci-fi, a fantastic piece of design work, and exciting adventure film. [9/10]

Director Report Card: Tim Burton (2001)

9. Planet of the Apes

The “Planet of the Apes” series is one of the earliest examples of a mainstream studio spending major money on a long-running, science fiction series. The original, and a few of its sequels, are classics not just because of amazing creature effects or an iconic twist ending. The classic “Apes” series is also friggin’ weird. The films combine sci-fi action-adventure with serious social commentary, satire, goofy sight gags, and persistently downbeat endings. The series’ legendary status in pop culture, and the fact that the movies had made 20th Century Fox a lot of money over the years, made a new “Apes” movie inevitable. A series relaunch had been in development since the eighties and was, at one point, going to be produced by James Cameron, star Arnold Schwarzenegger, and feature apes playing baseball. A new “Planet” wasn't successfully created until 1999 with Tim Burton in the director’s chair. Burton’s ability to combine personal weirdness with big budget spectacle, not to mention his self-professed love of the original, made him seem like a good choice to helm a new “Apes” film. The final product didn’t hold true to that opinion. 2001’s “Planet of the Apes” is widely regarded as the lowest point in the director’s career.

The film begins in the distant future, on a space station where chimps are being trained to pilot space pods. When an ape disappears into a strange cosmic storm, head trainer Leo Davidson follows after it. After falling through the storm himself, he winds up on a strange planet where humans are enslaved as primitives and intelligent, talking apes lead a complex society. Precocious ape Ari wants to befriend the humans while Thade, a general, wants to wipe the species out. Davidson’s appearance, which has him escaping ape custody and attempting to find a way home, heats up the conflict between human and ape.

Burton’s “Planet of the Apes” has the dubious distinction of introducing the word “re-imagining” to the studio press kit world. The film is not a direct remake of any of the original films. Instead, it takes the central concept – a planet where apes rule and humans are treated as animals – and tells a different story. You would assume taking the series in a different direction, with a director with such a bold visual sensibility at the lead, would result in a very different “Apes” experience. The most disappointing thing about 2001’s “Planet” is how little of Burton’s style is in the film. Occasionally, the director captures a unique or interesting image on screen: An ape hangs upside down, the camera craning around to his point of view. An injured chimp limping into his cage. A man standing in a temple, facing down a strange new world. The director’s sense of humor pokes through a few times, especially when contrasting the ape’s advanced society with their more animal-like behavior. However, “Planet of the Apes” is distressingly lacking in Burton-esque elements. No expressionistic sets, no black and white spirals, no outcast heroes or strange girl romantic leads. Ultimately, most anyone could have directed this film.

The film was not well received upon release. Save for one element. Legendary creature effects guru Rick Baker was put in control of creating the apes’ make-up and designs. The result is some of the effects man’s best work. The apes of the film are a brilliant blending of simian characteristics and human-like elements. The attention to detail in the faces and hair is spell-binding. Amazingly, each ape has a personality. An elderly orangutang has large jowls hanging off his face. Chimps grimace wildly while gorilla beat their chest and sneer. Ari, the lead female ape, is almost eerily too human, the character being given humanoid lips, eyelashes, and a haircut. One of the smartest things Baker did was create complex facial appliances that didn’t obscure the actors’ eyes. Doing so allows a range of expression usually unseen in make-up like this. An astonishing amount of work went into even minor background characters. Each ape is a fully formed design and amazingly life-like.

Baker’s creature make-up is not the only example of the film’s budget being up on the screen. The most Burton-esque element is the film’s spectacular production design. In the ape cities, homes have been built into trees. Arching root hallways and simple stone floors gave the impression of a society that is advanced but chooses to remain in touch with nature. One of the my favorite elements of the film is the ape military. Each soldier wears distinctive armor, red in coloration, decorated with swirling plates and pointed helmets. When camped out in the dessert, the soldiers sleep in huge, red tents. Even the ape weaponry has a unique design to it, General Thade wielding a pair of star-shaped clubs at one point. The movie has many problems and lacks the director’s trademark style yet there’s no denying that “Planet of the Apes” is lovely to look at.

An incredible amount of work went into realizing the ape planet on screen. And not just in the make-up, sets, and costumes. The buildings are designed to be climbed over, fitting the ape physiology. More then once, we see apes use their feet like secondary hands. Some of my favorite moments are minor. An ape street musician plays an instrument with his hands and feet. A group of ape teenagers party in an alleyway. During their downtime, a trio of ape soldiers play cards.

As presented in the film, ape society is roughly equivalent to the Roman Empire. Ape senators control the politics. The army, and constant military expansion, is an important part of every day life. Slavery is a common practice and is widely accepted. Debates rages over the morality of slavery but it’s clear it’s not going away any time soon. It’s an interesting parallel to present and roots the fantastic premise in reality. The film even gets into the concept of ape religion. A major character is a religious fanatic, worshiping the Ape Jesus who was the first ape to live. One of the major disappointments of the film is that, when the truth of the apes’ origin is revealed, there isn’t more of a cultural fall-out. The original “Planet” series has excellent world-building and, flaws and all, the 2001 version continues that trend.

The movie also has the benefit of putting some great actors under those elaborate make-ups. Front and center is Tim Roth as General Thade. Roth imbues Thade with enough villainous zeal for several movies. The character hisses and growls every line, putting visceral hatred into everything he does. Thade is a constant schemer, always looking for ways to advance his own state of power. Even his father’s death doesn’t seem to set him back very much. The role is not complex but Roth puts an incredible amount of energy into it, making Thade an intimidating, fascinating character.

Perhaps stealing Roth’s thunder a little is the second major lead. Helena Bonham Carter plays Ari. She is the ideological opposite of the racist Thade and believes humans and apes can co-exist in peace. Carter makes Ari seem like more then a rebelling teenager, giving the character a considerable intelligence. The actress also brings a lot of humor to the part, whooping in fear when faced with water. Most surprisingly, she also makes the character oddly sensual. Ari has far more chemistry with Mark Walhberg then he does with the incredibly flat and unimportant human love interest played by Estalla Warren. In the finished film, Ari only kisses Davidson. Apparently, in an earlier draft, the two actually had sex. Weird as it sounds, that seems like a really natural decision. It’s not exactly hard to see why Burton fell in love with Helena on this film as she’s an entrancing presence.

Even the supporting cast is filled out with prime character actors. Michael Clarke Duncan probably could have gorilla-growled his way through his part as Attar, the head general. However, the character’s religious convictions at an interesting layer and allow Duncan to show a softer side, occasionally. Paul Giamatti is fantastically sleazy as Limbo, an orangutang slave trader. He winds up following the heroes around, mostly by accident, leading to a lot of opportunities for comic relief. Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa plays totally to type as a dishonored ape solider. (At least he’s not a samurai.) David Warner is a distant head of state. Glenn Shadix is a rotund, decadent orangutang senator while Lisa Marie is his shallow, eye-candy wife. While few of these actors are exploring new ground, each inhabit the roles fully. Most importantly, they use ape-like posture and body language, making their transformation even more believable.

So the film builds a gorgeous, convincing world and fills it full of interesting characters played by great actors. What’s the problem then? Right in the center of the movie is a giant, sucking black hole shaped like Mark Wahlberg. Wahlberg is soundly uninvolving as one of the blandest Hollywood protagonist ever brought to flat, unconvincing life. His Bahstan accent is incredibly distracting in the sci-fi setting. Davidson is blandly heroic and weirdly opportunistic, when you consider he does everything just so he can get home. Wahlberg’s flat as can be performance sets a precedence. If there’s an actor in the movie and they aren’t under make-up, chances are they’re a total bore. A complete snooze of a protagonist is the movie’s biggest problem.

The “Ape” series is also famous for sneaking social commentary in under its outrageous science fiction premise. 2001’s “Ape” begins as a none-to-subtle allegory for slavery. Humans are rounded up, chained in cages, sold at market, and forced to do menial labor in the apes’ homes. They are treated as property and those that consider them as, well, human are treated as outsiders. However, if the movie was attempting to say something about slavery, there’s no clear message. The cruelty faced by the enslaved is not explored enough to make an impression. The film seems to be making some sort of clumsy statement about firearms as well. Guns are presented as the object that separate humans from apes. When an ape gets his hand on a gun, he either smashes it immediately or it leads to his downfall. The film doesn’t delve into gun control or rights on any deeper level. It’s merely the faintest wisp of social commentary, not revealing or exploring anything.

More over, the movie abandons this subtext midway through for uninvolving action theatrics. The climax is a massive showdown between the apes and the humans, full of explosions and violence. However, there’s little reason to be interested. Aside from a few colorful moments, like the apes running on their knuckles or the final fate of the main villain, the climax is routine and flat. The finale even moves the action out of the ape city, taking place in a bare, nondescript desert. So we don’t even get to look at the neat sets. By the end, much of what made “Planet of the Apes” involving vanishes off-screen.

And then there’s that baffling ending. Throughout, the film makes cutesy references to the original series, like the famous “Damn dirty ape” line being put into a gorilla’s mouth or Charlton Heston’s cameo as the ancient ape who guards the gun. The new film attempts to create a twist ending that can stand up to the original’s iconic shocker. The result is baffling at best. Marky-Mark makes it back to Earth and lands in front of the Lincoln Monument. Inside, however, he sees not Abraham Lincoln but Ape-raham Lincoln and is greeted by a police force of Earthly apes. Supposedly, a sequel would have explained this non-sequitur of an ending. Since that never happened, the viewer is left scratching their head. The explanation that was eventually given is clumsy, presuming that a lot happened off-screen, and winds up confusing the issue further. Though intended as a homage to the original novel’s ending, the effect is only confusing, never shocking or surprising.

The 2001 version of “Planet of the Apes” ultimately has a reputation it doesn’t entirely deserve. From the perspective of make-up and art design, the movie works fantastic. Unfortunately, a boring leading man, routine screenplay, and confounding ending makes the movie more problematic then memorable. As a Tim Burton movie, there’s little about it to recommend. The apes wouldn’t return until 2011 when a new reboot would deliver the brains and heart we’ve come to expect from the series. Brains and heart that this version is severely lacking. [Grade: C+]