Skip to main content

I’m going to get my chimp.

Planet of the Apes

(SPOILERS) Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes remake is one of those movies, like Roland Emmerich’s Godzilla, where everyone knows it’s terrible, so there’s nothing much else to discuss. Except that neither of those movies are terrible. They may not be what fans wanted, but in many respects they’re both much more interesting “failures” than the later, heralded incarnations where the studios concerned “got it right” (which, in Apes’ case, entailed getting bogged down in a highly pedestrian human-ape war, and in Godzilla’s, failing to find a means to instil interest in the token human element). Burton’s movie is probably the least Burton-esque picture he has made, and it’s irreversibly crippled by a flat-out terrible choice of lead actor, but I maintain there’s a lot here that deserves respect, up to and including that ending.

Leo Davidson: How the hell did these monkeys get like this?

Arnie was attached to various incarnations of a remake for much of the ’90s, which variously had Oliver Stone, Philip Noyce, Chris Columbus, James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Michael Bay and the Hughes Brothers involved as director/s. The prospect of a remake was initially sparked by Adam Rifkin during the ’80s (he had in mind a Gladiator-type tale and a now very in-vogue – see Superman Returns, Terminator: Dark Fate, Halloween – retconning that would have taken only the 1968 movie as canon). The Stone version, involving The Bible Code, time travel and a lethal virus sounds like unwieldy cobblers (“…one of the best scripts I ever read” according to Fox President Peter Chernin). There was more virus cobblers in the later Chris Columbus and Sam Hamm draft (and, of course, in the one that did eventually restart the franchise in 2011).

Was Burton a good fit for the material? Perhaps for the comedy take suggested at one point. You can see his eccentric eye in parts of the picture – anything involving ape society and its more oddball elements, basically – but otherwise, it’s an alarmingly bland Burton we see here. Mars Attacks! had been a case of expensive career hubris that threw his bankability into question, and he evidently saw the fallout as a state of affairs for which he had to atone; Sleepy Hollow would do so to some degree, but it wasn’t a blockbuster, not in the way Batman was. Perhaps he was unconcerned this pick might damage the Burton brand, dilute its distinctive signature, in view of the freedom a big hit would muster. The irony is that while it was a big hit, like Godzilla it was seen as a such a creative and audience failure that – in contrast to the prevailing impulse that will push forward no matter what – it couldn’t guarantee a sequel, less still a brace of them.

Burton was caught chasing a release date, something that made the entire experience one he’d sooner forget (he said he’d rather jump out of a window than make a sequel). But it’s most notable how his instincts appear to have been severely suppressed in order to serve the Fox machine. Even later, when he’d churn out shallow facsimiles of Burton pictures (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Alice in Wonderland), you could still see him in the mix, however much they were shallow parodies of himself. In Planet of the Apes, though, he somehow persuaded himself to cast Marky Mark. Sincerely!

Wahlberg, entirely failing to see the irony of being asked to deliver a line like “Never send a monkey to do a man’s job”, shoulders his way through the proceedings with an expression of slack-jawed bafflement. Did I say bafflement? He doesn’t so much look baffled as downright thick. There’s a very limited, short stretch of track along which Wahlberg functions as an actor, and it’s definitely not straight, generic, leading-man parts. Ones where he succeeds only in accentuating his dimwitted side.

I mean, he’s doing something right, clearly, because he continues to hang on in there, but Planet of the Apes finds him at his least presentable, most typified by his being asked to deliver a rallying speech to the humans in the face of an oncoming ape army. When the apes observe “This one seems to be different” you can only assume they mean his natty tailoring, as opposed to his nous or grey matter. Otherwise, it’s difficult to conceive why Captain Leo Davidson should elicit such strong emotions in Tim Roth’s General Thade or passionate glances from Helena Bonham Carter’s Ari. Estella Warren is more his league, as vacuous, pneumatic, bee-stung-lipped slave girl Daena.

But maybe the joke was on us? Maybe Burton purposefully cast the least charismatic bunch imaginable as the humans. Hence Kris Kristofferson, no one’s idea of scintillating, unless you count prolific follicles as such, as their other notable representative. If so, it ends up back on him, as the picture is fatally undermined in terms of dynamic. With that and having to stage grand action sequences – never his strong suit, although they’re reasonably competent here, where ten years earlier they were borderline risible – there’s a point post-Leo discovering the truth of what is going on and returning home where the picture rather loses all hope, and certainly any sense that anyone believes in what they’re making.

Elsewhere, however, there are some undeniable saving graces. Philippe Rousselot’s cinematography – his first work with the director – is rich and textured, and the production design and costuming are memorable and distinctive. The picture looks great, basically, particular when it’s based on soundstages (not something you can often claim). Burton likes these closed worlds, of course, and would score a major hit soon thereafter with one in a chocolate factory.

Also in its considerable favour are the ape performances. If Michael Clarke Duncan is a little on the imperviously imperious side as gorilla Colonel Attar, Roth is absolutely sensational as Thade (it’s suggested he lost out on Severus Snape due to this one). All in-your-face malevolence and rage, Thade is Christian Bale by way of Jack Palance, and his posture and movement attest to an actor who has clearly thought a great deal about how to make the most impact from the potentially incredibly constrictive encumbrance of all those prosthetics and outfitting.

Bonham-Carter is really good too, this coming at a point post-Fight Club where she was consciously rejecting those English rose, Merchant Ivory parts and showing she did actually have range. She’s just unfortunate she had Wahlberg for her “romantic” interest (Fox nixed anything overt, but it’s very obvious she’s jealous of Daena, and Daena’s jealous of her. And Leo is all round perplexed by it all).

Paul Giamitti’s notable also, in the comedy orangutan part (I can’t see how aspirin are going to mean anythingto him, let alone junior apes, but fine). The platitudes about tolerance and difference can only be rendered rote in the thirty years between the original and this version, and much of the picture’s “politicking” in is similarly undercooked, from Thade declaring martial law (it isn’t anyway?) to society readjusting itself to cross-species inclusivity super quickly. At one point, Leo opines of humans “The smarter we get, the more dangerous our world becomes” (which is, yawn, exactly what they want you to think).

Lisa Marie’s in it. So is David Warner (his makeup’s disappointing, and he lacks the punch of his previous prosethetic-shrouded part as a Klingon). Chuck Heston cameos, as the keeper of the secrets and Thades dad; Roth said wouldn’t have appeared if known which is, well… maybe he’s mellowed since into the kind of guy who’d perhaps be willing to discuss differences of opinion reasonably with others, rather than flounce about, disinterested in nuance or the individual behind the disagreeable viewpoint.

One of the big bones of contention with Planet of the Apes, contributing to its reviled status, is the plot, and twists thereof. Now, I intend to offer no earnest defence of the movie’s main structure, which operates functionally, on the landing-capture-escape-reveal level, and little more than that (credited to William Broyles Jr, Lawrence Konner and Mark Rosenthal).

I don’t see, however, that Interstellar deserves raves for its serious science (whatever that means) approach while Burton’s Planet of the Apes deserves brickbats. They’re both operating in the time-wimey territory of cause and effect getting scrambled, rather depending on where one is and at what point in relation to whatever one is observing. Planet of the Apes tips the wink to things messing up with Leo’s commander (Chris Ellis) during the early sequences, showing him as an old man, and the reveal that their crashed ship spawned this topsy-turvy society is a reasonable refiguring of the original (complete with Star Trek: The Motion Picture-style compression of names in order to create new ones: Caution live animal).

This leads, germanely, to the WTF ending where Leo arrives safely back on Earth, only to discover Thade got their first. Which is, after all, what Leo did earlier, when he was giving chase to Pericles. It’s a completely reasonable cliffhanger. Okay, less clear is how Thade managed to get himself a space vehicle in order to travel to Earth, and from thence take over, and that puzzler may be part of the reason Fox gave up on a follow up, but I see no reason someone couldn’t map out the minutiae. The graft needed is no greater than the retcon of Cornelius and Zira escaping their doomed planet in the second sequel of the original series.

Leo Davidson: It’s not sorcery. It’s science.

We also have the picture’s thematic stratum. Ideas of equality and difference are passé by this point, so we should be focussing instead on the perils of technology and science. It is science, after all as Leo so adroitly puts it, that has made the world so dangerous. Pericles is a state-of-the-art augmented monkey; “he’s gene-spliced, chromosome-enhanced… He can handle it”. The apes of Burton’s Planet of the Apes are effectively a vision for humanity’s future, unrecognisable to us now (one might do a straight swap for Greys, if one entertains the suggestion that they represent the consequence of our transhumanist, devolved, degendered future). These apes, of course, are designed to reflect our own presumed superior stature in a fairly cheap-shot manner (“Is there a soul in there?” asks Thade, peering down a human’s throat). And for the apes, as for us, science is shown to be a whole lot of theoretical fudging in order to project a prevailing narrative: “Our scientists do tell me these humans have terrible diseases”.

Leo Davidson: Talking monkeys can’t exist.

Is Planet of the Apes a worthy reinvention? No, but neither is it a total loss, and it’s at least as interesting in content as the recent trilogy. They have in common less than effervescent human performers (be it James Franco or Jason Clarke), and I’ll take the Rick Baker makeup and costume design work over photoreal CGI and authentically dank woods any day. The real problem with the new trilogy is that it stuck so closely to a “realistic” rendition, it finally lost sight of the concept’s giddy genre flourish. The real problem with the Burton movie, though, is a director without a strong desire to tell that story, a star lacking chutzpah, and a screenplay with a solid enough variation on the core concept, yet an absence of any strategy for developing it as a singular movie script, let alone a trilogy (or beyond). Nevertheless, this is far from a disaster.

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

The Krishna died of a broken finger? I mean, is that a homicide?

Miami Blues (1990) (SPOILERS) If the ‘90s crime movie formally set out its stall in 1992 with Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs , another movie very quietly got in there first at the beginning of the decade. Miami Blues picked up admiring reviews but went otherwise unnoticed on release, and even now remains under-recognised. The tale of “blithe psychopath” Federick J. Frenger, Jr., the girl whose heart he breaks and the detetive sergeant on his trail, director George Armitage’s adaptation of Charles Willeford’s novel wears a pitch black sense of humour and manages the difficult juggling act of being genuinely touching with it. It’s a little gem of a movie, perfectly formed and concisely told, one that more than deserves to rub shoulders with the better-known entries in its genre. One of the defining characteristics of Willeford’s work, it has been suggested , is that it doesn’t really fit into the crime genre; he comes from an angle of character rather than plot or h

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

You tampered with the universe, my friend.

The Music of Chance (1993) (SPOILERS) You won’t find many adaptations of Paul Auster’s novels. Original screenplays, yes, a couple of which he has directed himself. Terry Gilliam has occasionally mentioned Mr. Vertigo as in development. It was in development in 1995 too, when Philip Haas and Auster intended to bring it to the screen. Which means Auster presumably approved of Haas’ work on The Music of Chance (he also cameos). That would be understandable, as it makes for a fine, ambiguous movie, pregnant with meaning yet offering no unequivocal answers, and one that makes several key departures from the book yet crucially maintains a mesmerising, slow-burn lure.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red (2022) (SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc . can be given an insi