Robogeek reviews PLANET OF THE APES

Greetings, monkey boys! ROBOGEEK here with one of my increasingly rare cinematic musings to share (at the expense of sleep).

For a film I had such low expectations for, Tim Burton's "re-imagined" PLANET OF THE APES still did a masterful job of disappointing me.

It starts off promisingly enough - which is probably part of the problem (the entire opening space sequence is marvelous stuff). But about half-way through, it all starts noticeably falling apart, piece by piece. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it sucks (it just isn't as offensively bad as, say, THE MUMMY RETURNS, PEARL HARBOR, or TOMB RAIDER), but I have to say it's probably Tim Burton's weakest film - and certainly his most un-Burtonesque. (And I love, love, LOVE all things Tim Burton.)

In fact, other than a smattering of throwaway gags, there was only one scene in the entire film where I was struck by the signature Burton touch (a short, simple scene when a pet little girl is locked in a cage for the night by her new girl-ape owner in her bedroom; deliciously twisted!). The rest of the film, though, is just... bland.

I mean, think about it: a bland Tim Burton movie? Full of talking monkeys, no less? How the hell did that happen?

Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't state for the record that Rick Baker is a god. In a way, this felt more like Baker's film than Burton's, because his imprint is so much more pervasively indelible. Baker's incredibly varied (save for the gorillas, perhaps), detailed, and lifelike make-up offers incredible opportunities for expression and performance.

It's just too bad that the script doesn't provide them.

Granted, Tim Roth as General Thade is impressive, but his character is astonishingly one-note and - like every other character - shockingly under-developed. And while I generally dislike Helena Bonham-Carter as a matter of course, she does an admirable job under a simian veneer, straining against the limitations of a role lacking any real depth. She is "compassionate liberal ape." Roth is "maniacally militant ape." They might as well be wearing signs around their necks.

Even worse off are the human characters. When one of them (a seemingly significant one, given the casting) is killed near the end of the first act, you simply don't care, because the humans are little more than cardboard cut-outs. The most interesting thing about Estella Warren's character (aside from her cleavage) is pondering the question, "where on Planet of the Apes does she manage to buy make-up?"

Later, quite bizarrely at the film's climax, some human kid side-kick/sibling/whatever suddenly decides he has lines, and pulls a Gunga Din out of the blue. It's ridiculously stupid, and you just don't care if he lives, because we've never even heard this kid speak until now - much less be developed as a character.

This all points to my one big problem with the film: NOTHING IS EARNED.

Here's another example: There are two characters who have a past - but all we are told about it is basically one line buried in the middle of the film. However, during the climax, we're given what's supposed to be the Big Showdown between them... and it's just totally flat and lifeless, because you're not invested. At all. The film hasn't done any real work to make you care.

And that goes for just about everything in the movie.

Heston's cameo, for instance, is a total cheat, a gimmick. I mean, it's fucking Charlton Heston as an elderly ape! That in itself is distracting enough to the scene, but it's compounded by the fact that he - get this - goes into a speech about guns, and how they are proof of man's cruelty. Or something. Jeez Louise!

Sure, there are lots of little spasms of entertainment in the film; Otho-as-orangutan (Beetlejuice fans will get this) is a scream. Danny Elfman's score is effective in support of the film, if unmemorable on its own. And overall, I mostly enjoyed the first half. But ultimately, it just wears thin - not just dramatically, but also intellectually and philosophically. In all those cases, it just scratches the surface of what the original film managed to achieve. (And, hell, the action isn't nearly as good as Sleepy Hollow.)

Oh, and then there's the ending...

First off, it carries no weight, no resonance. It's merely a gag and a conceit. In addition, at worst, it doesn't even make sense; at best, I think it's woefully inconsistent with the previously established rules of the film. (I don't want to give it away, but let me just say that time travel is one thing, while parallel universes and alternate realities are quite another. The film wants to have it both ways, but - again - doesn't earn it.)

I could write more, but I'd really rather sleep. However, if you're looking for a second and third opinion on the film, I'd highly recommend two excellent reviews in particular: Glen Oliver's for IGN FilmForce ("impressive looking, awkwardly paced, and spiritually vacuous. Beyond its cosmetics, nothing in this movie is either energized or passionate. [It's] fancier than the original film, but it lacks the emotional/social resonance and gravity...") and Elvis Mitchell's for the New York Times ("It is remote and overly expositional for long stretches at a time... the picture states its social points so bluntly that it becomes slow-witted and condescending; it treats the audience as pets... There are also a lot of heads turning theatrically toward the cameras, as if every scene had to have a shot that could be excerpted for the trailers.").

Go see SEXY BEAST. Or GHOST WORLD. Or MADE.

- ROBOGEEK

P.S.: Oh, and to the folks at Fox publicity and their regional rent-a-publicist who tried so desperately to blockade us from screenings this week... nice try. ;-)