To wrap up our summer honeymoon week, my wife and I decided to go out and see a movie in the theater. I've always enjoyed the movie theater experience more than my wife has, but since it's so rare that we go out to one, I wanted to make it part of our week. We both happen to be Planet of the Apes fans. More so of the original films than the ones that started in 2011, but Amanda is very much a completionist and I have liked the newer movies well enough.
This one has been out for a little while as I post this, so I won't go into too many plot synopsis or spoilers here. Mostly I intend to give my overall impressions. Admittedly, the film isn't super fresh in my mind. I saw it over a week ago at this point. However, how much a movie sticks with you upon an initial viewing can often be telling in itself.
Enough excuses for my laziness and lack of professionalism (haha irony and self-awareness makes it better!), how was the newest Apes movie for Joe?
The thing I expressed to my wife first is actually the element that sticks out the most to me as I type this and attempt to recall my impressions. It's the visuals. The movie looked rather good. I know that in heavy CGI ladden epic action movies like this, which are rather common nowadays, that's kind of expected. Anything that doesn't look expensive is going to stand out as shoddy computer effects. As someone who typically prefers practical effects (there's just something about the idea of people handcrafting something and using resources at hand), I think the CGI here was pretty good. I think there are some really good examples of heavy CGI that do look pretty and can be marvels in their own way. The problem is, a really good practical effect tends to age better. CGI that blew me away 20 years ago often looks a little tacky. Even when I push nostalgia aside, as with most aspects of movies, I think you should consider a film in the context of when it was made as well as asking, "does the story hold together well?"
I feel like I'm ranting more here than usual. I'm not sure if this is my desire to seem more experimental or an attempt to capture my stream of consciousness while also trying to make a written piece more polished. Probably a bit of both. Is such a thing possible? Is the pretentious level over 9000? You tell me. Are we having fun yet?
Amanda just asked, "How's it going over there?" I guess it's going good. Maybe I should go back to trying to write about this movie. This is the Manduke Movie Blog, is it not?
Anyway, I think the visuals of the film were pretty impressive, particularly everything involved with the setting. The jungle looked vibrant and lush. It was one of those instances of something being very digital but it was so detailed and pretty I didn't care. There can be true artistry in CGI too!
The apes themselves looked good as expected, although there is one area where I felt they may have done better in previous films of the series. It was the eyes. There is kind of a creepy lifelessness to them that I found distracting at some points. Beyond that, they looked pretty darn good.
Despite the visuals looking appealing, this movie didn't really show off as much in the action. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as this one tries to focus a little more on character, plot and general world building. All these particular areas are relatively simple, straightforward and familiar. You've got the classics revenge/find my family arc all tied into a very primal plot. Despite the simplicity, I kind of appreciated the tropes found within those sort of early man/prehistoric narratives which use these basic formulas. They tend to take some of the most basic formulas of plots and strip them down to their purest form.
While I find it refreshing in a way (it's kind of why I like games like Far Cry: Primal or the stories of Robert E Howard due to that foundational universal sort of tale), it is extremely simple. I kind of found myself wishing it would delve a little more into some of the themes it teased a bit. The Apes movies in the past at least attempted to be cerebral sci-fi asking societal questions. The biggest idea this one touted was how history and religious/philosophical ideologies can be misinterpreted or twisted by different groups over time. We've seen the character of Caesar and what his beliefs were, but enough time has passed that he's become a legend, a fragmented story and simply an idea. The characters in the film didn't truly know Caesar or his experiences or perspectives, they just have ideas. The parts of these ideas the have power, for good or ill.
You've got so many classic elements of the hero's journey here, most prominent to me being the mentor orangutan figure (why are they always the wisest ones?). He gives our hero, Noa, the teaching of Caesar based around peace among apes as well as acceptance of humans. I liked the pendant he gives Noa, which was based on Caesar's memories of his human home, now a symbol much like a cross. The specifics of the origins of this symbol are unknown to these followers, but the idea permeates. Meanwhile we of course have our baddies, who latch onto the hatred and fear Caesar had toward humans. Once again, they don't have the full story, but there is some truth to the foundation of their particular ideology.
It's kind of a small thing, but my favorite aspect of the film, beyond the general presentation and some visual/auditory references to the older films I thought were pretty well integrated, was the villain. Proximus is just a fun bad guy. At first glance he seems like he'd be written as pure evil or some sort of brute. He's actually a student of history and fully believes he's doing what his best for his kind, using the Roman expansion as his inspiration for his persona and military ambition. Of course, he sees himself as an inheritor of ape leadership. His ego feeds into this visage of bombastic theatricality, much in line with one who wishes to rally his troops as a figurehead. He was over the top in some ways, but behind this was kind of a sort of everyman (or everyape in this case) who took an opportunity and went with it. He was scary but in a believable sort of way. I appreciate the subtlety.
There were some things we didn't like though. Gary Oldman is the obligatory well known human actor in the movie, who plays a character who reads to Proximus and sides with him after being captured. He is sort of a defeated person, but we don't really know who he is or what truly motivates him. He's just seems to be there more for exposition. Even worse is the main human, the girl named Nova (naturally) who turns out to be part of a group of humans who have retained their intelligence and use of technology. While I kind of appreciated the twist, this woman just seems to know everything and be able to do everything. Without her, the apes would have not been able to accomplish much, at least not without a more complex plot and perhaps a whole other movie. Her motivations also weren't entirely clear. I appreciate that there is a level of mistrust the humans have of all apes, but she's another character who wasn't fleshed out enough.
Those issues aside, Amanda and I both did enjoy the movie. Maybe this was due to lowered expectations but it was a good viewing experience. I settled on giving this one a B and Amanda gave it an A-. So I guess you could say we collectively gave it a B+. If you're not a huge Apes fan, maybe wait to give this one a rent or see if it available for free, but its a nice watch for some good simple storytelling. Until next time, thanks for reading!
Joe
No comments:
Post a Comment