War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) review

It’s safe to say that one of the most surprisingly effective revivals in recent years has been with the Planet of the Apes series. Of course, as we all know, the franchise first started back in 1968 with the original Planet of the Apes, a film that became a landmark entry in the sci-fi genre thanks in part to its groundbreaking makeup effects and its iconic twist ending. It was then followed by a string of sequels in the 70’s that varied in terms of overall quality. After that, the original film got a remake in 2001 directed by Tim Burton. However, unlike the original, the remake’s twist ending went over horribly with audiences; thus, due to the film’s mixed reception, plans for a follow-up ended up getting nixed. It wasn’t until a full decade later when the series was revived again, albeit in a much more successful manner. In director Rupert Wyatt’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the ape characters were portrayed via motion-capture instead of the traditional makeup process. It was all led by the king of motion-capture performances himself, Andy Serkis, in the role of genetically enhanced ape Caesar. And thanks to Serkis’ outstanding performance, as well as its groundbreaking visual effects, Rise ended up being one of the surprise hits of 2011. Three years later, director Matt Reeves stepped in to direct the sequel, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. And overall, many felt that it was one of the rare instances of a sequel that far surpassed its predecessor. Not only were the motion-capture visual effects majorly improved upon, but Reeves also took the strong emotional depth of Rise one step further. In other words, ‘style over substance’ this was not, effectively making it one of the best summer blockbusters of that year. And now, here we are again three years later with the third entry in the new PotA series; War for the Planet of the Apes. Reeves is back to direct and Serkis is back once again as the mighty Caesar. And even after the impressive benchmark that was Dawn, War once again delivers exceptional visual flair that buoys a strongly written story centered around equally strong-written characters.

At the end of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, genetically-enhanced ape Caesar (Andy Serkis) managed to regain his control as the leader of his group of similarly enhanced apes from his traitorous lieutenant, Koba. However, because of Koba’s actions in that film, tensions between the apes and the humans who had survived the widespread ‘Simian Flu’ virus caused by the experiments that had been done on several of the former (during the events of Rise) were greatly increased. Thus, as War for the Planet of the Apes begins, Caesar and company now find themselves hunted by an elite para-military squadron known as Alpha-Omega, led by a vicious Colonel (Woody Harrelson) who is hell-bent on wiping out all apes so that humanity can regain its place as the dominant species on Earth. Meanwhile, the apes continue to do their best to try and survive in this increasingly hostile world. But when the conflict between the two sides ends up crossing a very personal line, Caesar, along with his loyal lieutenants Maurice (Karin Konoval), Rocket (Terry Notary), and Luca (Michael Adamthwaite) head out to confront the Colonel and his faction before they can kill any more of their kind. Along the way, they also come across a young orphan girl (Amiah Miller) who they begin to take care of. But as Caesar and his comrades approach Alpha-Omega, they soon find themselves embroiled in a violent and deadly conflict that puts the lives of them and their fellow apes in jeopardy.

As was the case with its predecessors, one of the biggest selling points of War for the Planet of the Apes is its impressive visual effects. The motion-capture visuals for the ape protagonists are better than ever, and just like how its immediate predecessor Dawn upped the ante from 2011’s Rise, War is easily the biggest Planet of the Apes film to date in terms of its scale. Matt Reeves’ direction is just as great as it was in Dawn, providing us with fantastic action sequences that are highly benefitted by the effects and excellent cinematography. But, of course, this film is way more than just pretty visuals. As many others have pointed out, these recent Planet of the Apes films have gone above and beyond in the realm of blockbuster filmmaking when it comes to its story and characters. This very much feels like a natural follow-up to Dawn. Case in point, it only takes place two years after the events of that film whereas Dawn was set over a decade after the events of Rise. Sure enough, the consequences of what happened in Dawn are still felt throughout this film. In fact, a lot of Caesar’s characterization in this film comes from him being haunted by what he did at the end of Dawn when he allowed Koba to die after everything that Koba did to him despite the number 1 rule of their society, ‘ape not kill ape’. Thus, all throughout this film, Caesar constantly grapples with the possibility that he’s starting to act exactly like Koba (i.e. vengeful against humanity). Because of this, War for the Planet of the Apes is easily the darkest entry in the trilogy by far. Through it all, though, we are still given a highly sympathetic bunch of main protagonists to follow as well as a sinister but layered antagonist that ties it all together.

Of course, leading the charge in the film’s great ensemble cast once again is Andy Serkis as Caesar. It’s been said before time and time again and I’ll say it here as well; his turn as the great ape is just as awards-worthy as all the other great performances from this year. All those impressive visual effects never once take anything away from the pure emotion coming out of Serkis’ performance, and as alluded to earlier, this film features what is arguably Caesar’s biggest character arc to date. Thus, it can also be argued that this might just be Serkis’ best performance as Caesar in the entire trilogy. And because of everything that Serkis has done in the business of motion-capture performance work, we also have excellent performances from the rest of the film’s ‘ape’ cast. Of course, there are the series regulars, like Karin Konoval as Maurice and Terry Notary as Rocket, the only two members of the cast (apart from Serkis) who have played the same roles in all three films. But then you also have newcomers like Steve Zahn as ‘Bad Ape’, a former zoo ape who ends up joining Caesar’s group on their journey. ‘Bad Ape’ ultimately provides this generally grim sci-fi war story with some much-needed moments of levity. As for the film’s human characters, this series once again does an excellent job of making them just as well-developed as their ape counterparts. Woody Harrelson’s ‘The Colonel’ is easily the most villainous human antagonist that this series has ever seen. And while he’s not exactly ‘sympathetic’ like Gary Oldman’s character Dreyfus from Dawn was (hell, even Koba was more sympathetic by comparison), he’s still a fascinatingly complex character, thanks in no small part to Harrelson’s excellent and steely performance in the role. Finally, there’s newcomer Amiah Miller in a breakout role as the young girl that Caesar and co. end up adopting. And as it turns out, her character happens to be one of major significance to this franchise; thus, it’ll be interesting to see if she plays a part in possible future installments.

Well, I’ll be damned… it looks like we have a new contender for the best film trilogy in recent years. After Andy Serkis and Rupert Wyatt surprised us all in 2011 with the well-layered sci-fi drama that was Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Matt Reeves then surpassed that with Dawn of the Planet of the Apes in 2014. To some, that might seem like an extremely tough act to follow. However, that didn’t stop Reeves and Serkis from damn near reaching that exact same mark with this year’s War for the Planet of the Apes, which might just be the best ‘third installment’ of any trilogy ever (and, yes, I know that’s not really saying much but still…). It’s a natural follow-up to its predecessor, with a storyline that’s tied perfectly to the events of Dawn. This, in turn, further develops the character of Caesar in what ends up being a satisfying conclusion to the overall character arc that he’s had in this trilogy. Pair all this with the reboot series’ greatest strengths, both visually and narratively, and you have yet another summer blockbuster where the writing is just as complex as its visuals. But while they are promoting this film as the end of a trilogy, I’d be interested to see them try and continue from here. Because without giving anything away, they’re inching closer to closer to the scenario that was played out in the original Planet of the Apes, where an astronaut unknowingly crash-lands on Earth after the apes had become the dominant species on the planet. And if they do decide to do another one, hopefully with a lot of the same crew that worked on these last three films, I bet that this hypothetical new take on the story that is Planet of the Apes would be fantastic. Because that’s exactly what this recent PotA trilogy has been… fantastic.

Rating: 5/5!

Top 20 Most Anticipated Films of 2017: Part 2 (#10-1)

Welcome back to Rhode Island Movie Corner’s two-part list of my Top 20 Most Anticipated Films of 2017. This is the second half of the list in which I’ll be listing picks #10-1. For picks #20-11, click the following link to be taken to Part 1 of this list. But for now, let’s not waste any more time and get back to it. These are my Top 10 most anticipated films of 2017.

Kicking off the Top 10 is a film that’s shaping up to be an exciting return of one of the cinema’s most iconic creatures to the big screen.

10. KONG: SKULL ISLAND (MARCH 10^TH)

King Kong is easily one of the most iconic creatures in film history. The original King Kong from 1933 is regarded as one of the most classic films of all time. Since then, Kong has appeared in a few other films over the years, including a crossover with Godzilla and a 2005 remake directed by Peter Jackson. But, next year, the ‘Eighth Wonder of the World’ will be returning to the big-screen in Kong: Skull Island, which is set to connect with 2014’s Godzilla as part of Legendary Pictures’ new monster film series. This will eventually lead to a new Godzilla/King Kong crossover in 2020. But as for Kong: Skull Island, it seems as if that, for now at least, it’s not going to be making any major attempts at connecting with Godzilla. For one thing, it’s set in the 70’s. The first trailer for the film was quite excellent, showcasing the film’s cool art style as well as the fact that this Kong is apparently going to be frigging huge. I mean just look at the final shot in the trailer in which Kong appears in front of a pair of humans. While you can only see his face, he absolutely towers over the two. Obviously, this is to help match up Kong scale-wise with Godzilla, but still, I’m intrigued with this new version of the character, who will be portrayed by Terry Notary via motion-capture. Notary is no stranger to the process, having worked with Andy Serkis, who did the mo-cap for Kong in Peter Jackson’s remake, on the Planet of the Apes films. And speaking of the cast, this film has a MASSIVE ensemble cast; Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, Samuel L. Jackson, John Goodman, Toby Kebbell, Jason Mitchell and Corey Hawkins from Straight Outta Compton… the list goes on and on.

And then came the second trailer. That trailer impressed me because it finally gave us an idea of what this film was really going to be like. It again establishes the main plot of a group of explorers venturing into an uncharted island in the South Pacific before they come across Kong. But this trailer also shows that Kong (shown in his entirety for the first time in this trailer and still very huge) isn’t the only creature on this island. As the main characters learn from an island ‘resident’, played by John C. Reilly, there are also these ‘devilish’ creatures known as ‘Skullcrawlers’. We also see a few other creatures of varying shapes and sizes, which shows that this will truly be a true ‘creature feature’. Not only that, but it looks as if this Kong film is going to be much different when compared to other films in the series. Namely, I think it’s safe to say that we won’t be seeing this Kong rampaging through New York, climbing up the Empire State Building, and combatting fighter planes until his untimely demise (“Twas beauty killed the beast.”) This is called Kong: Skull Island after all so it looks as if all the action in the film is going to take place on Skull Island. In short, this is shaping up to be an exciting monster flick. I’ll admit that when it comes to King Kong, I’ve only seen the Peter Jackson remake. But I did really like that remake so I am very excited to see this new film and, subsequently, the upcoming crossover involving Kong and Godzilla. And while I’ll admit that I only ‘liked’ the Godzilla remake, I think that director Jordan Vogt-Roberts (The Kings of Summer) is going to deliver on this one.

There’s only one animated release in this year’s Top 10 list, and, surprisingly, it isn’t a Disney or Pixar film.

9. THE LEGO BATMAN MOVIE (FEBRUARY 10^TH)

As someone who grew up as a big fan of the LEGO brand, I was excited to see 2014’s The Lego Movie, even though it had been a few years since I had been a regular ‘player’ of LEGOs. And while the idea of a LEGO film may have seemed like nothing more than a soulless cash grab, directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller gave it heart, effectively making it one of the best films of that year. And now there will be more LEGO films on the way, starting off with a spin-off that centers on the character that many felt was the biggest standout of The LEGO Movie; Will Arnett’s Batman. Arnett’s take on the Dark Knight takes center stage in The LEGO Batman Movie, directed by Chris McKay, who was the animation director for The LEGO Movie. The trailers for this film have been fantastic, previewing what looks to be another fun LEGO animated film, this time centered around Arnett’s hilarious ‘full of himself’ characterization of Batman. I’m also curious about a report claiming that the film will seemingly incorporate every major onscreen iteration of Batman to date, and by that, I mean hopefully more than just the line from the ‘Wayne Manor’ trailer when Alfred reminds Batman of his previous ‘moods’ (“I have aged phenomenally!”). Newcomers to the cast include Ralph Fiennes as Alfred, Michael Cera as Robin, and Rosario Dawson as Batgirl. And who knows? Maybe we’ll even see a cameo from someone from The LEGO Movie. One thing’s for certain, though… after a more serious take on Batman in Batman v Superman, I have the feeling that fans are eager to see a more upbeat take on the iconic superhero.

Two slots ago, we talked about one of the cinema’s most iconic primates, King Kong. But next year will also mark the return of another, and newer, ‘top ape’.

8. WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES (JULY 14^TH)

After a disastrous remake in 2001, the Planet of the Apes franchise rebounded a decade later with Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Featuring some impressive motion-capture work as well as an excellent performance by Andy Serkis in the lead role of ape leader Caesar, it was one of the surprise hits of 2011. Three years later, the franchise took it one step further with the sequel, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. A superior sequel in almost every way, the Matt Reeves-directed flick was an emotionally charged sci-fi drama that continued to raise the bar in terms of motion-capture effects. So, with that said, I can only imagine the epic action and visuals that we’re going to get with the next installment, War for the Planet of the Apes. Matt Reeves returns to direct and Andy Serkis and most of the series’ mo-cap regulars (Terry Notary, Judy Greer, Karin Konoval, etc.) reprise their roles from the previous film. As for the ‘human’ cast, once again they’ll be bringing in new characters, highlighted this time by Woody Harrelson in what appears to be a villainous role as ‘The Colonel’. In fact, it’s looking like this is shaping up to be a dark sequel. Per the current synopsis, the apes suffer heavy losses and Caesar apparently ends up going to a dark place when he begins to avenge his fellow apes. I mean, simply put, damn! But, then again, the primary subtitle for this film is ‘War’ so I guess that was to be expected. Simply put, it looks as if we’re inching closer and closer to a new ‘adaptation’ of, just simply, Planet of the Apes and I’m 100% confident that those who loved Dawn of the Planet of the Apes can’t wait to see the next installment of this hit franchise. I know I am!

We’re finally starting to get into the Marvel Cinematic Universe now with my next pick; a film that quite frankly has a lot going for it.

7. THOR: RAGNAROK (NOVEMBER 3^RD)

While Thor has been a vital member of the Avengers, his solo film franchise has unfortunately been, arguably, the least successful sub-franchise of the entire MCU. While the first Thor film did get good marks back when it was first released in 2011, which is good considering that it could’ve easily been a disaster, I rarely hear it brought up in a positive manner nowadays. And as for the sequel, 2013’s Thor: The Dark World, it’s commonly regarded as the weakest installment of the entire MCU. But when it comes to the upcoming third installment, Thor: Ragnarok, I feel that this film could very much redeem the Thor franchise. The Dark World was clearly a prime example of an MCU film that was regulated by the studio’s controversial ‘creative committee’. But now that they’re gone, I think that this new Thor has quite a lot of potential. It’s being directed by Taika Waititi, who directed episodes of the HBO show Flight of the Concords as well as this year’s critically acclaimed adventure comedy Hunt for the Wilderpeople. He is easily one of the most ‘out of left field’ directors that Marvel Studios has ever hired and I’m confident that he is going to bring a lot to this third Thor film. Of course, Chris Hemsworth will be returning as Thor along with Tom Hiddleston as Loki, Anthony Hopkins as Odin, and Idris Elba as Heimdall. But this film is also setting up an impressive ensemble cast as well. Cate Blanchett will be playing the main villain, Hela, Tessa Thompson (Creed) will be playing Valkyrie, a new love interest for Thor, Jeff Goldblum will be playing a character known as ‘Grandmaster’, and Karl Urban will be playing an Asgardian warrior named Skurge. But perhaps the most exciting addition to the cast is the return of Mark Ruffalo as the Hulk. The film is being described as somewhat of a ‘sci-fi road trip’ story and after all the great interactions between them in the Avengers films, I’m really excited to see Thor and Hulk work off each other in this film. In short, I’m confident that this will redeem the Thor franchise in the eyes of most MCU fans. I mean, the fact that it’s going to be set primarily within the Nine Realms instead of on Earth, a common criticism of the previous films, is a good sign.  

This year’s Captain America: Civil War saw the long-awaited debut of one of Marvel’s most beloved characters in the MCU. And next year, he’ll take on his latest ‘solo adventure’.

6. SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING (JULY 7^TH)

I’ll admit that I was a little disappointed when it was announced that, due to the new deal between Marvel Studios and Sony, the Amazing Spider-Man franchise wasn’t going to continue. I mean I know that the second Amazing Spider-Man film underperformed both critically and commercially but why couldn’t they just continue the franchise and bring in Kevin Feige and his team to help improve it? Still, I won’t lie when I say that Tom Holland proved to be a fantastic new Spidey in Civil War so I am enthusiastic about the first installment of a new line of Spider-Man films, Spider-Man: Homecoming, directed by general newcomer Jon Watts. While the character rights are still owned by Sony, at the same time this new film is basically an official MCU film. Holland will be returning as Peter Parker, of course, along with Marisa Tomei as Aunt May. Even Robert Downey Jr. will be appearing as Tony Stark, which is fitting considering that he was the one who recruited Spider-Man to join his team in Civil War. The film is also boasting a massive ensemble cast that also includes Zendaya, Donald Glover, and Tony Revolori (Zero ‘the Lobby Boy’ in The Grand Budapest Hotel). As for the villains, Michael Keaton makes the jump from DC to Marvel as the Vulture while a few other villains will be appearing as well. With that said, to some, it may seem like the film is once again making the same mistake that hurt both Spider-Man 3 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2; an overload of villains. But the reason why I’m not worried at this point is simple. I have faith in Marvel Studios and the fact that this will apparently be a ‘John Hughes style’ school comedy excites me as it’s sure to be another unique take on the superhero genre.

Arguably the most famous superheroine of comics finally takes center stage in her own film. Kicking off the Top 5…

5. WONDER WOMAN (JUNE 2^ND)

The first big female-led superhero film of the current age of the superhero genre, Wonder Woman certainly has a lot going for it. It also now has the pressure of trying to be the DCEU’s first generally well-received film after the polarizing reaction to Man of Steel and the generally negative reactions to both Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad. But I think that this one has a chance, especially because this is basically the first entry in the franchise under the supervision of the DCEU’s ‘Kevin Feige’, Geoff Johns, who co-wrote the film’s screenplay. Gal Gadot will reprise her role from BvS as the Amazon warrior Diana Prince AKA Wonder Woman as the film will explore her origins and events of her life before BvS. The film will be set during WWI and while it may seem like a cross between Captain America: The First Avenger and the Thor films, it does provide a unique backdrop for a superhero film. Chris Pine co-stars as Diana’s love interest, Steve Trevor, and based on the two trailers that have been released, it looks like he’ll certainly be more than just ‘the love interest’, while at the same time being sure not to overshadow Wonder Woman in her own film. The film is being directed by Patty Jenkins, who was previously set to direct Thor: The Dark World for Marvel Studios until she dropped out due to creative differences. And quite honestly, I think this film suits her better. And for the record, no, it’s not because it’s Wonder Woman but because I think she’ll get more creative control over this film instead of having to deal with a creative committee. And given the reports on the behind-the-scenes debacles that Zack Snyder and David Ayer went through with BvS and Suicide Squad, respectively, ‘creative control’ is going to be key to this film’s success.

For those who aren’t big fans of Disney’s current trend when it comes to their live-action films, hear me out on this one…

4. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (MARCH 17^TH)

Disney’s current trend of live-action reimaginings continues with a new live-action adaptation of Beauty and the Beast, inspired by Disney’s beloved 1991, Best Picture-nominated, animated feature. Obviously, the legacy of the original puts a lot of pressure on this new version, not to mention the backlash from those who aren’t fans of Disney’s current ‘live-action remake’ practice. As for me, as I’ve gone over before in the past, I’m fine with Disney doing live-action versions of their animated classics. It’s not like they’re intended to replace the originals, which seems to me to be the main problem that some Disney fans have with these remakes. This isn’t a case like the original Star Wars trilogy where George Lucas has been withholding the original versions of the films from us in favor of the altered ‘special editions’. The original animated films are still going to be there. Heck, they just released a new Blu-Ray edition of the original film, for crying out loud! And even if some of the remakes do poorly with critics, they don’t hurt the original in any way. If anything, it just makes the originals stronger. At the very least, the films have been solid hits with audiences but recently they’ve been doing well with critics as well. Kenneth Branagh’s Cinderella ended up being the first of these ‘live-action remakes’ to be generally well-received by critics, and it even managed to improve upon some aspects of the equally terrific original. It was then followed a year later by Jon Favreau’s adaptation of The Jungle Book, which is easily one of the most well-received films of the year so far (and rightfully so, if I may add). And we even got a third well-received Disney remake just a few months later in the form of Pete’s Dragon, a remake of a rather obscure live-action Disney film from 1977.  

Anyway, apologies for getting off track there for a second. Let’s talk about the new take on Beauty and the Beast. The film is being directed by Bill Condon, who is no stranger to musicals having written the screenplay for 2002’s Best Picture winner Chicago and directing 2006’s Dreamgirls. And yes, the new film will retain the original film’s music courtesy of Alan Menken; ‘Be Our Guest’, ‘Gaston’, and of course the titular track, just to name a few. As for the cast, this film has assembled quite an excellent ensemble. Emma Watson will take on the lead role of Belle, which I think many of us will agree is a perfect choice, while Downton Abbey’s Dan Stevens stars as the Beast. Luke Evans will star as Gaston while Josh Gad takes on another big ‘Disney sidekick’ role as LeFou. As for the Beast’s enchanted staff, Ewan McGregor will be Lumiere, Ian freaking McKellen will be playing Cogsworth, and Emma Thompson will be playing Mrs. Potts. Add in other big names like Kevin Kline (Maurice) and Stanley Tucci (an original character named Cadenza, a harpsichord) and you have a premier ensemble. The first main trailer for the film showed off its impressive and beautiful visual style, and like the previous great Disney remakes, it’s looking like this new film will both respect the original and be its own thing at the same time. As a big fan of the original Beauty and the Beast (my third favorite Disney animated film of all-time, if you remember my recent ‘rankings list’), I’m really looking forward to this one. And after the trio of excellence that was Cinderella, The Jungle Book, and Pete’s Dragon, I’m confident that this will continue the studio’s live-action remake hot streak.

Christopher Nolan’s newest film… need I say more?

3. DUNKIRK (JULY 21^ST)

For his newest film, Christopher Nolan will be taking on a true story with Dunkirk. It will tell the tale of the ‘Miracle of Dunkirk’, a moment from World War II in which many Allied soldiers were evacuated from the beaches of Dunkirk, France right in the middle of the Battle of France. This moment in time was even featured in another big film, 2007’s Atonement (Remember that big single-take sequence on the beach? That was Dunkirk.). But, suffice it to say, it’ll be very exciting to see Nolan’s take on the event and the first teaser very much set the stage for what looks to be an intense war film, highlighted by the closing shot in which a bunch of Allied soldiers notice and prepare to brace for an incoming fighter plane attack. Casting-wise, the film features what will surely be the usual excellent Nolan ensemble cast; Tom Hardy, in his third Nolan film after Inception and Dark Knight Rises, Kenneth Branagh, James D’Arcy, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance… Harry Styles? Yeah, apparently Nolan decided to cast one of the members of One Direction in the film. Eh, I don’t mind, I trust Nolan’s judgment. Also, like his previous film, Interstellar, it looks like this will be another film that is going to be a ‘must-see’ in IMAX as it was shot on 65 mm and will be projected on film in the theaters that are still capable of doing so. You do have to give filmmakers like Nolan credit for keeping the art of using film stock alive, especially in an age where most filmmakers nowadays shoot on digital. But aside from that, I’m just excited to see the newest film from one of my favorite directors.

Boy, let me tell you, picking a #1 out of these next two was quite a hard process. But, somehow, I managed to make it happen. And yes, these next two picks will probably be so obvious to anyone who’s been following this blog for some time now. At #2, we have the highly-anticipated follow-up to the biggest film of 2015…

2. STAR WARS: EPISODE VIII (DECEMBER 15^TH)

Star Wars: The Force Awakens was a genuine success. Obviously, it was the most anticipated film of 2015 for many people but it did run the risk of being a potential disappointment, as was the case with the prequel trilogy when it was first released. Thankfully, though, that did not happen. I mean, sure, you still have people pulling the argument that the film was a ‘remake’ of A New Hope (Which I still argue it isn’t. Can we please let that go?) but for the most part it proved to be a big hit both critically and commercially. So, who wouldn’t be excited for the next installment of this new trilogy? This time, however, we’ll be getting a change in director. It’s sad that we won’t see J.J. Abrams return but, at the same time, I don’t blame him for not wanting to spend the next half-decade or so working solely on these films. Instead, Rian Johnson will be taking over as director for Episode VIII. Johnson’s definitely proven himself to be a premier director in recent years, having helmed 2012’s sci-fi/time travel hit Looper as well as some of the most well-received episodes of Breaking Bad, including the critically acclaimed third-to-last episode, ‘Ozymandias’. With those credentials, one can only imagine what he’s going to bring to the world of Star Wars. And I must say that I like the idea of having different directors for each of the primary installments of the saga; it helps keep things fresh. And Johnson certainly has great material to work with, especially considering how Force Awakens ended. Will we see Rey begin to train with Luke? How will the First Order and, more specifically, Kylo Ren respond after the destruction of Starkiller Base? For now, we don’t know what’s going to happen... and that’s what’s so great about the anticipation for the continuing story of the Star Wars saga.

And finally, my most anticipated film of 2017 is… the return of those ‘bunch of a-holes’…

1. GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL. 2 (MAY 5^TH)

Back in 2013 when I did my ‘Most Anticipated Films of 2014’ list, I had listed Guardians of the Galaxy at the #10 spot. Obviously, at that point, we still did not have any real idea of just what to expect from this film. I mean this was a pretty big risk for Marvel Studios at the time in regards to going with a generally unknown team of superheroes and doing a whole film based on them. But, of course, we all know how great it turned out to be in the end. And even after two whole years since its initial release, Guardians of the Galaxy still stands as my favorite MCU film to date thanks to its strong characters, great humor, excellent visuals, and terrific emotional depth. And that is why the upcoming sequel ultimately beats out Star Wars: Episode VIII as my most anticipated film of 2017, though, let me be clear, this was only by a small margin. Writer/director James Gunn returns to direct the continuing adventures of everyone’s favorite intergalactic ‘bunch of a-holes’. In this new installment, Peter Quill AKA Star-Lord tries to learn more about the identity of his father. And who is his father, you ask? Why that would be the one and only Kurt Russell in the role of Ego, who in the comics is an actual living planet… yeah, I know that sounds rather weird but need I remind you that this is a franchise with a talking raccoon and a tree creature.

The main cast members of the original film all return to their respective roles; Chris Pratt as Star-Lord, Zoe Saldana as Gamora, Dave Bautista as Drax, Vin Diesel as Groot (who will be in a ‘younger’ form in this film after sacrificing himself at the end of the first film), and Bradley Cooper as Rocket. The Guardians will also be getting a few new recruits as well, two of whom are returning characters, Michael Rooker as Yondu and Karen Gillan as Nebula, as well as newcomer Pom Klementieff as Mantis. It’ll definitely be interesting to see what they bring to the team dynamic, especially considering that Yondu and Nebula played generally antagonistic roles to the team in the first film. And of course, I know we’re all excited to learn what songs will be included on the soundtrack, Awesome Mix Vol. 2. So far, we haven’t gotten any concrete reveals in regards to featured songs but based on what was shown at Comic-Con earlier this year, it seems like ‘The Chain’ by Fleetwood Mac and ‘Come A Little Bit Closer’ by Jay and the Americans will probably be featured in the soundtrack. But at the end of the day, I’m just super pumped to see the further adventures of the Guardians. You could only imagine how excited I was when the first trailer was released online this past month. Getting to hear ‘Hooked on a Feeling’ once more, seeing that funny interaction between Star-Lord and Drax at the end, it was just perfect and I look forward to getting ‘hooked on a feeling’ once more with these ragtag team of misfits. One last question, though…

And those are my Top 20 most anticipated films of 2017. Thanks for following along and be sure to sound off in the comments below with your most anticipated films of 2017, especially if they’re films that I didn’t mention here. Because there’s a lot more coming out next year that I haven’t even gone over yet.

Directorial Retrospective: Tim Burton

It’s time once again, folks, for another Directorial Retrospective here on Rhode Island Movie Corner. We’ve covered an eclectic bunch of filmmakers over the course of this ongoing series. Since it was started in March 2014, we’ve looked back upon the filmographies of filmmakers like DC’s current top director Zack Snyder, the master of ‘Bayhem’ himself Michael Bay, David Fincher, the man behind dark thrillers like Se7en and Zodiac, Christopher Nolan, the man who revived the Batman franchise with his Dark Knight trilogy, and master of snappy dialogue Quentin Tarantino. And today’s subject is yet another highly notable filmmaker; the master of quirky macabre himself, Tim Burton. His newest film, an adaptation of Ransom Riggs’ Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children, hits theaters this weekend so I thought it’d be the perfect time to look back upon the filmography of the director who is well known for his uniquely dark and gothic style… and for repeatedly casting Johnny Depp in his films. He’s had quite a long career, having been directing feature films since 1985. And he has also worked in the film industry long before that, including a brief stint as an animator for Disney. Since then, he’s done quite a lot of different films, from superhero flicks to stop-motion animated films to even a few biopics. And while critical reception towards his films has tended to stray a bit more negative with his more recent efforts, there’s no denying that Burton’s trademark visual style will always be something to look forward to with each new film that he does, hence why he’s one of my favorite directors. So with that said, it’s time to look back upon the filmography of Tim Burton… and for the record, this will only count films that he himself directed. So even though it’s a major part of Burton’s filmography to the point where some might actually confuse it as being directed by him, I will not be covering The Nightmare Before Christmas in today’s post.

PEE-WEE’S BIG ADVENTURE (1985)

After spending a few years as an animator for Disney, working on films like The Fox and the Hound and even Tron, Tim Burton was hired by comedian Paul Reubens to direct the first feature-length film starring the latter’s highly popular stage character; Pee-Wee Herman. The end result was Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure, an extremely charming family film that very much set the stage for what we would come to expect from the master of macabre on an annual basis. The film is full of Burton’s trademark surreal and kooky imagery (e.g. the production design), which sometimes results in some really freaky scenes, namely the scene in which Pee-Wee gets a ride from a truck driver named Large Marge (who is later revealed to be a ‘ghost’) and she pulls one hell of a scary Claymation face at him. But at its core, this film very much wears its heart on its sleeve. Paul Reubens of course is excellent as Pee-Wee, the innocent man-child embarking on the journey of a lifetime to retrieve his most valuable possession; his bike. And that journey is a very fun one to go on as it is full of memorable characters and moments, from the scene in which Pee-Wee dances to the song ‘Tequila’ in order to appease a bunch of bikers to the scene where, while suffering from a temporary case of amnesia, he notes that ‘he remembers the Alamo’. It all culminates in a fun chase involving Pee-Wee and security guards through the Warner Bros. studio lot. With this film, Burton manages to capture a perfect slice of Americana and as a result, Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure definitely stands out as one of his most entertaining directorial efforts. It’s interesting to note that when Reubens first developed the character, originally his style of humor was a bit more adult. That changed with this film and the subsequent TV series Pee-Wee’s Playhouse and as a result, Pee-Wee very much became a cultural icon for both young and old. That was very much clear to me when I saw how positive the crowd was at a screening for the very enjoyable follow-up, Pee-Wee’s Big Holiday, at SXSW this past March. People love Pee-Wee Herman and this film is a prime example why.

Rating: 4/5

BEETLEJUICE (1988)

Following his work on Pee-Wee, Burton then took on an original project in the form of Beetlejuice. The film centers around a couple from Connecticut, Adam and Barbara Maitland, who unexpectedly pass away after a car accident. Somehow still connected to the human world, they are then forced to deal with the unwelcome arrival of a new family, the Deetz family, that moves into their house. Looking to get rid of them, they consider getting help from the titular supernatural ‘exorcist’ Betelgeuse (note: that’s how his name is spelled in the film) played by Michael Keaton. But as it turns out, Betelgeuse proves to be quite a handful. This film is an absolute visual delight, which of course is something that you can always expect from a Burton film. Not only that but this is a PG-rated horror film (back when filmmakers were able to get away with that) that greatly appeals to both young and old, especially thanks to Michael Keaton’s excellent turn in the title role. Sure he may not actually be in the film as much as you think (he’s only in it for less than 20 minutes) but he’s an absolute comedic riot from beginning to end. It very much showcased the versatility of Keaton’s acting chops, which should’ve been enough proof that he was more than capable of taking on the lead role in Burton’s next film (more on that in a sec). But the rest of the cast is really solid as well; Geena Davis, Alec Baldwin, Jeffrey Jones, Catherine O’Hara, and Winona Ryder in one of her earliest roles. In short, with an excellent visual style and a scene-stealing performance from Michael Keaton in the title role, Beetlejuice is definitely a classic in Tim Burton’s directorial career. What more can be said but… “Day-o, day-o, Daylight come and me wan’ go home”

Rating: 5/5!

BATMAN (1989)

Having talked about this film before in my retrospective onthe Batman franchise back in May 2014, I’ll keep things rather brief this time around in detailing Tim Burton’s 1989 adaptation of the popular DC Comics character of the same name. This film is very much one of the pioneering entries of the superhero genre, namely in regards to it establishing a much more serious tone than the more light-hearted and sometimes very campy superhero film/TV projects of years past, especially those that involved Batman. As for the film itself, it’s admittedly become rather dated in certain parts, namely from the odd choice of having a soundtrack full of Prince songs. However, it still holds up in quite a few other places, namely in regards to its lead performances. Michael Keaton, despite being the original archetype of a controversial superhero film casting choice, proved to be an excellent Batman thanks to his ability to be totally unassuming while as Batman’s true identity, billionaire Bruce Wayne. But the real star of the show is Jack Nicholson as the Joker. Nicholson very much steals the show as the eccentric villain but the film does do a solid job of balancing out the roles of Batman and the Joker in the story (at least when compared to the other Burton Batman film… more on that in a bit). I also like how this film does connect the two characters by showing that both were responsible for making them who they are today; the Joker, back when he was known as ‘Jack Napier’, is revealed to be the mugger who killed Bruce’s parents while Batman is the one who knocks Napier into a vat of chemicals, which turns him into the Joker. Sure the part about the Joker killing the Waynes obviously isn’t ‘comic-accurate’ but in the case of the 80’s era Batman films, I think it’s a decent plot twist. In short, despite the parts of it that haven’t aged very well, Burton’s Batman is still a pretty solid entry in the superhero genre and will always be one of the most important as it helped kick-start a new generation of films for the genre while reaffirming Batman’s status as one of the genre’s most popular characters.

Rating: 4.5/5

EDWARD SCISSORHANDS (1990)

Edward Scissorhands is easily one of Tim Burton’s most personal films. Keeping in line with Burton’s tendency to focus on outcasts (e.g. Pee-Wee, Batman, etc.), the film tells the story of the titular Edward, an artificial man whose inventor died before he was finished, resulting in him having scissor-like tools for hands. Found alone in the inventor’s abandoned mansion by the local Avon saleswoman, Edward soon finds himself being introduced to suburban life. What follows is quite simply one of Burton’s absolute best films. Of course visually the film is excellent, from Burton’s typical ‘dark’ visuals to the intentionally cheesy pastel colors that are used for the houses in the suburb. But at its core, the film also very much wears its heart on its sleeve by allowing us, the audience, to fully sympathize with Edward. This was the first collaboration between Tim Burton and Johnny Depp and the latter delivers one of the best performances of his career as the titular character. He’s very much an endearing character and it’s fun to watch him interact with the real world. Obviously though, his ‘scissor hands’ prove to be a problem at times, sometimes leading to unfortunate situations. And I won’t lie… the ending to this film is quite the emotional one as Edward accepts his fate as an outsider and shares one final moment with the girl he fell in love with, Kim, played by Winona Ryder who also does a fantastic job here as well. In short, Edward Scissorhands is a very touching and beautiful tale of, to quote the film’s theatrical poster, ‘an uncommonly gentle man’. This is arguably Tim Burton’s masterpiece.

Rating: 5/5!

BATMAN RETURNS (1992)

This might be a rather controversial opinion but unfortunately I don’t think that Burton’s second Batman film, 1992’s Batman Returns, holds up very well after all of these years. This was very much a case in which Burton was given perhaps way too much creative control over the project because while the film once again carries his trademark style, it goes a bit overboard this time around. It legitimately gets to the point where it actually proved to be rather controversial amongst parents, to the point where McDonald’s canceled their Happy Meal toy-line for the film, who didn’t want their kids to see it due to more intense scenes of violence and even a few sexual innuendos. And yeah, all of the sexual references do feel quite out of place. Seriously the whole scene in which Catwoman and the Penguin meet for the first time is pretty much nothing but sex talk (Penguin: “Just the pussy I’ve been looking for”). But another issue with the film is that it actually restricts the role of Batman in the story despite the fact that, you know, he’s supposed to be the main character of the damn film. Clearly Tim Burton wasn’t that big a fan of the character because in both films, the villains technically get more screen-time than the Dark Knight himself. It may have worked fine in the previous film as a result of the solid balance between Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson and their overall roles in the plot but here Keaton really doesn’t get much to do this time around. Instead, the focus shifts more towards Danny DeVito’s Penguin and Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman, who are admittedly rather ‘meh’ villains at best.

DeVito’s take on the Penguin very much contrasts with the typical portrayal of the character in the comics. Instead of being a classy mobster and a ‘gentleman of crime’, this film envisions the character as a deformed/creepy ‘sideshow freak’ who plots to kidnap/drown all of Gotham’s first born sons. And while the film does try to make the audience feel sorry for him at times due to his tragic backstory as an orphan and scenes in which he is ridiculed, his generally detestable nature and, you know, the aforementioned ‘killing first born sons’ scheme basically negates any of the film’s attempts at doing just that. At the very least, DeVito is still pretty memorable in the role. As for Pfeiffer as Catwoman, her overall role in the plot lacks focus at times but she is very much one of the film’s biggest standouts as the iconic ‘cat burglar’. Christopher Walken also proves to be quite memorable as the other ‘villain’ of the film, businessman Max Schreck. But as I stated earlier, an overt focus on the villains, not enough Batman, and an overuse of Burton’s visual style results in a film that’s way too dark and actually rather dull for the most part. As far as the pre-Nolan era Batman films are concerned, I actually prefer Joel Schumacher’s first Batman film, 1995’s Batman Forever, over Returns. And I know that seems like blasphemy to some people but A.) at least I didn’t say Batman and Robin, am I right? And B.) as cheesy as Schumacher’s films are compared to Burton’s films, Forever actually focused on Batman even with its dual villains (which actually became the trend for all future Batman films leading up to Batman v Superman). So unfortunately, due to a lack of focus, especially in regards to its titular protagonist, as well as an overly dark style, Batman Returns was a pretty lackluster follow-up to the 1989 Batman.

Rating: 2.5/5

ED WOOD (1994)

Serving as Tim Burton’s very first R-rated feature, Ed Wood tells the true story of filmmaker Edward D. Wood Jr., who in the 50’s became known for directing a bunch of films that would become regarded as some of the worst of all-time, namely due to his tendency to shoot fast and on the cheap. Specifically, this film focuses on the productions of three of his most famous films; 1953’s Glen or Glenda, 1955’s Bride of the Monster, and 1959’s Plan 9 from Outer Space. However, despite the poor reception that his films have garnered over the years, this film actually doesn’t try to demonize him. Instead, it celebrates him not by the merit of his work but through his passion for the art. No matter what the struggle, whether it was his producers constantly giving him notes or him not having enough money for filming, he mustered on because he loved doing what he was doing. As a result, up-and-coming filmmakers will no doubt connect with this film and more importantly the dreams of its main character and the idea that one’s visions are worth fighting for, the latter of which is told to Wood by none other than Orson Welles (played by Vincent D’Onofrio but voiced by Maurice LaMarche in a memorable cameo). But the film itself is also a highly entertaining biopic that’s very well-shot with its great use of black-and-white and its great attention to detail in regards to recreating the low-budget stylings of Wood’s films. Johnny Depp absolutely shines in the role of Ed Wood while Martin Landau absolutely transforms into horror icon Bela Lugosi in his Oscar-winning turn. Ed Wood is a film that both celebrates and makes fun of its title character. It recognizes that his films weren’t really of the best quality but it celebrates him for his unabashed passion. The end result is definitely another one of Burton’s best… and also one of his most underrated because it didn’t do so well commercially. Regardless, film fans will no doubt love this clearly unconventional love letter to the art of filmmaking.

Rating: 5/5!

MARS ATTACKS! (1996)

Based on the ‘infamous’ sci-fi themed trading cards of the same name that were produced in 1962, Mars Attacks!... is a very, very goofy film. That’s the key thing to remember when it comes to this film; it is absolutely ridiculous from beginning to end. With this film, Tim Burton very much made a sci-fi B-movie. From the intentionally cheesy visual effects (that were originally meant to be done via stop-motion animation before being changed to CGI in order to keep costs down) to the massive ensemble cast portraying a group of straight-up stereotypical characters, this is very much paying homage to the sci-fi B-movies of the 50’s. And when I say massive ensemble cast, I mean ‘massive ensemble cast’. You got Jack Nicholson (in two different roles, no less…), Glenn Close, Annette Bening, Pierce Brosnan, Danny DeVito, Sarah Jessica Parker, Martin Short, Michael J. Fox… and that’s seriously just to name a few. Admittedly the film takes a little while to get going as it doesn’t really get into anything alien-related until half an hour in. But once they do officially bring in the aliens and they start blowing s*** up… yeah that’s when the film starts to get really entertaining. Like the other big alien sci-fi flick that was released in 1996, Independence Day, this is very much an unadulterated popcorn flick. It is completely silly and the scenes in which the aliens attack are completely chaotic… and this film is very much self-aware of that. It clearly knows how goofy it is. I mean for crying out loud the way the aliens in this film are killed is via Slim Whitman’s ‘Indian Love Call’. In short, do not go into this film expecting Oscar-worthy material because you obviously aren’t going to get any of that here. It’s pretty darn mindless and completely cheesy from beginning to end… and it’s so damn entertaining. What more can be said but… Ack Ack! Ack Ack!

Rating: 3.5/5

SLEEPY HOLLOW (1999)

Burton’s first major R-rated ‘horror’ film, Sleepy Hollow is a unique spin on the classic short story ‘The Legend of Sleepy Hollow’ by Washington Irving, which was most famously adapted by Disney in 1949. Burton’s version takes it in a much darker direction while also straying in certain ways from the original plot. Namely, this film re-imagines the character of Ichabod Crane as a police constable who investigates into a series of killings in Sleepy Hollow that were supposedly committed by the mythical ‘Headless Horseman’. But ultimately this film isn’t as much of a ‘horror’ film as you might expect. It certainly has some dark moments as well as a solid atmosphere but overall the film actually sort of maintains a rather campy tone. That’s pretty much Burton’s filmography in a nutshell. Even with all of his films’ dark undertones and creepy imagery, they tend to be very light-hearted in tone to the point where some might find the humor in his films to be a bit too silly at times. But in the case of Sleepy Hollow, perhaps that was the point. This could be seen as an ode to the classic horror films produced by Hammer Films, namely from a stylistic perspective, and if you’re able to accept all of the goofy moments in this film, you’ll find it to be a pretty entertaining horror adventure. Depp is solid as Ichabod and is joined by an impressive ensemble cast that includes Christina Ricci, Michael Gambon, and even Christopher Walken, yes Christopher Walken, as the Headless Horseman. So in short, I suggest that you go into this not taking it too seriously and not expecting it to be a straight-up horror film because if you do, you might be rather disappointed.

Rating: 3.5/5

PLANET OF THE APES (2001)

Just like Burton’s Batman films, I had gone over this film before in a previous post. In this case it was my retrospective on the Planet of the Apes franchise back in 2014 so, again, I’m going to keep things simple on this one. Basically, this was a case in which Burton wasn’t really the best choice to helm a film like this. This remake of the 1968 sci-fi classic Planet of the Apes doesn’t really feel much like a Burton film at all. Seriously if it wasn’t for the fact that Burton is one of those filmmakers who always does opening credits in his films, you’d swear it was directed by someone like Steven Spielberg. This is probably the most ‘Anti-Burton’ esque film of his career and it really shows. It’s also quite dull for the most part and most of the actors’ performances reflect that, namely Mark Wahlberg in the lead role of astronaut Leo Davidson. The only real standout member of the cast is Tim Roth as the main villain, General Thade. And of course, as many have pointed out, the film’s biggest disaster comes in the form of its ending. Simply put, it makes no sense as there was no indication as to how Thade managed to escape from the imprisonment that he ended up in during the final battle and was able to basically become the leader of an all-ape Earth. While Burton claims that this was meant to set up a sequel, that sequel never came to be and instead the franchise rebooted with the Andy Serkis-led Rise and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, which to put it bluntly are very much superior films. I’ll admit I don’t dislike this film as much as most of the internet does but there’s no denying that it was a pretty darn lackluster remake and one that Burton probably shouldn’t have decided to take on as it ends up being the least ‘Burton’ esque of his entire career.

Rating: 2/5

BIG FISH (2003)

In a way, Big Fish is Tim Burton’s Forrest Gump. Both films center around an individual and the fantastical adventures that this person has during his life. However, this film is so much more than just ‘Tim Burton’s Forrest Gump’. It is a particularly personal tale of a man who tries to reconnect with his father during the latter’s final days, as he feels that he doesn’t really know anything about his father as the result of all of the ‘tall tales’ that he often tells. So is the tale of Edward Bloom, who according to his stories met a giant, worked in a traveling circus, and caught a big catfish using his wedding ring as a lure, among other things. All of this results in an extremely charming ‘fantasy drama’ that very much maintains Burton’s knack for a unique visual style. The film also has a terrific ensemble cast, including Ewan McGregor as young Edward, Albert Finney as old Edward, Billy Crudup as Edward’s son Will, Jessica Lange as Edward’s wife Sandra, Alison Lohman as young Sandra (and seriously talk about one of the most pitch-perfect ‘younger version of a character’ castings ever because Lohman so closely resembles Lange in this film), Marion Cotillard as Will’s wife Josephine, Danny DeVito, Steve Buscemi, Helena Bonham Carter, and so on and so forth. I’ll admit that when it came to this particular entry in Burton’s filmography, I went into it fairly blind. I had heard about it before but never really knew much about it. And that ultimately was the lead-in to how I first watched this film… and I was pleasantly amused by what I saw. Overall I do think that it’s one of Burton’s best films; certainly one of his more underrated efforts. It’s very much a Burton film but one that has a strong emotional core as shown through the reconciliation of Edward and Will Bloom. If you haven’t seen this one before, this is one that I do highly recommend.

Rating: 4.5/5

CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY (2005)

And now we come to what is, in my opinion, one of the most underrated films of the 21^st century. Sure it did well at the box-office and it fared perfectly fine with critics but it seems to me that you don’t really see this film talked about that much in a positive manner nowadays. I find that this is mostly due to the result of comparisons between this film and its predecessor, 1971’s Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and I can only imagine how much more frequent these comparisons have become in the wake of the recent passing of the original film’s Willy Wonka, Gene Wilder (R.I.P.). But when it comes to this new adaptation of Roald Dahl’s classic children’s novel, I feel that Burton’s version is arguably just as great as the original film. Now the main reason why this film tends to get a lot of flak nowadays is Johnny Depp’s turn in the role of Willy Wonka. And yes, I’ll admit that there is a quite noticeable awkwardness to his performance as Wonka, with Depp’s version of the character acting very ‘Michael Jackson’-y throughout. Not only that, but compared to Gene Wilder’s Wonka, Depp’s Wonka doesn’t really seem to care that much about the kids who win the Golden Tickets even though, as we all know, the whole point of the ‘factory tour’ was that he was trying to find an heir. However, I don’t think that he’s outright terrible in the role. He legitimately does have his moments from time to time, which admittedly is due to the fact that, as noted earlier, this Wonka can be rather awkward at times, like when he tries to sound hip while talking to Mike Teavee. And for the record I don’t care how stupid it is, I always laugh when he says ‘Slide me some skin, soul brother!’ I also think that it’s actually pretty cool that the film decides to explore the character’s back-story, namely his rocky relationship with his father Wilbur (Christopher Lee).  

Ultimately, though, one of the main reasons as to why I feel that this version is just as good as the original is the fact that this version is actually much more faithful to the novel. That’s nothing against the 1971 film, for the record, but admittedly that version did deviate from the source material quite a bit, from Charlie’s father being ‘absent’ to having the character of Slugworth, Wonka’s candy-making rival, blackmailing the kids into stealing Everlasting Gobstoppers. Simply put, there’s a good reason why Dahl wasn’t too big on that version, to the point where he refused to have an adaptation made of the sequel novel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator. As for the newer film, while there are still some changes (e.g. the aforementioned added back-story given to Wonka), it does stick to the plot of the novel a lot more. Plus, as one would expect from a Tim Burton film, it’s an absolute visual delight from beginning to end, especially once the characters enter Wonka’s fabled chocolate factory. From the elaborate rooms of the factory to the Oompa Loompa songs done by Danny Elfman that were lifted straight from the books, this is a very entertaining film that is very much a Burton film in every way. It’s a shame, then, that the film doesn’t get a lot of positive attention nowadays. And don’t get me wrong, if I were to compare the two Chocolate Factory films, the original is still the better film; it’s a classic in every sense of the word. However, that doesn’t mean that Burton’s take on the story isn’t worth checking out too. Ignoring Johnny Depp’s take on Willy Wonka for a moment, the film primarily shines thanks to its faithfulness to the source material and Burton’s always terrific visual style. This was always a personal favorite of mine growing up and as a result, I’d argue that it’s just as good as the original and is most certainly better than the internet frequently puts it out to be.

Rating: 5/5! (Yes, 5/5!)

CORPSE BRIDE (2005)

While 1993’s The Nightmare Before Christmas obviously still stands as the most famous stop-motion animated film that Tim Burton was involved with, there is a common misnomer that he himself directed the film. However, while the film very much felt like a Burton film in every way, it was Henry Selick who directed the film while Burton only produced it. 2005’s Corpse Bride was Burton’s first true stop-motion animated directorial effort. Released just a few months after Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and co-directed by Mike Johnson, who was an animator for both Nightmare and the other stop-motion film directed by Selick and produced by Burton, James and the Giant Peach, the film’s animation was done by none other than the current top dogs of stop-motion animation, Laika Entertainment. As a result, the stop-motion animation is just as terrific as it has been in their more recent efforts. Design-wise, this is a Burton film through and through and it maintains his trademark dark and quirky gothic style complete with some fun bits of humor, some legitimate emotional moments, and a collection of toe-tapping songs provided by, who else, Danny Elfman. The story, in which a young man named Victor (voiced by Johnny Depp) accidentally ends up ‘marrying’ a ‘corpse bride’ named Emily (voiced by Helena Bonham Carter), is an enjoyably original ‘fairy tale’-like story and Depp and Bonham Carter do a really nice job in regards to making their characters a likable lead duo, particularly Bonham Carter as Emily. I wouldn’t go as far as to say this is Burton’s ‘best’ stop-motion animated film, as a result of it being perhaps a little underwritten in some parts (i.e. the villain), but it’s still a very enjoyable 75-minute affair that is pure Burton in every sense of the word.

Rating: 4/5

SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET (2007)

For his next film, Burton took on his first full-blown musical with an adaptation of Stephen Sondheim’s 1979 Tony Award winning musical, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. Johnny Depp (of course) stars as the titular Sweeney Todd AKA Benjamin Barker, a London barber who enacts his revenge against those who wronged him in the past, namely the Judge that banished him due to the affections that he had for Todd’s wife, by killing them during appointments with him. All the while his assistant, Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter, of course), uses the bodies for her meat pies. Like Sleepy Hollow, this is very much an R-rated Tim Burton film; violent and bloody. But also like that film, the graphic violence of this film’s story is, in a way, played up more for camp. All of this comes together in yet another delightfully visual flick, courtesy of Burton, while also being well-balanced by Sondheim’s music. And said music is handled very well by the cast, even Johnny Depp who is obviously not known for doing musicals. Probably my favorite songs from the soundtrack include the piece ‘Johanna’, sung first as a solo by sailor Anthony (Jamie Campbell Bower) as he becomes enamored by Todd’s titular daughter and later done as a quartet involving Anthony, Todd, Mrs. Lovett, and a beggar woman, and ‘Pretty Women’, a duet between Todd and his arch-enemy, Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman). As someone who is a fan of musicals, I feel that this is definitely up there as one of the best of the past few years. It was certainly an ‘against-type’ kind of film for Burton but ultimately the dark nature of the musical’s plot ended up matching perfectly with his directorial style. As a result, the film is a delightfully campy but stylistically terrific experience.

Rating: 4.5/5

ALICE IN WONDERLAND (2010)

Burton’s slew of polarizing ‘remakes’ continued with Alice in Wonderland, the first of Disney’s current trend of live-action re-imaginings of their animated classics. In this case, however, Burton’s Alice is actually a ‘pseudo-sequel’ to the events of Lewis Carroll’s original novel and, in turn, the original Disney animated film from 1951. The film sees a teenaged Alice return to Wonderland (referred to in the film as ‘Underland’) where she finds herself caught in the middle of a conflict between the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) and the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) for control of Underland. As noted before in my review of the sequel, while Burton’s film proved to be quite polarizing amongst critics and audiences, it did somehow manage to reach a billion at the box-office. So to reiterate another point from that review, that means that while this film very much has its critics, it also has its fans and I’m not afraid to admit that I am a fan of these live-action Alice films. Sure they do have some noticeable flaws, namely in regards to the writing. In the case of this film, the plot does seem a bit too complicated at times for a story that’s usually portrayed as being nothing more than a series of random encounters that Alice has in the world of Wonderland (sorry, Underland). All this stuff about her having to live up to the prophecy of her being the one who slays the Jabberwocky kind of hinders the film because Alice ends up spending most of the film unsure of herself and constantly denying what’s going on by saying that she’s only in a dream. It wouldn’t be until the next film when Alice truly became a confident heroine. It should also be noted that perhaps Burton’s ‘dark’ style was a bit overdone in this film as it maintains a generally diluted color scheme throughout. Not only that, but there are a few scenes that do kind of push the limit of the PG rating, most infamously a scene in which Alice traverses the Red Queen’s moat on the heads of her victims.

But despite the flaws of its script, I still found the film to be fairly enjoyable. Even with the rather gloomy color scheme, the visual effects and overall production design in this film truly are fantastic. Sure they may get a little overbearing after a while, namely due to the fact that almost all of the scenes set in Underland were pretty much shot entirely on a green-screen, but this film still very much succeeds in regards to its visual style. As with the cast, they’re perfectly fine. As noted earlier, Mia Wasikowska’s Alice stood out more as a lead heroine in the sequel but she’s still fine here. The same can be said for Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. Of the ‘human’ cast, the biggest standout of the film is Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen. Simply put, the character is an extremely over-the-top villain and Carter absolutely steals the spotlight whenever she’s on screen. But the film also has a pretty impressive voice cast who take on the roles of the various creatures of Underland, including Stephen Fry as the Cheshire Cat and Alan Rickman as Absolem the Caterpillar. So in short, while this film certainly isn’t perfect it’s not one of the worst things either (the same can be said for its sequel but we’re not talking about that one today seeing how it wasn’t directed by Burton). If you’re someone who’s a big fan of the Carroll books, I’m pretty confident that you’re going to absolutely detest this film for all of the changes made to the world of Wonderland and its characters. But if you’re willing to accept some of the stranger elements of this particular adaptation, it’s ultimately harmless. I’ll admit I’m still sort of boggled by the fact that this film managed to gross over $1 billion at the box office despite its generally mixed to negative reception but like I’ve saying over and over again, these films ‘do’ have their fans so there’s at least one legit reason why it was able to reach that mark.

Rating: 3.5/5

DARK SHADOWS (2012)

The most recent collaboration between Tim Burton and Johnny Depp to date, Dark Shadows is based on the gothic soap opera of the same name created by Dan Curtis that ran from 1966 to 1971. The film, however, is unfortunately a rather bland affair despite the best efforts of Burton and the film’s cast. The biggest problem with the film is that it is very uneven, primarily in tone. The film mostly tries to be a comedy with its ‘fish out of water’ plot of Barnabas Collins (Depp) adapting to modern life in 1972 after being buried alive for nearly two centuries after being turned into a vampire by a vengeful witch. However, at times the film also tries to be a dark horror flick and while that actually does keep in line with the show’s original tone, it means that the film is constantly off tonally. And even then, the humor in the film is pretty lackluster. There are a few legit chuckles here and there but ultimately most of the jokes fall flat. This general unevenness also extends to the writing as well. Focused primarily on Barnabas and the conflict that he has with the witch who turned him into a vampire, Angelique (played by Eva Green, who enjoyably vamps it up in the role), certain members of the cast end up getting severely underused as a result. This includes Jonny Lee Miller as Roger Collins, to the point where he’s literally written out of the film entirely before it’s over, and Chloe Grace Moretz as Elizabeth Collins’ (Michelle Pfeiffer, who’s easily one of the biggest standouts of the film) daughter Carolyn who without giving it away has a rather big reveal at the end that comes right out of nowhere. So unfortunately, Dark Shadows ends up being a really disappointing effort from the duo of Burton and Depp. While I’m sure that they put their all into it, and the film certainly does have Burton’s trademark visual style along with a pretty nice 70’s rock soundtrack, the film ultimately suffers from a severe lack of focus when it comes to trying to figure out just what it wants to be.

Rating: 2/5

FRANKENWEENIE (2012)

In 1984, back when he was still working at Disney, Tim Burton directed a 30-minute black-and-white short film titled Frankenweenie about a boy named Victor Frankenstein who, in the footsteps of his namesake from the classic novel Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, re-animates his dog Sparky with electricity after he is hit by a car. However, this ended up getting Burton fired from Disney because the studio felt that he had wasted company resources on a project that they felt they couldn’t market to their usual target audience. However, the short film was eventually released on home video, albeit partially censored, and 28 years later, after Burton re-teamed with Disney to make Alice in Wonderland, Burton returned to his original story to make a feature-length black and white stop-motion animated remake. In preparation for this film, I did watch the original short film and I must say that it’s quite good. Even as a fairly short 30-minute film, it was very much one of the early showcases of Burton’s talents as a director. The same can be said for the remake as well. Obviously some things had to be added to meet a longer run-time, namely a subplot in which Victor’s classmates re-animate their own pets, but the same solid story, which at its core is a heartwarming ‘boy and his dog’ story but is also a fun homage to classic monster films, namely Frankenstein of course, is still very much there. The stop-motion animation is excellent, especially thanks to the film maintaining the original’s black and white color scheme, and, of course, perfectly captures Burton’s gothic and quirky style. So in short, Tim Burton’s feature-length take on Frankenweenie is definitely another one of his best films as it’s also another one of his most personal efforts. I’m not going to compare this film to its live-action predecessor but I will say that both are very good and showcase his talents as a filmmaker.

Rating: 4.5/5

BIG EYES (2014)

After a long string of remakes and adaptations of various bits of media, Tim Burton scaled back things quite a bit for his next film. With a small $10 million budget, Burton helmed the second biopic of his career in 2014 with Big Eyes. This film tells the true story of artist Margaret Keane, who is most well-known for her portraits of ‘big-eyed waifs’ that became hugely popular during the 60’s. However, as it turns out, during their successful run the whole world was led to believe that they were actually done by her husband Walter Keane. It’s a fascinating story with a terrific arc for Margaret as she learns to stand up for herself in order to get the credit that she truly deserves for her ‘big eyes’. Amy Adams is absolutely fantastic in the role of Margaret, making her an incredibly endearing person with the aforementioned terrific character arc. Christoph Waltz is also fantastic in the role of Walter, as Waltz’s charisma perfectly fits Walter’s talent for showmanship, hence why he was able to turn Margaret’s paintings into the global phenomenon that they became despite the fact that he was taking all the credit for it. Stylistically, Burton definitely toned down a lot of his usual visual directing habits for this film, restricting it to mostly scenes in which Margaret imagines other people having big eyes like the children in her paintings. But despite that, it still very much feels like a Burton film and it sports a nicely bright color scheme that no doubt matches the art seen on screen. At the end of the day, what ultimately mattered was the story of what Margaret Keane had to go through, namely dealing with her credit-stealing husband, in order for her to take full credit for her work. And as a result, Big Eyes is definitely one of Burton’s best films. It’s certainly one of his most scaled-back efforts from a filmmaking perspective but considering the increasingly negative opinion towards his more recent big-budget efforts, I have the feeling that many people were happy to see him dial it back with this film.

Rating: 5/5!

Planet of the Apes: Film Series Retrospective

So this past weekend saw the release of ‘Dawn of the Planet of the Apes’, the sequel to 2011’s ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’, which itself was a reboot of the original/iconic sci-fi franchise; ‘Planet of the Apes’. It all began in 1968 with the release of a film that was based off of the 1963 book La Planète des singes by Pierre Boulle. The film, ‘Planet of the Apes’, was a major success both critically and commercially which resulted in the spawning of a film franchise that would see four more movies released through the early 70’s, with each sequel coming just a year after its immediate predecessor (excluding the first sequel, which came out two years after the original film). When the original franchise ended in 1973, the first film got a loose ‘remake’ in 2001 that was slated to revive the franchise. However, while it was financially successful at the box office, it didn’t fare as well critically resulting in the series being ‘rebooted’ once again in 2011 with ‘Rise’ and, safe to say, this newer film fared much better. Today, we’ll be looking at all of the films in the ‘Planet of the Apes’ franchise from the original that started it all to the series’ recent reboots. Now there have also been two TV series that were made following the original series; 1974’s live-action series, ‘Planet of the Apes’ and 1975’s animated series, ‘Return to the Planet of the Apes’ but I won’t be covering either of those series today so now let’s get started as we look back on the ‘Planet of the Apes’ film franchise.

(Quick Disclaimer: This is the first time I’m watching the original ‘Planet of the Apes’ films.)

PLANET OF THE APES (1968)

It’s been more than 4 decades since its release, and even with that in mind the original ‘Planet of the Apes’ film holds up quite well as one of the landmark sci-fi films of its time. It’s a film that has quite a lot of social commentary, namely in regards to the debate of civil rights and the belief that ‘some are superior’ to others. In this case, the ‘superior’ race of the mysterious world that the main character, astronaut George Taylor (Charlton Heston), finds himself in after his space-ship crashes on an unknown planet, isn’t humanity but instead a group of intelligent apes who have evolved to the point where they now possess the ability to speak. The make-up effects for the apes still look pretty good today and while we have definitely moved on since the days of having these apes created through practical makeup (as proven by this series’ recent reboot films), it is still done pretty effectively here. The cast here does a pretty good job; Charlton Heston gets a little over-the-top at times but still does a solid job as does Roddy McDowall as the archeologist ape, Cornelius. If I did have any complaints about this film, it would be that occasionally there are some very corny/over-the-top moments, some of which are attributed to, as I just noted, Heston’s occasional over-acting.

Something that newcomers to this film might not expect going in is that the film actually has a kind of a very pessimistic view on the future of civilization… though in retrospect pretty much all of these films have had that same view. As the ‘protagonist’, Taylor is actually a bit of a jerk to his allies, human or ape, though in the end he’s aware of the consequences that are arising from what mankind is doing to the planet. Of course, this relates to what was going on at the time when this film came out (e.g. civil rights movement and the evolution of technology, among other things). Of course those consequences are truly exemplified in the film’s iconic twist ending in which Taylor learns that the planet he was on just so happened to be Earth the whole time, many years into the future, which he realizes when he comes across the remains of the Statue of Liberty. I will admit that I did know about the twist before seeing the film but it is still an excellent twist and is set up so well because we are effectively led to believe that we’re on a different planet but as the film progresses we slowly discover that this isn’t the case. Unlike the twist of another ‘Planet of the Apes’ movie which I’ll get to later, this is one of the best movie twists ever. The original ‘Planet of the Apes’ is one of the finest sci-fi films ever made as it immerses us in this ape world while also maintaining some strong (even though it is fairly pessimistic) social commentary. It’s a must-see for any sci-fi movie fan.

Rating: 4.5/5

BENEATH THE PLANET OF THE APES (1970)

Umm, I really don’t know where to begin with this one because… well, you’ll see why soon enough. Anyway, ‘Beneath of the Planet of the Apes’ starts out okay enough even though it basically just rehashes a lot of the key plot points of the previous film; an astronaut crash-lands on the Ape-inhabited post-apocalyptic Earth, comes across the Ape City, at one point is one of the apes’ prisoners, he escapes, and then ultimately realizes where he truly is when he comes across an old New York landmark. It’s pretty much just exactly what Taylor went through in the last film, although here it doesn’t have the same impact as the previous film did. Plus, no offense to James Franciscus, but he’s no Charlton Heston, who only appears in this for a brief time and it quite frankly feels like he doesn’t really give a crap here (which isn’t that surprising seeing how he didn’t really want to return for this one in the first place. He only did on the condition that his character would be killed off by the end of it). So if one were to go by just this film’s first half, it basically just seems like your average sequel. But then we get to this film’s second half, which is for the record the most interesting part of the movie (it’s certainly much more interesting than what we got from this film’s first half) but it is also where things get really strange.

So in this film, there are a group of telepathic humans that are living underground in the ruins of the New York City Subway and they are worshippers of the atomic bomb… yes folks you read that right… that is the main plot of the film. I will give the film credit in that this really is an interesting idea, but quite frankly it kind of comes out of nowhere. Also, I think that by the time this whole scenario pops up, it feels like the film forgot about what movie franchise it’s a part of because the apes are kind of given the shaft in this half of the movie. Now don’t misinterpret me, because they’re still in it, but the whole ‘telepath’ plot doesn’t really connect with them. This is basically just two storylines in one and they really don’t mesh well together. And then we get to this film’s ending… I’m guessing that the filmmakers looked at the original film’s ending and thought to themselves, ‘Hell, we can go even farther than that!’ And quite frankly they do by literally blowing up the world with the telepath group’s atomic bomb. I know that some people actually like this ending but I’m sorry… this ending kind of sucks. I mean, sure it’s a ballsy ending and it does sort of follow in the footsteps of the previous film’s pessimistic twist ending but I feel like it just doesn’t work as well. In this case it feels more like it was just done for shock value and nothing else. Overall, this film just got really, really weird and in a film with talking apes… that’s saying a hell of a lot, folks. Now I don’t think it’s a bad film as there are some really good things in it (the makeup effects are still really good, especially for the telepaths when they reveal their ‘true forms’) but this is easily one of the weirdest sequels I’ve ever seen and I can’t say that this is a good thing.

Rating: 2.5/5

ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES (1971)

As you might have guessed, the ‘Planet of the Apes’ movies have generally been known for their fairly dark tones and equally dark endings, so it’s interesting to see that the first half of ‘Escape From the Planet of the Apes’ decides to go for a much more upbeat atmosphere than what we’ve come to expect from these films. In this film, the two main apes from the previous two films, Zira (Kim Hunter) and Cornelius (Roddy McDowall, who had to be replaced by David Watson in ‘Beneath’ due to scheduling conflicts but returns to the role here (which really helps)), along with a friend of theirs, Dr. Milo (Sal Mineo), salvage the spaceship used by George Taylor and his crew that crash landed in the first film, repair it, and then use it to escape the planet before, as seen in the end of ‘Beneath’, it is destroyed by the atomic bomb. They end up getting caught in the shock wave caused by Earth’s destruction and are sent back in time to 1973 Los Angeles. For the first half of the film, after Zira and Cornelius (Milo is killed by a non-speaking gorilla while they are held captive at a zoo) reveal to the world that they can speak and that they come from the future, they basically become celebrities but after Zira finds out that she is pregnant, soon the government starts to turn against them as they fear that this child will soon result in the apes becoming the ‘dominant’ species of the planet. In other words, the events of this film are pretty much setting up what will happen to humanity 2000 years later as we saw in both the original ‘Planet of the Apes’ and ‘Beneath’.

The first half of this film, which maintains a ‘fish out of water’ theme, is a welcome breath of fresh air after the mindf*** that was the second half of ‘Beneath’ and really the best part about this entire film are its two main characters: Zira and Cornelius. They are such a likable pair (just as they have been in the previous two films) and I really have to give a lot of credit towards Kim Hunter and Roddy McDowall for doing terrific jobs in these roles. We really do care about them, which is why the film’s dark ending is so impactful. As expected with this franchise, this film does end on a very somber note as Zira and Cornelius end up getting killed trying to protect their newborn baby. However, we soon find out that they switched babies with an ape in a traveling circus run by Armando (played by the original Khan himself, Ricardo Montalbán) and the film ends with the newborn, named Milo, speaking his first word; ‘Mama’. This is easily one of the best endings out of all of the ‘Apes’ movies. It’s built up very well given the film’s more light-hearted first half as the film does end up going the dark path that this franchise is usually known for taking. But at the same time, it is also legitimately emotionally impactful because we care about Zira and Cornelius, making their deaths very heartbreaking. Many say that this is the best of the original ‘Apes’ sequels… and after seeing this film, I must say that I certainly agree with that statement.

Rating: 4/5

CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (1972)

Some might refer to ‘Conquest of the Planet of the Apes’ as the original ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ as both films have a similar plot; heck, they even have the same main character, Caesar albeit in a different time. He’s played here by the same man who played his father in the original ‘Planet’ and ‘Escape’, Roddy McDowall. What comes of this is, well to put it quite frankly, the craziest entry in the series. I mean, this film is worth it just for the second half, in which Caesar leads an ape revolt against their human tormentors. This has to be one of the most chaotic battles that I’ve ever seen in any film. It’s certainly the most violent out of all of the original ‘Apes’ films, evident by the fact that this is the only ‘PG’ rated entry in the original series, whereas the others were rated ‘G’. The filmmakers even had to change the ending, in which the apes beat the main bad guy, Governor Breck, to death because it was ‘too violent’ though really it’s not that violent because it’s just implied what happens to him and is not actually shown on screen. Still, I actually do prefer the newer ending in which they don’t beat Breck to death, even though the additional speech that Caesar gives is kind of poorly edited (mostly because the filmmakers didn’t have the budget to shoot a new ending). I guess it’s mostly because I do sort of feel that the original ending did come off as a bit ‘too’ dark. I mean, this is the franchise where one film ended by literally destroying the world, but even with all of the chaos that goes on in this finale, it feels like just a bit too much. Plus, the original ending actually doesn’t really gel well with the following film in which humans do have a peaceful relationship with the apes despite the fact that the apes are the ‘dominant’ species.

On that note, one of the main problems with the film is that the abuse directed towards the apes by humans is kind of excessive. It does make us sympathize with Caesar (played very well by McDowall in a role that is arguably more layered than when he played Cornelius though that’s sort of up for debate) and the apes but at the same time it makes the film darker than it really needs to be. Again, this franchise has been known for going dark, but this is just too much in my opinion. Also, the cinematography is a little crappy at times, especially during the final battle. Still, I will give this film credit for, if nothing else, the crazy-as-hell finale which is both awesome and sort of over-the-top extreme at the same time. I can’t say that ‘Conquest’ is the best of the ‘Apes’ films (in fact, I’d actually recommend the ‘remake’ (and I use the term loosely because it really isn’t a remake) ‘Rise’ more than this one because I feel like the story in the newer film was executed much better and had much emotional depth) but it’s still a pretty entertaining entry in the series. It’s certainly the craziest of the films, that’s for sure.

Rating: 3/5

BATTLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES (1973)

The original series came to a close with ‘Battle of the Planet of the Apes’ which, like its immediate predecessor, must have inspired part of the plot of one of the recent reboots, in this case the just-released ‘Dawn of the Planet of the Apes’… and while I hate to have to compare these two films, especially considering that one of these films just came out a few days ago, I have to in this case because ‘Battle for the Planet of the Apes’… is pretty much the weakest of the original ‘Planet of the Apes’ films. Despite focusing on the developing war between the human survivors of the Apes’ takeover and the Apes, the film doesn’t have the same emotional depth as ‘Dawn’ because we don’t really care for any of the characters in this other than Caesar but that’s because we already got to know him in ‘Conquest’ and we don’t get to know anyone else here so we can’t become attached to any of them. Director J. Lee Thompson, who is notably the only director to have ever made more than one ‘Apes’ movies having also directed ‘Conquest’, does his best with the small budget that he has but overall the film comes up short in many aspects, including a finale that’s fairly anti-climactic despite the fact that it revolves around Caesar going after the ape that killed his son. I’m aware that a couple of scenes were cut and that there is an ‘Extended Edition’ of the film that was released as a bootleg but I’m not sure how much that will help this one.

Rating: 1.5/5

PLANET OF THE APES (2001 REMAKE)

After more than a decade of development, which saw directors like James Cameron, Chris Columbus, and Peter Jackson all involved at one point or another, a ‘remake’ of the original ‘Planet of the Apes’ film was released in 2001 directed by Tim Burton. I use the term ‘remake’ loosely because this film involves different characters than the ones from the original film. However, the end result didn’t turn out as well as 20^th Century Fox had hoped. It did fare pretty well at the box office, but didn’t fare as well with critics and audiences. This ultimately resulted in Fox decided not to do a sequel to this film and instead reboot the franchise with ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’. So with that in mind, it could be argued that out of all of Tim Burton’s films, this is possibly the most hated of his amongst critics and audiences and after seeing the film I can sort of see why. Now for the record, I don’t really hate it as much as others but even with that said, this film definitely has some very noticeable flaws and it’s not just the one thing that everyone loves to talk about (which I will get to in a bit). For one thing, while watching this film, it doesn’t really scream ‘Tim Burton’ to me. Burton of course has been known for his dark macabre style but here it’s pretty much non-existent. Seriously, the studio could’ve lied and said it was directed by someone like Steven Spielberg and I would’ve believed it. That’s because this is pretty much the opposite of what you would expect from a Tim Burton film. It feels more like a ‘studio-made’ film and Burton must have been restricted when it came to utilizing his unique style on the film.

I hate to say it, but this film is actually kind of boring. It kind of drags along and nothing about it really stands out other than the prosthetic makeup for the apes done by Rick Baker, which is easily the main highlight of the film. It does have a really good cast that includes the likes of Mark Wahlberg, Helena Botham Carter, Tim Roth, and Paul Giamatti, but for the most part they’re fairly wasted in this film. I mean, I am a big fan of Wahlberg, but here it does feel like he’s just phoning it in… then again, this whole film kind of feels phoned in. Even most the action sequences are pretty forgettable, hence why this film feels like a chore to get through. Nothing about this film is memorable except for the makeup and its controversial ending. And oh yeah… now let’s talk about that ending (I would say spoilers here, but you’ve probably heard about this ending already so I’m not really going to bother doing so). At the end of the film, Wahlberg’s character Leo and his allies defeat the main bad guy, General Thade (Roth), and Leo, who had crash-landed on the ‘ape planet’ after trying to rescue one of his simian co-workers, resulting in him getting caught in an magnetic storm sending him forward in time, travels back in time using his co-worker’s space pod, and he ends up crash landing in Washington D.C.

However, he soon finds out that this Earth is now inhabited by Apes with the Lincoln Memorial monument replaced by one of Thade. Now I can see that they are trying to follow in the footsteps of the original film when it came to the ‘twist ending’, but this one really doesn’t make much sense. First off, Thade was clearly defeated as he was trapped inside a crashed space-station, so I can’t see how that would’ve changed anything when Leo went back in time and that’s really the main point that I’m stressing here; Leo went ‘back in time’!!! And yet there’s a monument to Thade built in the ape-inhabited Earth even though he technically wasn’t born yet. Is it a different Thade? Did Thade go back in time or something (we do see him coming across Leo’s crashed space-pod at one point but it’s still damaged when he finds it so it doesn’t look like he used it or anything)? Why is this turn of events occurring in the first place? I don’t know and the movie doesn’t do us any favors by explaining why this happened. This is definitely one of the weakest twist endings in movie history and as a result, Burton’s ‘Planet of the Apes’ is a pretty mediocre remake and easily Burton’s weakest film to date… at least from the ones I’ve seen.

Rating: 2/5

RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (2011)

So after Fox decided not to make a sequel to Tim Burton’s ‘Planet of the Apes’ (rightfully so after that damn ending), the series was instead rebooted with 2011’s ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ directed by Rupert Wyatt. This time, instead of using practical make-up effects on the actors portraying the apes, these apes were created via motion capture with the lead ape Caesar being portrayed by the king of motion capture himself, Andy Serkis, who of course became famous for his role as Gollum in the ‘Lord of the Rings’ movies and he also portrayed the titular King Kong in Peter Jackson’s 2005 remake of the same name. As for the movie itself, it was definitely a pleasant surprise. I mean I’m guessing that not a lot of people were expecting it to be as good as it was but what we got was a smartly written sci-fi film with a script that effectively pays homage to the original movie while also giving us some greatly written characters that we do care about. In the case of this film, the ones that I’m specifically referring to are scientist Will Rodman (James Franco, who gives a very solid performance here), his father Charles (John Lithgow, who’s also great here), and of course, Caesar. The relationships amongst these three provide the excellent emotional resonance of the movie which is probably the film’s greatest strength when not counting the film’s technical strengths (e.g. visuals).

And of course, as everyone’s been saying, Andy Serkis is phenomenal in this movie, as the terrific visual effects (though a little distracting at first though this in reference to an early shot of Caesar’s biological mother and not Caesar himself) as well as Serkis’ performance in the role blend together for a great sympathetic main character. I know this following statement has been brought up to death already (I already mentioned it in my original review for ‘Dawn’) but I’m reiterating it here… why the hell hasn’t this man won an Oscar yet? I know that some argue that it’s more about the visual effects artists when it comes to motion-capture performances, but the work that Serkis does in these kinds of roles is just as important in regards to making them work as well as they do and in fact, I’d argue this is probably his best performance to date (and yes, that means I think he’s even better here than in ‘Lord of the Rings’). Overall, this film’s cast is really solid, but if I did have one complaint about the film, it is that some of the characters in this movie are either underdeveloped or incredibly one-dimensional; the most notable example of the latter is Tom Felton as Dodge Landon, the son of the owner of the primate shelter that Caesar ends up in, who’s basically just Malfoy without the Hogwarts robes. But overall, with some excellent direction from Wyatt, great performances, and top of the line visual effects, ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ is definitely one of the best and smartest sci-fi films of the last few years.

Rating: 4.5/5

DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (2014)

(Link for my original review of the film: http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2014/07/dawn-of-planet-of-apes-2014-review.html)

‘Dawn of the Planet of the Apes’ is one of the rare sequels that not only manages to be as good as its predecessor, but ends up being even better than the previous film. Of course, as it was in ‘Rise’, the writing is superb and the film gives us a good group of characters that we really care about from both sides of this ‘conflict’ between the humans that survived the ALZ-113 virus and the apes who have made a life for themselves away from any human interference. But being that this is a sequel, the film also does what you would normally expect from most sequels in that it ups the scale and scope from the previous film and in this film’s case, it’s done really well. The film immediately immerses you in the post-‘Simian Flu’ world via a 15-minute opening sequence focused entirely on Caesar and his fellow apes and the film itself benefits from great direction from Matt Reeves and top of the line visual effects (which are even better here than they were in the previous film) and action sequences. Andy Serkis is even better here in the role of Caesar and is again backed up a terrific cast that includes the likes of Jason Clarke (I also have to give Clarke and Serkis credit as they work off each other really well in this), Gary Oldman, and Keri Russell. So in short, ‘Dawn of the Planet of the Apes’ is one of the best summer blockbusters of 2014 and overall one of the best sci-fi sequels in recent memory.

Rating: 5/5!

How would I rank these films, you ask? Like this…

8. Battle for the Planet of the Apes

7. Planet of the Apes (2001)

6. Beneath the Planet of the Apes

5. Conquest of the Planet of the Apes

4. Escape from the Planet of the Apes

3. Planet of the Apes

2. Rise of the Planet of the Apes

1. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

And for the record yes this list indicates that I do sort of prefer the newer ‘Apes’ films but I don’t want this to look like I’m bashing the original ‘Planet of the Apes’ film because I’m not… it’s still a sci-fi classic.