|
|
Post by Midi-Chlorian_Count on Jul 16, 2017 19:10:54 GMT
There's no connection yet between the new films and the classic series. In Rise the mentioned Icarus spacecraft was lost on a Mars mission - no connection to the Taylor's original mission which was a known to them, and discussed in the film, as a one way ride through space and time. Mind you - that mission doesn't fit in with Beneath either, as that involved a "rescue" mission which made absolutely no sense... The history recalled in Escape doesn't tie in with that discussed in Beneath either(!) so the only classic films definitely only the same continuity are Escape, Conquest & Battle... haven't seen the series in a while, but how does Escape not properly tie in with 1 and 2? because in Escape they travel back in time, and even by the last film we have like 1500 years before the original film begins, so there is quite a gap for things to go sour....despite ending on a positive note. Been a while since I've watched it as well but it was something to do with Ape history as described, with reference to their ancient scrolls, by Cornellius when they're on trial in Escape. The timeframe for their take over doesn't tie-up with what was said happened in the previous films (the original & Beneath). |
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jul 17, 2017 0:33:08 GMT
I was excited. I just saw it. It was very disappointing.
|
|
|
|
Post by brownstones on Jul 17, 2017 1:31:32 GMT
interesting.
here it's far more mixed than most places
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 1:39:16 GMT
I was excited. I just saw it. It was very disappointing. What bothered you the most? |
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jul 17, 2017 1:57:35 GMT
I was excited. I just saw it. It was very disappointing. What bothered you the most? I want to apologize in advance: this will be pretty lengthy. I didn't hate the movie at all. It was made with some of the best cinematography and special effects of any blockbuster in history. The performances were great all around and the action was well-done. My issue comes with the story and pacing. The story was very bland. At first I thought that the beginning was setting up a kind of war film, but it definitely was not. I was fine with that, but then the story just kind of stopped. Nothing happens. Characters just kind of go places and do things. Confrontations are built up, then let down. Minor characters are given roles that hint at something interesting and unique, then their storylines are totally thrown to the side or just betrayed altogether. Some characters just popped up to be there. They didn't have a purpose. Beyond that, again, the story just didn't click like it did in 'Dawn'. As for the pacing, it was abysmal. There is about an hour and a half between actual action sequences. There are one or two smaller ones peppered in between, but they're nothing. I don't mind it when blockbusters go for a slow and methodical pace, but this was just weird. Nothing happened. Then another throw-away scene. Then nothing. I thought I might fall asleep. The first 20 minutes and the last 20 minutes are spectacular. Brilliant. Everything in between is a mixed bag. I'd give it a 6.5/10. Although, I will say that a second viewing seems mandatory. My entire outlook can be changed for the better by a second viewing. I really hope it gets better. (Bless your soul if you read all of that) Edit: Reading back through after writing that, I now see that almost everyone had an issue with the pacing. It's not just action that I wanted. I wanted something to think about or a plot beat or twist or anything. The amount of action could've been perfectly fine if the plot was interesting. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 2:24:50 GMT
What bothered you the most? I want to apologize in advance: this will be pretty lengthy. I didn't hate the movie at all. It was made with some of the best cinematography and special effects of any blockbuster in history. The performances were great all around and the action was well-done. My issue comes with the story and pacing. The story was very bland. At first I thought that the beginning was setting up a kind of war film, but it definitely was not. I was fine with that, but then the story just kind of stopped. Nothing happens. Characters just kind of go places and do things. Confrontations are built up, then let down. Minor characters are given roles that hint at something interesting and unique, then their storylines are totally thrown to the side or just betrayed altogether. Some characters just popped up to be there. They didn't have a purpose. Beyond that, again, the story just didn't click like it did in 'Dawn'. As for the pacing, it was abysmal. There is about an hour and a half between actual action sequences. There are one or two smaller ones peppered in between, but they're nothing. I don't mind it when blockbusters go for a slow and methodical pace, but this was just weird. Nothing happened. Then another throw-away scene. Then nothing. I thought I might fall asleep. The first 20 minutes and the last 20 minutes are spectacular. Brilliant. Everything in between is a mixed bag. I'd give it a 6.5/10. Although, I will say that a second viewing seems mandatory. My entire outlook can be changed for the better by a second viewing. I really hope it gets better. (Bless your soul if you read all of that) Edit: Reading back through after writing that, I now see that almost everyone had an issue with the pacing. It's not just action that I wanted. I wanted something to think about or a plot beat or twist or anything. The amount of action could've been perfectly fine if the plot was interesting. I like a lengthy synopsis, so I appreciate your post. These discussions are what I miss about the old IMDb. I agree that the pacing was poor. The editing was terrible. They could have shaved off a half hour from this film and tightened it up. I kept expecting some deeper conversation among the apes during the slower parts, but even their dialogue was pretty superficial. I think people were expecting a more epic battle, but the smaller scale didn't bother me. I think it would have been nice to know what's going on in the rest of the world though, like they should have come across apes from other places during their journey who could have given us a glimpse into the struggle in other places. Also, was it just me, or did it seem like they were trying to make some kind of statement about Trump's wall with the Colonel's wall? Film being used for political preaching to the masses annoys the crap out of me (and to be clear I HATE Trump's wall idea), and it just seemed like they were trying to draw a parallel. I can tolerate a forthright message, but when it seems manipulative, I resent it. Still, the first and last acts were great, the CGI was excellent, and I love the character of Cesar, so I don't regret seeing it. I'd probably watch it again on Netflix. Don't think I'll buy it. I own the original, and that's good enough I think. |
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jul 17, 2017 2:40:18 GMT
I want to apologize in advance: this will be pretty lengthy. I didn't hate the movie at all. It was made with some of the best cinematography and special effects of any blockbuster in history. The performances were great all around and the action was well-done. My issue comes with the story and pacing. The story was very bland. At first I thought that the beginning was setting up a kind of war film, but it definitely was not. I was fine with that, but then the story just kind of stopped. Nothing happens. Characters just kind of go places and do things. Confrontations are built up, then let down. Minor characters are given roles that hint at something interesting and unique, then their storylines are totally thrown to the side or just betrayed altogether. Some characters just popped up to be there. They didn't have a purpose. Beyond that, again, the story just didn't click like it did in 'Dawn'. As for the pacing, it was abysmal. There is about an hour and a half between actual action sequences. There are one or two smaller ones peppered in between, but they're nothing. I don't mind it when blockbusters go for a slow and methodical pace, but this was just weird. Nothing happened. Then another throw-away scene. Then nothing. I thought I might fall asleep. The first 20 minutes and the last 20 minutes are spectacular. Brilliant. Everything in between is a mixed bag. I'd give it a 6.5/10. Although, I will say that a second viewing seems mandatory. My entire outlook can be changed for the better by a second viewing. I really hope it gets better. (Bless your soul if you read all of that) Edit: Reading back through after writing that, I now see that almost everyone had an issue with the pacing. It's not just action that I wanted. I wanted something to think about or a plot beat or twist or anything. The amount of action could've been perfectly fine if the plot was interesting. I like a lengthy synopsis, so I appreciate your post. These discussions are what I miss about the old IMDb. I agree that the pacing was poor. The editing was terrible. They could have shaved off a half hour from this film and tightened it up. I kept expecting some deeper conversation among the apes during the slower parts, but even their dialogue was pretty superficial. I think people were expecting a more epic battle, but the smaller scale didn't bother me. I think it would have been nice to know what's going on in the rest of the world though, like they should have come across apes from other places during their journey who could have given us a glimpse into the struggle in other places. Also, was it just me, or did it seem like they were trying to make some kind of statement about Trump's wall with the Colonel's wall? Film being used for political preaching to the masses annoys the crap out of me (and to be clear I HATE Trump's wall idea), and it just seemed like they were trying to draw a parallel. I can tolerate a forthright message, but when it seems manipulative, I resent it. Still, the first and last acts were great, the CGI was excellent, and I love the character of Cesar, so I don't regret seeing it. I'd probably watch it again on Netflix. Don't think I'll buy it. I own the original, and that's good enough I think. That's exactly what I was thinking, I just couldn't really put it into words; the apes had trivial and superficial dialogue. Nothing was gained. Nothing was learned. Nothing happened. About the Trump wall parallel, it's funny that you mention it. I noticed it immediately, yet no one in the group I went with did. It just felt like a little jab. Especially because it made no sense: a wall might work for keeping illegals out, but to stop a huge army with missiles and helicopters? A wall is useless. It was thrown in there to please a specific group. Even the defaced American flag and use of the National Anthem while they taunted the apes felt like a jab to me (and an unnecessary one at that). Once a movie gets preachy (whether I agree with it or not), I immediately lose respect for the movie. I don't want the director telling me how to think. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox. I'm happy I saw it as well. If it wasn't for Dunkirk coming out next weekend, I might see it again. I want to see it again. It's an interesting movie to dissect. I just think that if, as you said, the editors and director cut twenty to thirty minutes then the movie would be better. Hell, it could even be great. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2017 2:54:31 GMT
I like a lengthy synopsis, so I appreciate your post. These discussions are what I miss about the old IMDb. I agree that the pacing was poor. The editing was terrible. They could have shaved off a half hour from this film and tightened it up. I kept expecting some deeper conversation among the apes during the slower parts, but even their dialogue was pretty superficial. I think people were expecting a more epic battle, but the smaller scale didn't bother me. I think it would have been nice to know what's going on in the rest of the world though, like they should have come across apes from other places during their journey who could have given us a glimpse into the struggle in other places. Also, was it just me, or did it seem like they were trying to make some kind of statement about Trump's wall with the Colonel's wall? Film being used for political preaching to the masses annoys the crap out of me (and to be clear I HATE Trump's wall idea), and it just seemed like they were trying to draw a parallel. I can tolerate a forthright message, but when it seems manipulative, I resent it. Still, the first and last acts were great, the CGI was excellent, and I love the character of Cesar, so I don't regret seeing it. I'd probably watch it again on Netflix. Don't think I'll buy it. I own the original, and that's good enough I think. That's exactly what I was thinking, I just couldn't really put it into words; the apes had trivial and superficial dialogue. Nothing was gained. Nothing was learned. Nothing happened. About the Trump wall parallel, it's funny that you mention it. I noticed it immediately, yet no one in the group I went with did. It just felt like a little jab. Especially because it made no sense: a wall might work for keeping illegals out, but to stop a huge army with missiles and helicopters? A wall is useless. It was thrown in there to please a specific group. Even the defaced American flag and use of the National Anthem while they taunted the apes felt like a jab to me (and an unnecessary one at that).
Once a movie gets preachy (whether I agree with it or not), I immediately lose respect for the movie. I don't want the director telling me how to think. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox.I'm happy I saw it as well. If it wasn't for Dunkirk coming out next weekend, I might see it again. I want to see it again. It's an interesting movie to dissect. I just think that if, as you said, the editors and director cut twenty to thirty minutes then the movie would be better. Hell, it could even be great. This exactly. I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed. It really took me out of the moment because it felt very disingenuous. I'm seeing Valerian next weekend. The visuals look epic. I also have no experience with the source material, which I think puts me at an advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by THawk on Jul 19, 2017 20:12:09 GMT
It was both a decent enough movie....and on the other hand, a serious let down.
Taking away the context of animal rights/liberation, it was pretty standard fare storywise, though definitely not worthy of the "War" title. It had a very strong, very emotional conclusion which elevated a rather mediocre movie and made it at least worthy of its franchise.
Where it was a serious letdown is that it really did not follow up on any hints of an animal rights/liberation film. Only human concepts and qualities were celebrated, and the overriding narrative was that the "good" apes are those that are most like the "good" humans. Meaning that the creatures who fail to be "human" enough deserve to be treated like crap, as is the case in reality. The filmakers seemed to be operating under the directive of "make this apes human" , and not the much more worthy cause of showing why animals need to be free.
|
|
deeznutz
Sophomore
@deeznutz
Posts: 561
Likes: 92
 
|
Post by deeznutz on Jul 20, 2017 4:41:32 GMT
Something very similar will happen in America soon grab ya popcorn
|
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jul 23, 2017 3:37:28 GMT
I saw the movie today. This entire thread has far too many absurd comments for me to address. Bottom line, it's a very good movie, 8/10.
|
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Jul 24, 2017 18:52:27 GMT
Saw it. It rocked! Great movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 4:56:58 GMT
It was fantastic a 9.5/10 without a doubt just like Dawn and Rise! I'm also really shocked by the negativity here and on the original IMDB reviews. This film is a near masterpiece just like Dawn and Rise and definitely proves that the Planet of the Apes movies are very underrated.
I honestly don't get the complaint about not enough human characters. The girl was more than enough to show not all humans are bad and the War was the internal conflict not a big cliche battle at the end. This easily is the best movie of 2017 yes even more than Dunkirk imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2017 5:04:25 GMT
Just came back. Hugely disappointing. Painfully slow, pretentious, no tension and very dry on action. I was expecting this to be on a epic scale with a war between apes and humans that proves pivotal to the rise of the dominant species. We get none of that. Instead, its a small scale story that doesn't push forward the franchise enough, it leaves it standing still. The previous 2 apes films were a lot better. This for me has no rewatch value. 3/10 Personally I went in expecting something like Dawn and I wasn't disappointed. I felt like the war was more the internal conflict between the apes and humans rather than a big cliche battle.I found the pace to be just fine, no slower than dawn but maybe it's because I'm just really invested in the character of Caesar. It was the emotion that really made the movie and I feel there was plenty of tension maybe not as much as dawn but still a good amount. The scene with the avalanche was more to represent apes being more intelligent and humans bringing their own demise upon themselves. It was almost biblical in a way. I found it equally great as Rise and Dawn but that's just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by darkknightofgotham on Jul 25, 2017 19:04:52 GMT
I saw it last saturday. It was OK, but it was easily the weakest entry in the reboot series by far. It was extremely slow paced, and the first half was awful. Fortunately, it picked up the second half, and it ended on a high note. I give it a 7/10.
|
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jul 31, 2017 14:54:36 GMT
I like a lengthy synopsis, so I appreciate your post. These discussions are what I miss about the old IMDb. I agree that the pacing was poor. The editing was terrible. They could have shaved off a half hour from this film and tightened it up. I kept expecting some deeper conversation among the apes during the slower parts, but even their dialogue was pretty superficial. I think people were expecting a more epic battle, but the smaller scale didn't bother me. I think it would have been nice to know what's going on in the rest of the world though, like they should have come across apes from other places during their journey who could have given us a glimpse into the struggle in other places. Also, was it just me, or did it seem like they were trying to make some kind of statement about Trump's wall with the Colonel's wall? Film being used for political preaching to the masses annoys the crap out of me (and to be clear I HATE Trump's wall idea), and it just seemed like they were trying to draw a parallel. I can tolerate a forthright message, but when it seems manipulative, I resent it. Still, the first and last acts were great, the CGI was excellent, and I love the character of Cesar, so I don't regret seeing it. I'd probably watch it again on Netflix. Don't think I'll buy it. I own the original, and that's good enough I think. That's exactly what I was thinking, I just couldn't really put it into words; the apes had trivial and superficial dialogue. Nothing was gained. Nothing was learned. Nothing happened. About the Trump wall parallel, it's funny that you mention it. I noticed it immediately, yet no one in the group I went with did. It just felt like a little jab. Especially because it made no sense: a wall might work for keeping illegals out, but to stop a huge army with missiles and helicopters? A wall is useless. It was thrown in there to please a specific group. Even the defaced American flag and use of the National Anthem while they taunted the apes felt like a jab to me (and an unnecessary one at that). Once a movie gets preachy (whether I agree with it or not), I immediately lose respect for the movie. I don't want the director telling me how to think. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox. I'm happy I saw it as well. If it wasn't for Dunkirk coming out next weekend, I might see it again. I want to see it again. It's an interesting movie to dissect. I just think that if, as you said, the editors and director cut twenty to thirty minutes then the movie would be better. Hell, it could even be great. This is just plain dumb. Aside from a mindless action flick, horror, or comedy that is solely meant to entertain, the whole point of art is to express an opinion or message. A good movie should tell you something. If it's a message you don't like or agree with, then I can see disliking the moving, but holding it against the movie for having a message – any message – is not a fair stance. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jul 31, 2017 16:35:39 GMT
Just came back. Hugely disappointing. Painfully slow, pretentious, no tension and very dry on action. I was expecting this to be on a epic scale with a war between apes and humans that proves pivotal to the rise of the dominant species. We get none of that. Instead, its a small scale story that doesn't push forward the franchise enough, it leaves it standing still. The previous 2 apes films were a lot better. This for me has no rewatch value. 3/10 I felt like the war was more the internal conflict between the apes and humans rather than a big cliche battle.I found the pace to be just fine, no slower than dawn but maybe it's because I'm just really invested in the character of Caesar. It was the emotion that really made the movie and I feel there was plenty of tension maybe not as much as dawn but still a good amount. The scene with the avalanche was more to represent apes being more intelligent and humans bringing their own demise upon themselves. It was almost biblical in a way. I found it equally great as Rise and Dawn but that's just my opinion. I went in expecting the same thing, and was surprised at how different from Dawn it was, but I don't think that was a bad thing. I think some of the complaints you are seeing on this thread are because people went into the movie expecting another Dawn. I personally agree with you that the movie strayed away from cliché things, like a big final battle, but sometimes that doesn't work for everyone. It worked for me. I thought it was a really good movie. It was a sad, but fitting end to the series. the second movie had the most action, but I think a lot of people who are dismissing this movie are forgetting that overall the series really isn't action. I'm really curious to see if they would start a new trilogy that takes place several hundred years in the future similar to how the original Charlton Heston movie does |
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jul 31, 2017 17:05:58 GMT
That's exactly what I was thinking, I just couldn't really put it into words; the apes had trivial and superficial dialogue. Nothing was gained. Nothing was learned. Nothing happened. About the Trump wall parallel, it's funny that you mention it. I noticed it immediately, yet no one in the group I went with did. It just felt like a little jab. Especially because it made no sense: a wall might work for keeping illegals out, but to stop a huge army with missiles and helicopters? A wall is useless. It was thrown in there to please a specific group. Even the defaced American flag and use of the National Anthem while they taunted the apes felt like a jab to me (and an unnecessary one at that). Once a movie gets preachy (whether I agree with it or not), I immediately lose respect for the movie. I don't want the director telling me how to think. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox. I'm happy I saw it as well. If it wasn't for Dunkirk coming out next weekend, I might see it again. I want to see it again. It's an interesting movie to dissect. I just think that if, as you said, the editors and director cut twenty to thirty minutes then the movie would be better. Hell, it could even be great. This is just plain dumb. Aside from a mindless action flick, horror, or comedy that is solely meant to entertain, the whole point of art is to express an opinion or message. A good movie should tell you something. If it's a message you don't like or agree with, then I can see disliking the moving, but holding it against the movie for having a message – any message – is not a fair stance. There's a difference between a movie sending a message and a movie being preachy. The Dark Knight, for example, has a message about the Iraqi War. The message is subtle and it works. There's a message in Star Wars about the Vietnam War and why America can be like the Empire and the Rebellion at the same time. I have no problem with a movie sending a message to the audience, even if I don't agree with it. When it gets preachy, when it shoves the message down your throat like a bad pill, that's when I lose respect for the movie. Hell, I'm a Christian that hates watching Christian movies because they are so preachy. I don't think that Apes really got preachy. I just thought that the message was a little on-the-nose. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jul 31, 2017 18:49:59 GMT
This is just plain dumb. Aside from a mindless action flick, horror, or comedy that is solely meant to entertain, the whole point of art is to express an opinion or message. A good movie should tell you something. If it's a message you don't like or agree with, then I can see disliking the moving, but holding it against the movie for having a message – any message – is not a fair stance. There's a difference between a movie sending a message and a movie being preachy. The Dark Knight, for example, has a message about the Iraqi War. The message is subtle and it works. There's a message in Star Wars about the Vietnam War and why America can be like the Empire and the Rebellion at the same time. I have no problem with a movie sending a message to the audience, even if I don't agree with it. When it gets preachy, when it shoves the message down your throat like a bad pill, that's when I lose respect for the movie. Hell, I'm a Christian that hates watching Christian movies because they are so preachy. I don't think that Apes really got preachy. I just thought that the message was a little on-the-nose. You didn't? Then what did you mean when you said: Seems to me like you don't like the movies politics or at least what you perceive to be the movies politics. That aside, I'm not even sure you are interpreting certain parts of the movie correctly. No one "defaced" the flag in this movie. No character specifically set it on fire for the purposes of a political statement. It simply caught fire because of the war between the remaining US military and a rogue military unit; who was representative of themselves, not the US as a whole. I'm sure you noticed,, but the movie made it very clear they were AWOL from the rest of the military... and insane. And as far as Caesar goes, yes he is somewhat of a Moses character, but the movie in no way, shape, or form encourages Christianity or belittles anyone who isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jul 31, 2017 20:35:58 GMT
There's a difference between a movie sending a message and a movie being preachy. The Dark Knight, for example, has a message about the Iraqi War. The message is subtle and it works. There's a message in Star Wars about the Vietnam War and why America can be like the Empire and the Rebellion at the same time. I have no problem with a movie sending a message to the audience, even if I don't agree with it. When it gets preachy, when it shoves the message down your throat like a bad pill, that's when I lose respect for the movie. Hell, I'm a Christian that hates watching Christian movies because they are so preachy. I don't think that Apes really got preachy. I just thought that the message was a little on-the-nose. You didn't? Then what did you mean when you said: Seems to me like you don't like the movies politics or at least what you perceive to be the movies politics. That aside, I'm not even sure you are interpreting certain parts of the movie correctly. No one "defaced" the flag in this movie. No character specifically set it on fire for the purposes of a political statement. It simply caught fire because of the war between the remaining US military and a rogue military unit; who was representative of themselves, not the US as a whole. I'm sure you noticed,, but the movie made it very clear they were AWOL from the rest of the military... and insane. And as far as Caesar goes, yes he is somewhat of a Moses character, but the movie in no way, shape, or form encourages Christianity or belittles anyone who isn't. I was saying that I don't like preachy movies in the context of the conversation I was having at the time. The next part about how I don't like a movie preaching to me was separate. Again, it was part of the other conversation. I thought, on the whole, the movie wasn't preachy. It was just blatant about some things. I wasn't referring to the flag being burnt when I was mentioning that it was defaced. Someone put their symbol on it, which counts as defacing it to me. I wasn't referring to Apes when I was talking about Christianity. That was just an example of why I don't like to be told what to think, even if I agree with it. |
|
