A creature feature of disappointing stupidity, Rise of the Planet of the Apes replaces the sociopolitical underpinnings of the original film and its sequels with a limp warning about the evils of animal testing.
Is that what you wanted; just a regurgitation of the first movie? This movie examines so much more than "just" animal rights, including the basic core sociopolitical underpinnings of rebellion/abolition against/of oppression of any sentient species, however the means of its evolution [See also Blade Runner]. I expect a greater ethical imagination from an NPR representative.
Aug 5 - 02:29 PM
>I expect a greater ethical imagination from an NPR representative.
Aug 5 - 03:21 PM
No, I don't think she wanted regurgitation. I think the point is that they took something away and they replaced it with something that is weak sauce in comparison. Blah blah oppression/rebellion, it's the oldest plot device in the book. It's not really a window into what makes us sentient. It's just action movie fodder with a simple Sh¡t vs The Fan structure with a big wagging finger "now I hope you learned your lesson, scientists" throughout.
Aug 5 - 04:23 PM
As with all movies, there is only one way to view this one, and if you disagree with it, you're wrong. I count myslelf in the wrong category because I liked the movie. I saw emotion, love, bonding, betrayal, transcending the limits of language, culture, and worldview. The movie hit on all kinds of ethical questions--yes, about testing animals (why would it be so bad if that WERE the central theme of the movie??? How is that a automaticcally light issue over which enough has been said?). I saw humanity in the apes, which is to say cruelty, compassion, confusion, exploration, all of it. For me this movie was largely about impossible relationships and the tragedies that flow out of them. Shakespeare's plots were old hat. I don't care that the basic premise is an old plot device. I care that I cared about the characters and what happened to them. That makes for a good story. I think it's actually quite impressive that the animators figured out how to animate a soul, as they did with the animated chimps, orangs, and gorrillas. Yes, it's all terrible stuff. I loved it. I do expect a more nuanced viewing from an NPR critic, though I enjoy Jeannette's reviews despite disagreeing with her (obviously I'm an NPR guy :) )
Aug 5 - 04:54 PM
I concur. Granted the plot device wasn't THAT original, but it was certainly a lot better than Avatar. Visually this was just as spectacular (if not more so) than Avatar anyway.
Aug 12 - 11:54 AM
It's not really condemning animal testing at all, in fact, if anything it's just as sociopolitical than ever. The boss of Franco's character passed them to start human testing purely for monetary reasons...clearly a political and economical move. If anything, it's criticizing humans as money grubbing whores that they are and that they are the reason everyone will die of a virus because of a desire for profit. Also if you notice, most of the action does not occur until midway to late half of the movie. Doesn't seem like "action movie fodder" to me. Plus, you don't cast Andy Serkis as your special effects character if all you want is action. You cast Andy Serkis if you actually want emotions and depth to a character. Also, if they just wanted an action movie, Shakespeare would never have been quoted or mentioned. Watch Transfomers....no Shakespeare there. XD
Aug 6 - 12:42 AM
Caesar displays more emotion than human actors only because it's done by Andy Serkis, a remarkably brilliant body actor who happens to be a human...
Aug 6 - 08:24 AM
"A creature feature of such disappointing stupidity..." Really? A bit over the top. At least it did have substance and was well thought out in writing, unlike most movies coming out of Hollywood. I saw more than "just" animal testing (as if that's a bad message) but also saw parallels to civil rights (the fire hose scene).
I mean what was so amazingly stupid about this movie?
Jan 21 - 06:30 AM
It's a bit more than just animal testing, isn't it. Readers, don't be written off by this blurb, Ms. Catsoulis is right but this story really is akin to it's predecessors. Instead of nuclear warfare we have abusive gene therapy but the basic message is still there. In our quest for power, we have doomed ourselves yet again. Still worth a viewing.
Aug 5 - 06:08 PM
no I can't believe this movie is getting positive reviews; I paid for this rubbish!!! It really is a bad movie the pacing at the end is silly, the idiocy of monkeys taking over the earth from that stage with spears when everyone could just hang in the deserts and pic them off with sniper rifles is goofy. It would have been better if they disassociated the film from the others entirely. This is like calling Mighty Joe Young, or Congo, a King Kong remake.
Aug 5 - 07:31 PM
Dude...if you are going to write something like that, it's obvious you should only be watching documentary films.
Aug 5 - 07:39 PM
totally agree. this guy should stick to watching documentaries...probably doesn't believe in watching tv either. I saw this movie twice. An excellent movie!
Aug 17 - 11:21 AM
word this movie was good if ur trying no movie is completely realalistic come on now
Sep 2 - 08:30 AM
Of course some of the chase scenes were a stretch, but common' are you 10 years old? Do you need to fixate on a lack of realism in art?
The base plot - a small band escaping to the Californian woods as humanity dies off in a self-created pandemic is facinating. Let's remember that one had to "swallow" the whole "smart vaccine" premise or you shouldn't have wasted money or time watching the flick.
Judging by the ending of the film, humans will have much more than a few apes to worry about in that world's near future....
Aug 5 - 08:25 PM
Steve, obviously you either didn't watch or understand the very end of the film and how it connected to the original.
Aug 5 - 08:36 PM
ok judging from the childish insults and over defensive behaviour to my opinion of this film, you guys must be open to my film pitch of a better version of POTA sequel; RISE OF THE STOCK APES; due to a viral outbreak "naturally formed" apes rise to success in the stock market with magnificent finacial accountabilty that saves the USA as they also limit humans to zero population growth and ban nuke warfare except for use on blacks, asians, dogs and lions/cats. Teaching man "just-in-time" as he dwindles to universal obscurity; to love his trees and planet better and not to mess with mother nature. (except for those stinking cats) O_o! sounds like art ta me I'll do the storyboards if you guys get the script....
Aug 6 - 10:34 AM
Steve. In your first comment you dug yourself into a whole of stupid. In your second, you fill it back up while still inside.
Aug 7 - 05:15 AM
Shinn I'm not stupid; you're stupid; go tree "hug" yourself; mankind isn't going to die by a bunch a monkeys and virus; it will be nukes, that's the original warning and that's what's not being watched in real life as I type; you are brain washed and stupid; no is it rational art, and the one black guy dying in almost every movie and no asians isn't ok either.
Aug 7 - 10:31 AM
> Shinn I'm not stupid; you're stupid; go "tree abort" yourself (use a good rope now); mankind isn't going to die by a bunch a monkeys and virus; it will be nukes, that's the original warning and that's what's not being watched in real life as I type; you are brain washed and stupid (real history will prove this); nor is it rational art; the one black guy dying in almost every movie and no asians isn't ok either.
Aug 7 - 10:39 AM
Steve, you are an idiot-the world isnt going to end in any way and if it does in amovie, it can end any way the filmmakers want it to. You are in a very small minority that doesnt like the film. The film is UNDENIABLY good and entertaining. Stick with the Smurfs.
Aug 8 - 12:42 AM
@amalga You know man, with all the stupidity going on in the real world without an allergic reaction to a cyanogen-like intelligence serum; do you really need to add to it? I think you mean stick with cowboys and aliens, smurfs is a sissy punk movie, for chimps like you. You probably loved Avatar too, saw it five times and want to kill yourself so that you can spirit there. Please brain washed minion go ahead.
For anyone else with half a brain I just read ebert's review of the film, it kind of sums up how I feel, only I was really disappointed.
Aug 9 - 09:24 AM
god dam youre a troll
Aug 9 - 10:24 PM
Steveee need to calm down. It was great. Clearly, if you'll have a look at the sight you're on, most critics think so as well. Obviously you don't have to have a mush-brain to like it. People aren't brain washed to like it, they like it because it's a well-done film. P.S. this reviewer is a tool, there is nothing stupid about this movie.
Aug 10 - 03:19 PM
Obviously, you're searching for a reason to tear this film apart. Maybe it's a passion for tearing apart pop culture, or maybe you're trying very hard to not follow the crowd. What you basically said is that the "...idiocy of apes taking over the earth..." is dumb. It's called fiction. I also assume that anything that cannot closely correlate to real life is dumb in your eyes. Maybe you just need mommy to read you a bed time fairy tale to open up your mind and imagination because you sound like a close minded nitwit with lack of an imagination.
Aug 13 - 08:35 AM
@shaun maybe you can't handle Santa is never going to be a good original story. Mommy taught you wrong man, majority isn't always right, and it's not always wrong. Sometimes weak trends well; it just gaga's itself to being "great". I would have been happier/tolerant with maybe Ceaser being angry at Will's death and throwing a canister around town or two =apes actually Rising. The trailer wasn't "wait out till..." or "escape to the planet of the apes." Maybe the copter not falling onto the bridge such deliberate fashion. Police who are good shots......?
On the other subject, society has fallen for it I think, sharks eating people as good guys and aliens conquering earth to the cheers of the audience may be next. Just in time for us to watch nations starve to death and not feel so bad.... Now go eat more of your movie soylent green like mommies good little boy!
Aug 13 - 08:12 PM
you know whats funny steve. you have made this movie more popular by posting on here as more people come to support the movie because of you. you have posted so many times here you actually look like you love the movie! its so funny. keep posting here and make this movie even more popular...dumbass!
Aug 17 - 11:23 AM
not my fault retards like you have low reading comprehension! Yes, it is completely possible thank I love the movie series so much that I hate it. Or perhaps I like it but I hate it; or maybe I love the movie, but some of the stupid answers as to why you guys and some reviewers like the movie are soo disappointing that it makes me wish I hated it even more.
Answers like: I like cause I like it; I Like it cause your dumb@$&*!, and my favourite one "I like it so keep on posting so it will be more POPULAR?!" Some felt it could be a prequel- I said "it was NOT, and should have disassociated itself from the series." It didn't, from "it's a mad house" to every other fam'quote it went on to really milk the older versions; one thing I was wrong on; I hear pinnochio not Secret of Nimh was an influence to the writers in telling you this masterful tale! O_o!!!! Please don't respond to my comments without reading other guys stuff. It's almost as annoying as your fake avatar.
Aug 18 - 02:27 PM
Nukes ARE a threat as you stated, but it's a cliche threat and one that's actually more far fetched than the gene therapy/viral threat. Take a look around the net and you'll see tons of articles about the CDC making H1N1 more deadly, geneticists playing with the idea of re-creating mammoths and all kinds of other really really stupid ideas.
Nukes are bad, but [micro]biology is fast replacing that old song and dance as the new threat to humanity.
This movie is on par with the times. Wake up and smell the 21st century.
Dec 9 - 11:27 AM
steve, no one likes you.
Jan 16 - 06:39 PM
The apes don't take over the world with spears. It's made explicit at the very end that the humans will be decimated by the same virus that makes the apes intelligent. The apes don't defeat humanity militarily, they just outlive us.
Aug 6 - 10:59 AM
You are totally ignoring my point and the fact that this was sold as a prequel to the 1968, which it can't be because that world has humans and the monkeys did use guns. Hence my point of disassociation being the better path. "A secret of Nimh" for monkeys or Congo I could accept was clearly written
Aug 6 - 04:22 PM
This could still very well be a prequel, a select few humans could have had a natural immunity to the virus and thus survived into the future depicted in the original movie. Also the monkeys were still developing, humans do not instantly know how to use guns so why would the monkeys, they most likely learn how to use and build them over time. you seem to be forgetting this is just the beginning of the apes taking over. Most of your complaints as to why it isnt a prequel are due to you failing to considered that things take time to develop.
Aug 6 - 06:41 PM
I feel this movie left an open end to where they could go with it. Nuclear fallout is still capable of happening as well as humans surviving it all and becoming slaves of that future post-apocalyptic world.
I can also understand why some fans/non fans may not have enjoyed the film but my opinion is that it was much better than I had ever expected. Serkis steals the show with every minute of screen time. I hope the Academy will allow him into the best actor categories this next year. He has seriously been paving a way for motion capture acting and needs that recognition.
Aug 6 - 08:30 PM
I very much agree, Kristopher S. Can anyone of us give a better way to be exposed to horseback riding as Caesar was in this film? The original had them riding horseback - as the horses somehow managed to survive through a nuclear fallout. This film was simply way more thought out than any of the originals.
Aug 7 - 05:25 AM
There is nothing well thought out about this rubbish from the hand biting monkey (which would have been put down that day)to the regurgitated monkey experiment gone wrong accidentally kills mankind; and the there is no real SWAT team in this town; no reporters; no abc, no cbs hunting for the next scoop; we're in the early sixties; handguns for all!!!.... no maybe they did just go too far back in the story scenario for me; I'll just leave it at that. but no one really thinking for themselves would disagree with me. It's just not good enough. I will say nothing of the fx 'cause I respect WETA too much.
Aug 7 - 10:51 AM
Steve is a tool. That is all.
Aug 7 - 01:51 PM
steve, again youre an imbecile-the movie wasnt sold as a prequel to the 1968 flick-what are you talking about?? it didnt refernece the original at all in marketing. It is a NEW series and its good so far
Aug 8 - 12:45 AM
If it's a "bad" prequel, than fine, I give you that because it is way to early in the time line to be an offical prequel to the Original, but on the other hand it is a FANTASTIC reboot of the series and given the film Tim Burton came out with years ago, that was a bad reboot. So do you see the difference? It is better than HP & TDH p2 by far and that was a good movie but honestly really bad if you were a true fan of the Novels. So... I give Apes 4 out of 4 stars.
Aug 8 - 01:22 AM
Not sold as a prequel to the older films, this is a reboot, a total reboot. Get your facts straight. Caesar's story from the originals was already told.
Aug 15 - 06:04 AM
Don't feed the troll. If you went to the trouble of overthinking this film you missed the point. It was simply great.
Aug 15 - 11:23 PM
are u mentally challenged the major point in this series is that apes are stronger than us theyre just not as smart if they were as smart they would beat us:they got as smart and started moving and the virus killed off most of us so that left them to take over p.s. its obvious u dont watch smosh cuz otherwise u would know how stupid movies would be if they were realistic!!
Sep 6 - 04:58 PM
The apes learned to use (and presumably make) guns after most of the humans died off.
Humans didn't exist in huge numbers in the original films. As with any deadly virus, there will be some people who survive it.
Nov 2 - 06:14 PM
The idea that this movie was a prequel is now moot. There is a sequel that has been confirmed. They didn't make this movie as a prequel, they made it as a reboot to a dead franchise. The next film will replace the original Planet of the Apes as a true sequel.
Old hat, new hat. This discussion of loopholes and linear story telling is dead.
Dec 9 - 11:32 AM
steve you are a bonefide dumbasss.... monkeys are NOT APES! get over your troll status already.
Aug 7 - 05:13 PM
B movie at best; monkeys see monkeys do I guess; your mother birthed you soaked in a bath filled with stupid fluid. The movie is weak; hopefully they will do a sequel to this version and you will all see how weak when they fill all the holes they made. morons
Aug 9 - 09:02 AM
if you'd paid attention you would have noticed the lab attendant that died from the virus and passed it the the neighbor(airline pilot) who spread said virus around the world in the credits. DUH thats how the apes take over
Aug 12 - 03:06 PM
I bet Steve still loves a good-sized bananna
Aug 13 - 05:05 AM
Steve A, I know it seems like I?m singeing you out and although technically that?s true, you just happened to have stated the single dumbest statement I read. Its not all you buddy. You?re serving as an outlet for all the other ridiculous statements. Im look at you so called NPR ?Top Critic? Jeannette Catsoulis
I?m now convinced or one of two possibilities, either you didn?t actually see this movie or rather you?re too ?simple? to but some of the "more subtle" plot points together. Since you used a few multiple syllable words I am going to assume the former. Now, if you actually had watched the film, you would have noticed that one of the axillaries characters (the ape handler) was actually killed by the ultra bad ass second version of the virus. The last scene is the next-door neighbor who is also infected with this deadly, transmittable virus, getting ready to pilot a commercial airliner to the largest city in America. I know, I know again it's such an insignificant detail and so hard to fit into the larger picture that one must therefore come to your conclusion. And you sir are absolutely right in your false conclusion, it is idiotic to think that is how human civilization came to an end. However the only thing more absurd than 99% of human life on earth being wiped out my APES (its in bold because I want you to wiki what a monkey is and how they differ from apes), is the solution to such a threat would be for everyone on planet earth to move to the deserts and snipe the apes that happen to stray within range. God help us if anyone, ever is under your guidance in a time of conflict. Oh what?s that, super intelligent, giant crabs are taking over the earth Well ive never see a crab walking around Antarctica, lets all more there and take pot shots at crab passerbys. Problem Solved.
Aug 13 - 06:10 PM
RE:society has fallen for it I think, sharks eating people as good guys and aliens conquering earth to the cheers of the audience may be next. Just in time for us to watch nations starve to death and not feel so bad....
yeah, Custers last stand didn't work out that well, true, but based on the story possiblity that there could be 100,000 uninfected humans (some in the military) and only maybe 20,000 apes charging. Assuming this super virus story you have so much faith in does nothing I complained about above.
There is a much a chance of them out lasting the apes as there is any of you jokers not liking the sequel to this non-story. As to the rest of the stuff you babbled; zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzsnoghrrrrzzzzzzz....
Aug 13 - 08:26 PM
hmmm Roeper says B movie, that says it all for me, I agree. I'm not quite sure it's not a C. For me this was one of those movies I'm glad did well, and made back it's money, but wish they had done it better. Apes or any other creature taking over the planet would not be as silly an idea if told right. amoeba's could take over the planet if given right opportunity..... from man.
Aug 18 - 07:59 PM
Nay Nay Bauer
Aug 30 - 09:36 PM
your completely wrong in every way. what did you want some dumb movie with tons of action through out. the movie was more exciting during the slow parts...it was a perfect movie in every way. people beside me and in front of me were reciting the movie as they saw the movie 2 to 3 times. this is a ridiculously good movie. i saw it twice so far.
Aug 17 - 11:19 AM
I don't think this guy saw the film. The comment about the monkeys taking over the earth with spears is a give away. Pretty sure he's making his judgement on the trailer.
Aug 30 - 03:25 PM
I'm guessing you ignored the whole infectious disease thing.
Sep 11 - 11:18 PM
Entirely agree. I didn't hate the movie - thought it was okay. But the realist in me was screaming to be let out of its cage. How on earth did they proceed from "we successfully got into a forest" to "we took over the world?" This movie doesn't set up the original at all, and suffers because it tries to. Furthermore, this woman is entirely right about its taking away from the themes of the original movie. The idea is that we warred ourselves out of existence. That's what makes that "damn you all to hell" scene so powerful. If THIS is the beginning, it's not nearly as compelling.
Sep 23 - 01:38 AM
There were no monkeys in this film. They were apes. Didn't they teach you the difference in elementary school?
Since you obviously didn't watch the ending of the movie, the apes didn't take over the world with spears. A virus wiped out most of humanity soon after that particular group of apes escaped into the wild.
Nov 2 - 06:12 PM
The socio-political underpinning is most definitely there, just more subtle....you have to see it yourself, but it is most certainly there.
This is 2011, not 1968, and if one were obvious the critics in our right-biased world would howl about the film being wildly political.
The film will nevertheless be an important cultural touchstone for gathering opposition to universal, insidious oppression. Just look at the movie poster right next to your post here.
Aug 5 - 08:22 PM
"evils of animal testing."
Really? That's the complaint? Tell you your explanation of why the apes from the original movies hate humans so much then?
Enjoy the well explained Sci-Fi and stop thinking everything is political.
Aug 5 - 10:05 PM
"evils of animal testing."
Really? That's the complaint? Tell us your explanation of why the apes from the original movies hate humans so much then?
Enjoy the well explained Sci-Fi and stop thinking everything is political.
Aug 5 - 10:06 PM
And perhaps (tell me if I'm going out on a limb here), you should realize that not all movies are worth watching...
Aug 6 - 09:10 AM
Not all movies are worth watching. I agree. The previous remake of Planet of the Apes wasn't worth watching. But this one certainly is.
Aug 7 - 05:36 AM
I agree with that. Brillent writing in this film... Way better than time traveling apes.
Aug 8 - 01:24 AM
Plain and simple, this movie touched my heart. I have a maltese and 2 cats and can't stand the fact that humans (suppose to be the smart/capable of love species) just kill animals when 'we' have no further use to them. If that's the case then we deserve to be attacked and killed by sharks as we are in 'their' homes uninvited and they have no 'use' for us. Even the ending of True Grit and the killing of the horse was unacceptable. Caesar displayed more emotion than some actors nowadays. That alone was impressive. If you didn't care about him, then clearly, you weren't paying attention.
Aug 6 - 12:00 AM
haha thanks shera T. i haven't seen True Grit yet!
you have to understand that that point of this movie was not to point out the "evils of animal testing" but to make humans look like the antagonists of the story. and its very hard to do that unless you make them do something evil. it overexagerated the concept of animal testing, but you must remember this is just a movie.
Aug 6 - 12:38 AM
hahah thanks. i havent seen true grit yet! prolly should have posted a nice "spoiler alert" warning! haha jk.
Aug 6 - 12:39 AM
I think you are unaware of something. In True Grit, he killed the horse to end it's suffering. Horses have a much harder time dissipating heat from their bodies than humans, so they can overheat and die easier than we can from their own inability to remove heat from their bodies. He drove the horse to it's limits, which is why it collapsed at the end of the ride. If he didn't kill it then, the horse would have slowly died alone. It's not that he 'no longer had use for it'.
Hope that clears things up.
Aug 6 - 01:03 AM
That's correct.. he didn't just kill the horse. He put it out of its misery. The horse nobly did all it could do to help save Mattie. If they had stayed with the horse and waited for it to rest, Mattie would've lost much more than her arm.
Aug 6 - 04:41 AM
Why can't people just sit down and enjoy a movie? Do we really have to attack the movie?
I just watched the movie yesterday and it's worth it.
Aug 6 - 07:58 AM
Because people have standards? Most people have expectations. They have knowledge of movies, and they have their own particular tastes.
And, if this summer is any indication, studios don't care much at all about what should the be the meat of any movie: the script.
You can take your no-standard as standard and accept all the junk that comes your way, but I refuse to.
There's a whole bunch of movies with Britney Spears, Selena Gomez, Justin Bieber and a couple American Idol kids out there. You should get to watching them. I'm sure you'll love them.
Aug 6 - 09:09 AM
Some people obviously get off on dismissively telling people what they should and shouldn't watch despite the fact that they have no basis for these opinions because they don't actually taken the time to, you know, watch the movie. Get off your high horse. To even bring Justin Beiber, Selena Gomez or American Idol into a discussion of THIS movie shows just how biased you are towards it. It has an 87 percent viewer rating...80 percent with the critics and even most of the "negative" reviews, like Berardelli's, could be more accurately described as "mixed" since they freely acknowledge its merits. Don't see the movie if you don't want to..but don't have the hubris to tell others that they have no standards if they enjoy it. Just stay smugly confident that your opinion is the right one and matters infinitely more than the overwhelming majority. Congrats.
Aug 6 - 12:56 PM
This. Haha. I'm so tired of watching this guy troll in every thread without ever offering a formed opinion himself. Probably because he's never viewed most of the films he calls junk.
Aug 7 - 01:42 PM
sociopolitical underpinnings of the original film? What ever happened to good, solid entertainment?
Aug 6 - 08:37 AM
Ethan D, I don't agree with her opinion, but it does have some valid unlike unlike your crass, dumb down comment.
Aug 6 - 08:11 PM
Ethan D, I don't agree with her overall opinion, although she does make some vadid points, unlike your crass, dumb down comment.
Aug 6 - 08:12 PM
Kettle? Meet pot.
Aug 7 - 05:42 AM
Sounds like this Summer of Suck (never thought I'd say that) is limping to a weak ending.
Until Hollywood stops being so lazy and greedy, bad, lukewarm movies will keep on getting churned out.
Will they learn from all the flops, failures and underachievers this summer? No, they'll just make everything "dark and edgy."
Aug 6 - 09:06 AM
Razor... you need to pull your head out of your ass. This has been the best summer for films in like three damn years. Stop bitching about this movie, it has an 80% so clearly you are in the minority.
Aug 6 - 10:08 AM
For fuck's sake, have you even seen the film? First off, you're fixating on the minority, which makes it clear that you *want* to hate this film. Second, as someone who has actually seen most of this summer's major releases, I think that this was actually above-average summer for film. Super 8 and Deathly Hallows were great. KFP2, First Class, and Winnie the Pooh were all very good (and they were sequels/remakes, too!). Sure, we got the mediocre stuff like Pirates, Cars 2, Green Lantern, and Smurfs (not to mention the absolutely unwatchable Transformers 3), but with the good comes the bad. And the ratio favors the good this summer.
Aug 6 - 10:30 AM
So we have to like what you tell us to watch? I enjoyed the movie very much, so you can take your 2 cents and out them where the sun never shines
Aug 6 - 02:31 PM
Actually Razor, it wasn't a bad film, nor was it great.. but it was 2 fairly entertaining hours - a feat as you pointed out - as most of this years movies had me looking at my watch half the time, including Potter.
Aug 7 - 01:55 PM
I mean, I fail to see how this summer is any worse/better than most recent summers in terms of film quality. We've had the typical mix of arguably good/great blockbusters, bad films that managed to do well at the box office, and a number of flops.
Also, you're right that Hollywood is lazy and greedy. In other earth-shattering news, the sky is blue and water is wet.
Aug 11 - 04:49 AM
I thought this was the best movie of the summer and I really enjoyed Super 8.
Aug 15 - 11:25 PM
Rotfl, How are you even considered top Critic? You work NPR! The company that fired Juan Williams, after he said that he gets nervous when he sees men in Arab garb.
I wouldn't trust your opinion on what day of the week it is.
Aug 6 - 10:32 AM
Why are so many critics claiming this is a remake of the original Planet of the Apes? This is a re-imagining of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes. It undermines everything you say when you don't even understand what film this is re-imagining. Furthermore, when you said Cesar ultimate shows what he is when he protected the father it is clear you did not understand anything at all. What Cesar was/is is a protector of his family. Which, after his betrayal by humans leads him inevitably to finding his role as protector and leader of the apes. Its not the directors fault that so many critics these days try to act smart instead of actually using their brains to understand more deeply what is being conveyed.
I expected more from the NPR than this half ass attempt at critical analysis.
Aug 6 - 12:20 PM
Also, I thought this was more a warning against how mans arrogance, pride, greed, and will to play god will be their eventual undoing. You just looked at the cover and decided it meant genetic testing, use your brain and think deeper.
Aug 6 - 12:24 PM
Limp? Really? Let's see when it all comes true someday...at least the virus thing. We play with stuff ALL the time that we have no CLUE what it does. Thought they made the point really well!
Aug 6 - 02:45 PM
At least it wasn't nowhere near as boring as NPR!! Play the Dry eyes comercial and it would be a limp Warning of you!
Aug 6 - 03:05 PM
Jason P: I thoroughly enjoyed this film, but the NPR critic wrote a well written review, even if I don't agree with it. That's the key to academic writing: presenting a well written argument. Of course since, to you, NPR is simply boring because it clearly evades your miniscule attention span, I am sure that a well written review is just as obviously over your wee little head.
Aug 6 - 08:18 PM
No, it's boring because they talk about stuff most of us could give a damn less about, and in a droll and sleep-inducing fashion.You could take a whole bottle of Ritalin and still pass out listening to that. I think you just want to make yourself feel better about being a boring bastard.
Aug 7 - 02:01 PM
Val, glad you speak for the "most of us" and I feel quite damn fine about having an attention span that far exceeds yours. Of course, I doubt that's saying much.
Aug 7 - 03:37 PM
Val, glad you speak for the "most of us." Of course, the masses, which are usually the yardstick for ignorance and bad taste, is hardly something I would want to gage myself by. And I do feel quite damn fine about having an attention span that far exceeds yours, which I doubt is saying much. But, I will have to write NPR and suggest their djs get in some televangelist-like melodramatic delivery, or stage some reality tv dramatics so poor widdle you won't nod off from being bored with those gawd awful artsy fartsy programs.
Aug 7 - 03:48 PM
My attention span is fine when the material isn't presented in such a dull fashion. I think the concept that you are somehow superior mentally because you listen to NPR news is preposterous, yet that is what you are trying to imply. What a jabroni.
Aug 12 - 05:27 AM
I don't listen to NPR news or the radio much at all. I do ocassionally catch some of the programs in-between switching cds and that's about it. I heard a snippet of a damn fine and lively Marriage of Figaro not too long ago and I have heard part of a program devoted to Miles Davis' free jazz period so I know they play vey good artmusic. As for superior, if that's so you make me that way simply form your narrow mindedness. In taking the all too predictable route, you fit the polemic cliche of a dog barking at the door without saying anything new at all, which is, of course, hopelessly boring. By dismissing all of NPR or devaluing its critic, as "boring stuff that doesn't cater to the popular masses", you unfortunately come off as trite and a pop-fad conservative who gages every thing by entertainment value alone and refuses to rise to the challenge of what you do not know or have experienced. Taste is not something you're born with, it's something you grow into. And that said, most people who appreciate great art, also appreciate good entertainment, but it's very rarely that way with those who know or cater to a populist mentality.
Aug 12 - 06:40 PM
I don't listen to NPR news or the radio much at all for that matter. I do ocassionally catch some of the programs in-between switching cds and that's about it. I heard a snippet of a damn fine, radical performed Marriage of Figaro not too long ago and I have heard part of a program devoted to Miles Davis' free jazz period so I know they play very good artmusic. As for superior: if that's so, you make me that way simply from your narrow minded parameters. In taking the all excrutatingly predictable route, you fit the polemic cliche of a dog barking at the door without saying anything new at all, which is, of course,hopelessly boring. By dismissing all of NPR or devaluing its critic, as "dull stuff that doesn't cater to the popular masses", you unfortunately come off as trite and a pop-fad conservative who gages every thing by entertainment value alone and refuses to rise to the challenge of what you do not know or have experienced. Taste is not something you're born with, it's something you grow into and is a reflection of many things. That said, most people who appreciate great art, also appreciate good entertainment, but it's very rarely that way with those who know or cater to a populist mentality.
Aug 12 - 06:45 PM
I don't listen to NPR news or the radio much at all for that matter. I do ocassionally catch some of the programs in-between switching cds and that's about it. I heard a snippet of a damn fine, radically performed Marriage of Figaro not too long ago and part of a program devoted to Miles Davis' innovative free jazz period so I know they play very good artmusic. As for superior: if that's so, you make me that way simply from expressing solely from a narrow minded parameter. In taking the excrutatingly predictable route, you fit the polemic cliche of a dog barking at the door without saying anything new at all, which is,of course,hopelessly boring. By dismissing all of NPR or devaluing its critic, as "dull stuff that doesn't cater to the popular masses", you unfortunately come off as trite and a pop-fad conservative who gages every thing by entertainment value alone and refuses to rise to the challenge of what you do not know or have experienced. Taste is not something you're born with, it's something you grow into and is a reflection of many things. That said, most people who appreciate great art, also appreciate good entertainment, but it's very rarely that way with those who know or cater to a populist mentality.
Aug 12 - 06:47 PM
I am very certain, she hasn't seen the movie in question!
Aug 6 - 04:44 PM
ya total dumb ass! who the hell let her do reviews... this movie was awesome...and i saw all 5 movies in a row before i saw this movie. Jeanette needs a new job.
Aug 17 - 11:16 AM
We definitely, are not talking about the same movie.
Aug 6 - 04:57 PM
Aug 6 - 04:58 PM
Seriously...would be nice if critics actually watched the film or paid attention if they did. Anybody who did would know that Caesar's mother was not "swiftly euthanized" by Franco's character. Also...what woman in her right mind would date a Guy joined at the hip with a chimpanzee...maybe a veterinarian who clearly states that she loves chimpanzees? ?? Top critic my arse... at least make an effort.
Aug 6 - 05:15 PM
Every time I check the reviews on RT, I can count on each rotten review being filled with comments consisting of idiots letting the reviewer know that their opinion is wrong and the only intelligent thing to do is to like it as much as they did. Attacking the writing or the writer, who can't hear a word you're saying or respond at all, and avoiding any of the issues the reviewer had with the actual movie. Of course, all the fresh reviews are dead silent.
You like the movie? Great.
They didn't? Well that's fine too, it's their OPINION and just as valid as yours.
If anything, yours would be less valid, considering you're an angry person on the internet who latched onto a movie you liked, and they're... a professional critic.
Ever thought that maybe you just have lower standards?
Maybe you're easily pleased?
Maybe you aren't the exact same person as the reviewer, meaning your tastes might vary?
Rotten Tomatoes was created specifically to address the issue of people actually having different tastes and standards, compiling all the different reviews can get you an average idea of the what critics thought of the movie. Of course, each individual review will not pander to the average, only to the individual writer.
So next time you see someone review a movie negatively that you happened to like, stop for a second and ask yourself:
"Is there anything wrong with having your own opinion, even if I don't share it?"
And remember the answer: an objective no.
Aug 6 - 05:37 PM
Seems to me that you're contradicting yourself by extolling the virtues of RT as a forum for diverse opinions but lamenting the fact that peons actually have the right to rebut the reviews of "professional" critics. Whether or not the critic responds or even reads the comments is besides the point. The forum is there for opposing views.
My comment above points out that the reviewer completely misrepresented a key scene in the movie and also questioned the motivations of a character which are clearly explained in the narrative. Not very "professional" IMO. But maybe you just have lower standards when it comes to critics.
I've read many thoughtful and incisive rebuttals in the comments section. If you don't feel the same way about them, I suggest you just don't read them. Or stick to print media, where no one can refute the opinions of the cherished professionals.
Aug 6 - 06:48 PM
you dont like that others who likes and dislikes argue with each other, maby just most of people got the idea of the movie and liked it :D. Most of people just comment about their opinion since that npr review makes us think ("do we need to spell it out for u, just use your head and ur imagination too."). And as it has 81% fresh status most of critics think its fresh enough, so you would expect higher ammmount of people who give positive comments.
Aug 8 - 04:47 AM
You?re right f.f. (name calling aside), the critics as well as other movie goers are entitled to their disparate opinions but I also think that Doug A is right to question the veracity of this critics? review. She does get several points wrong. In addition to the instances that Doug A. points out, Catsoulis gets the role of the ?ugly monkey cursed with poxy skin and a milky eye? wrong.
Aug 8 - 08:15 AM
Aug 8 - 08:16 AM
Aug 8 - 08:20 AM
You're right f.f. (name calling aside), the critics as well as the other movie goers are entitled to their disparate opinions but I also think that Doug A is right to question the veracity of this critics' review. She does get several points wrong. In addition to the instances that Doug A. points out, Catsoulis gets the role of the "ugly monkey cursed with poxy skin and a milky eye" wrong.
Aug 8 - 08:41 AM