Planet of the Apes (2001) User Reviews

A Remake of a Film that Never Needed to be Remade

[JamesHitchcock · 6/10 · 3 November 2004]

If one wants to remake a movie, the best option is probably to choose and original that was good, but not a great classic. Clearly, any attempt to remake a concept that failed first time around is fraught with danger, but an attempt to remake a classic runs the risk that one's film will be unfavourably compared with the original. The original 1968 film of 'Planet of the Apes' is one of cinema's great science fiction classics. More than an adventure story, it touches on some of the concerns of the late sixties- the fear of nuclear war, race relations- and also raises more fundamental issues about the relationship between man and nature, the relationship between religion and science, Darwinism and animal rights. It was therefore a brave move on Tim Burton's part to try and remake it.

The main concept of Tim Burton's film is basically similar to Franklin Schaffner's. An astronaut from Earth travels to a planet ruled by intelligent apes. Humans exist on this planet, but they are regarded as an inferior species, despised and exploited by the apes. There is, however, an important difference. In the original film, the apes are the only intelligent and articulate beings on the planet. Although they have only attained a pre-industrial level of civilization (they have firearms, but no power-driven machinery, and no means of transport other than the horse or horse-drawn vehicles), they are a far more advanced species than the planet's human inhabitants, who lack the powers of speech and reason and live an animal-like existence. In Burton's remake, humans and apes have similar powers of speech and intellect; it is only the apes' greater physical strength that enables them to dominate the planet and to treat the humans as slaves.

It was this ironic role-reversal, with apes behaving like men and men behaving like beasts, that gave Schaffner's film its satirical power. That film was advertised with the slogan 'Somewhere in the Universe, there must be something better than man!', and the apes are indeed, in some respects, better than man. Their law against killing others of their kind, for example, is much more strictly observed than our commandment that 'Thou shalt do no murder'. There is no sense that the apes are bad and the humans good. Even Dr Zaius, the orang-utan politician, is not a wicked individual; by the standards of his society he is an honourable and decent one. His weakness is that of excessive intellectual conservatism and unwillingness to accept opinions that do not fit in with his preconceived world view. (In this respect the apes are very human indeed).

Burton's film takes a less subtle moral line. It is a straightforward story of a fight for freedom. The villains are most of the apes, especially the fanatical, human-hating General Thade. The heroes are Captain Davidson, the astronaut from Earth, the planet's human population who long for freedom from the domination of the apes, and a few liberal, pro-human apes, especially Ari, the daughter of an ape senator. The apes are more aggressive and more obviously animals than in the original film; they still frequently move on all fours and emit fierce shrieks whenever angry or excited.

There are some things about this film that are good, especially the ape make-up which is, for the most part, more convincing than in the original film and allows the actors more scope to show emotion. (I say 'for the most part' because Ari looks far less simian than do most of the other apes- Tim Burton obviously felt that the audience would be more likely to accept her as a sympathetic character if she looked half-human). The actors playing apes actually seem more convincing than those playing humans. Tim Roth is good as the militaristic Thade, as is Helena Bonham-Carter as Ari. Mark Wahlberg, on the other hand, is not an actor of the same caliber as Charlton Heston, who played the equivalent role in the original film, and Estella Warren has little to do other than look glamorous. (Heston has a cameo role as an ape in Burton's film, and even gets to repeat his famous line 'Damn you all to hell').

Overall, however, the film is a disappointment when compared to the original, a simple science-fiction adventure story as opposed to an intelligent and philosophical look at complex issues. It tried to copy the device of a surprise ending but failed. Schaffner's famous final twist is shocking, but makes perfect sense in the context of what has gone before. Burton's makes no sense whatsoever.

Tim Burton can be a director of great originality, but with 'Planet of the Apes' he fell into the standard Hollywood trap of trying to copy what had already been done and remaking a film that never needed to be remade. It was good to see him return to form with the brilliant 'Big Fish', one of the best films of last year. 6/10

Underrated

[on_the_can · 7/10 · 6 April 2011]

In the spring of 2001 audiences seemed eager to see Tim Burton's retelling of the 1968 classic, "Planet of the Apes." By the summer of 2001 it seemed to be the movie everybody loved to hate. Were the criticisms fair? Not if you ask me.

2001's Planet of the Apes' biggest downfall, in my opinion, is unfortunately also it's biggest strength. Unlike many remakes which often end up as nothing more than weaker rehashes of their predecessor's this version of 'Apes' dared to be different. The plot has been stripped down to its bare bones and then rebuilt into something completely new. This is refreshing, if you ask me. Especially when rewatching it now, because just a few short years after this film came out we launched into sort of a remake renaissance, where half the tent pole films that come out every year are the same lesser rehashes that I spoke of a second ago. This film does take a moment here and there to wink at the '68 original, but Burton and his merry band of screenwriters has created a world completely original...it could be watched next to any entry of that original series as a wholey different film.

This is also the film's biggest flaw though, or at least financially speaking, because the original 'Apes' franchise has a cult following behind it that could almost rival that of Star Wars or Star Trek. The core audience for this film really only wanted to see their favourite story told with modern day effects and makeup. I don't think we needed that, but I'm not sure how many would agree with me.

Now, if you want to compare the two films plots and decide which one is stronger that's a whole other debate. But I don't think that's fair, that's why I champion it for taking such a different approach. I don't think this movie should be compared to any other movie and with that mindset a much better appreciation can be found. To put it bluntly, this movie ain't bad...in fact it's actually pretty good.

I won't deconstruct the plot for you...if you're interested enough to be reading this you probably at least know the jist of it anyway. But it's a solid and interesting plot that sets up a very fun and entertaining action adventure flick. Visually its in many ways a departure from typical Burton fair but his stamp is definitely evident in its art direction, and the atmosphere he creates in this jungle/desert/urban/high tech universe is really something to behold. The apes are not only impressive in terms of makeup but they are also creatively impressive from the choices of the species to match personalities, the incredible costumes and simply perfect performances by a cast who act through all that latex. And while I'm praising I'll also throw up a shout out for Danny Elfman's great score, which just might be one of his best.

The only caveat I'll lay on the movie is that the twist ending, obviously conceived to rival the famous twist of the original, kind of falls flat. BUT...considering how many instalments the original franchise had I have no doubt that the producers had hoped to make a sequel had this film been more financially successful, and had that sequel been made maybe we would've learned the story behind this twist and all would've been forgiven.

It's a little too late to say, 'long story short,' but I will anyway. Give this movie a fair shot. It may not be without its flaws but how many movies are? Try not to compare it to the original, just watch it with a bowl of popcorn and have fun.

Escape from the Boulle planet.

[dbdumonteil · 6/10 · 29 August 2001]

Visually,this film is sometimes a splendor;the light falls on a crepuscular world.The Apes' town is quite scary particularly when you see it from a distance ,as it stands out against an ominous sky.In the very beginning,the cast and credits are also successful,with an adequate martial music.The first third has some funny,parodic and sometimes politically incorrect lines.In the second third,the movie begins to lose steam,although the discovery in the wrecked spaceship is a rather good idea. But that's not all good news.First of all,the hero lacks charisma and the apes and their sensational make-up simply overwhelm him and drown him out.On the contrary,majestic Charlton Heston,even when he was in chains,displayed a Shakespearian grandeur in the first version.

The last third consists in battles,a "second coming" and the "astonishing" ending without which..that would not be "planet of the apes".Actually,the new ending was borrowed from Pierre Boulle 's novel,but not without adding a mathematically unlikelihood which will give you headaches if you begin to think too hard:the least they can do:Everything ,even the proper nouns from the French writer's book have been removed,even if some characters recall some of the Boulle/Shaffner version.Shaffner had contented himself with changing the astronauts' name(eg:Ulysse Mérou=Taylor) Hats off to Helena Bonham-Carter who brings warmth and emotion in a rather vapid cast:in a part close to that of Kim Hunter/Zira,she really asserts her distinctive identity. Tim Roth is effective as well,but his part is less so.David Warner and Kris Kristofferson are wasted.As a tribute to Shaffner(?)both Linda Harrison (an unidentified woman captured with Leo) and Charlton Heston (moaning his curse,which is,admittedly,funny)appear unbilled.

Tim Burton might be a director to remember.Although he has not made a genuine masterpiece yet,his filmography is already rich:"Sleepy hollow","Edward Scissorhands ,the marvelous "Ed Wood" (Martin Landau is unforgettable).But redoing "planet of the apes " was a hard task.Shaffner's movie followed a progression,it moved slowly,from the long introduction showing the three astronauts making their way across desolate landscapes to the stunning final shots with Heston and Harrison 's roaming down by the sea.Remember how long it took Taylor to convince Zira he was a thinking man!Here it seems natural to Ari almost as soon as she sees him,that Leo is no dumb idiot animal.And that's the last straw,even Tim Roth (some kind of cross between Shaffner's Cornelius and a pulp fiction baddie)pretty damn quickly believes too that that human is too clever for his own sake.

Tim Burton's so-so remake epitomizes the dearth of good scripts.Pierre Boulle's book is a golden mine and one could have written a coherent story out of it,different from that of the first version.Why not,for instance,introduce the two "astronauts" whose scenes open and close it,and turn Leo's adventures into a flashback?What about showing the love between the hero and the woman-animal ?And the son they had?And the menace this son represented for the simian race? All these ideas were left over by Shaffner's script writers and could have built a strong new tale.

The main flaw lies in the human beings:here,they speak -English!- ,they can reason,they can swim (!),they are (except for bubble head Warren)clever,so why the hell did the apes tame them?

As shallow as the water he crashlands in.

[seemore-3 · 21 August 2001]

After seeing Tim Burton's excellent Sleepy Hollow, and superlative Ed Wood, I was expecting much more of a character driven movie, with the characterization and spiritual philosopies that elevated the original movie out of the pure science fiction genre and into a cerebral adventure film with acutely observed social comments.

Unfortunately, the film suffers from poor script and direction right from the minute the astronaut crashlands.

They knew from the outset that they would never produce an ending to rival the original, and any cinema-goer in their right minds would never expect one. But they could have at least got the beginning right. Neither Mark Wahlberg's character nor the tension is ever developed, so when he is confronted by the apes: we feel nothing.

The humans, though they have the benefit of increased intelligence and speech, are poorly utilized. And Kris Kristofferson is criminally wasted.

The make-up and effects are, as you would expect, fantastic. However, despite improved flexibility in the make-up, there is little warmth in either the performances or direction that made millions of kids go ape-nuts in the seventies. Bonham-Carter's Ari, whilst convincing, is not a patch on Kim Hunter's Zira. Roth's quite brilliant performance as Thade virtually carries this film and makes it the one reason to stick with it to the end.

Did I say end? Well, the less said about that the better.

remake?

[kairingler · 7/10 · 3 June 2014]

First off I haven't seen the original, so that leaves me free and clear of bias. I knew going into this movie however that Charlton Heston was in the original,, and he does make a cameo in this one,, Second, I've seen a few Tim Burton movies so I knew going in that some of the movie was going to be way out there, on a different level as most of his movies and ideas are. That said I just sat back and enjoyed the movie,, Mark Wahlberg,, aka,, Marky Mark. plays an astronaut on an American Space Station sent to do some research he has an ape with him,, and then they hit an electromagnetic storm and are sent crashing into a different planet in the future where apes rule the humans,, pretty fascinating concept if you ask me,, anyways, I enjoyed the movie,, mainly because I never seen the original,, so I didn't have time to sit there and judge one versuses the other,, maybe when I do see the original , I will change my mind,, but for now , I 'll stick with this opinion.

Planet of Shallowness

[basrutten · 3/10 · 27 August 2002]

Thank you Hollywood. Yet another movie classic utterly ruined by a cheap, shallow, effect-heavy and redundant remake. The original "Planet of the Apes" was an intelligent and thought-provoking movie with a very clear message. It was a movie that focused almost entirely on dialogue, which sounds very dull but was in fact very interesting.

This movie, on the other hand, seems to have done away with pretty much ALL the dialogues. Instead of a great movie we get an incredibly stupid two hour chase movie. Dialogue has been reduced to a mere minimum, character interaction and development are non-existent and most of the time it's extremely hard to figure out what's going on. Instead, we get a bunch of pointless action scenes, some marginally funny one-liners and some very hollow quasi-intelligent conversations.

The only thing worth mentioning about this movie is that it looks absolutely fantastic. The make-up of the apes is magnificent, and the sets and backgrounds are beautiful too. However, this does not distract from the fact that "Planet of the Apes (2001)" is a very shallow and simplistic movie, filled with paper-thin characters, stupid dialogue and a nearly non-existent plot. Please Hollywood, stop ruining great movies by turning them into senseless blockbusters.

Oh yeah, the ending did not make ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER.

* out of **** stars, mainly for the visuals

Oh, Tim, I'll forgive you

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 6/10 · 3 December 2003]

It's not bad, but not a masterpiece that Tim usually cooks up. I mean, I wasn't really into this film. It got kind of boring at parts. And Mark plays the same character he usually does in every film. Intense, angry guy. Well, I wouldn't recommend this to Tim Burton fans, you'll just cry.

6/10

Not sure what the deal with the hate is but this is an awesome adaptation

[UniqueParticle · 7/10 · 18 October 2020]

Mark Wahlberg was perfect this role especially with his physique! I'm the sure there could've been a better director but Tim Burton did pretty good with his own style; he definitely has done better. I feel like this Planet of the Apes deserves more credit despite any flaws! I'm one of very few that think the ending is brilliant and the way things play out is pretty solid.

A stinker in a summer of stinkers

[Mike_A · 3/10 · 16 August 2001]

This movie merely goes through the motions. The story just moves along with little emotional connection or suspense. The "climax" creates some interest but is over far too quickly.

Sure the apes are impressive but much of the effect is obscured by the darkness that shrouds 80% of the movie.

Oh and then there's the ending which is the biggest sham I've yet to see in movies. It leaves you feeling like you were just scammed out of your money, taking place in a marketing gimmick. I am refering to the blatant set up for a sequel.

Hollywood seems content just to fill cinema's on hype without trying to give any satisfication to those foolish enough to waste there money (or think this one will be any different from the last 10)

Wait for DVD.

Mike

Fun on its own terms ...

[Vic_max · 8/10 · 22 June 2008]

For any sci-fi fan, it will be hard to resist watching this movie. The original Planet of the Apes (POTA) opened the door to this new world and made it interesting and believable.

This movie is very different than the original. About halfway though, it is clear this movie is going in a different direction. Basically, a astronaut crash lands on planet populated by apes (the dominant species) and humans (the ones who exist in the wild, and as slaves). Soon after he is captured, he picks up the homing beacon to a rescue ship... and the story progresses from there.

That's a pretty great setup, and the story progresses in a totally different direction than the original. I really appreciated that because it made the movie all the more interesting.

The special effects were one of the big treats of this movie. Not only do we get scenes with the spacecraft, space station, etc. at the beginning (unlike the original), but the character makeup of the apes was fantastic. The variety of body builds, faces, personalities, etc. was very entertaining to watch. Somehow they made Helena Bonham Carter look "sexy" as a young animal rights activist/chimpanzee... and Tim Roth look more threatening and aggressive than just about any character I've seen in the movies. Brilliant work.

The ape habitats were also kind of cool. If you want to know what an ape kitchen, dining room, bedroom, etc. looks like, you'll get a peek in side some of them in this movie.

All the thematic hallmarks of the original are present (role-reversal, overt prejudice and cruelty, fight for equal-rights). While they are probably not as impactive as they were given how times have change, they still deliver a sting about who unpleasant such a society is.

While I wouldn't say this is as strong a movie as the original, it is still a fun movie see and worth checking out.

Worth watching for those who missed out on it

[troy-manatunga · 7/10 · 9 June 2011]

Despite some unbelievable pod landings, "Planet of the Apes" a movie that attracted negative reviews at the time was one that is my personal favorites. A decade later I decided to pop the movie in and give it another go. Yep, I still feel the same! Love the movie, love the makeup and costuming, love the themes discussed and by all means, love the cliff hanger Tim Burton uses in the end. I have all kinds of love for this movie. Seems like Tim Burton had a vision of more movies in the Ape regime; sadly for some of us it just did not see its way through due to the entire mixed acceptance back in 2001. Tim Burton as all you readers are aware is quite unorthodox and eccentric in his directorial choices. For those of you who are not as familiar as some of us, he gave us "Alice In Wonderland" , "Sweeney Todd", "Corpse Bride", "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" "Sleepy Hallow" & "Edward Scissor Hands" to name a few. If you are a reader who follows movies not by trailer but by director, 8 out of 10 have watched all of the above. "Planet of the Apes" with comparison to Burton's style is quite different. It's a Sci Fi that discuss themes of Animal Cruelty, Humans vs Nature and also if you want to be scoffer who hates this movie, a remake of classic Sci Fi from 1968. I respect classics, however what if I can watch it done slightly better. The costuming and make up is brilliant in comparison to the classic. However my intention is not to compare this with the reputed classic. 5 Stars and a round of applause for the magnificent work put in by the team with the makeup and costuming. For a movie made a decade ago this is brilliant, I have watched movies done in the past 2 years that can't even hold a candle to this effort. There is a lot of emotion that is required to be conveyed, which was a vital element to carry out the emotional wave. Giving the extra advantage of excellent facial movement makes it so realistic, never would I have for a moment felt, it is false and it is just a movie. I was right there in the middle of it all. Thumbs up yet again! As much as I respect Mark Wahlbergs performance, I have to side with Tim Roth on this one. Bold performance! The ferocity, the valor, the true determination to make every human suffer he nailed it all. Tim Roth although under so much of makeup, has his presence; he is just scared to look at. He is the meanest Ape I have seen so far. Helena Bonham Carter, who later marries director Burton in real life, was convincing and also was the vital link that ties human affection and animal cruelty on a broader perspective. Personally though I felt that Carter has so much more potential is capable of contributing more. (But wait! Am I comparing her to who she has become before she became?)

We do not realize what it is like to be caged, or to be treated as pets or even as beasts, but seems like there is much to fathom from this, animals feel as much as we do. These are lessons for some of us who beat our pets up, or for those who don't leave a clean bowl of water for your dog every day. Doesn't look too great when the tables are turned does it? Also we humans don't realize that once done, certain things can never be undone (You have to watch the movie till the end to understand this). Wahlberg clearly states in the movie that we humans hurt each other way more than we hurt animals on his home planet? Have you ever stopped to think how true that it is? With such beautiful themes that are very well deeply hidden it disheartens me that this movie never got the place it rightfully still deserves. A decade is a long time, but the copies are still out there. I am pretty certain that most of the younger generations never have seen this one; just like back in 2001 I had never seen the 1968 classic!

"Apes Lite"

[lwjoslin · 27 August 2001]

Tim Burton's new "Planet of the Apes" is actually a remake--excuse me, a "re-imagining"--of the first TWO movies of the old series. Its occasional paraphrasing of lines from the original movie (devoid of any meaningful context), and its cameos by members of the original cast (Charlton Heston and Linda Harrison), only underscore that this new version isn't what the original was, i.e., an original. Mark Wahlberg, as Our Hero, has none of the cynical, edgy complexity of Heston's Taylor, and is in fact the sort of can-do flyboy Taylor found laughable. Much as I adore Helena Bonham Carter, her turn as Ari, a sultry, sexy, meddling, annoying human-rights activist, is ultimately tiresome, and absolutely incomparable to Kim Hunter's brave, brilliant, impish Zira of the old series. The role is also a criminal waste of Bonham Carter's beauty, hidden as it is behind a bizarre makeup that looks neither ape nor human. Rick Baker's highly-touted ape makeups (which I've enjoyed since the days of "Schlock" and "Kentucky Fried Movie") are highly uneven here. Tim Roth's villainous Thade has the best, with most of the rest being just adequate and no particular improvement over John Chambers' work in the original. And the socko ending (keep reading; I won't spoil it for you) is simply tacked on: unlike the jolting end of the original, it neither ties together nor arises from the movie's earlier action in a way that Explains Everything. Instead, it begs so many questions (mainly "How the heck did THAT happen?") that it seems engineered (or contrived) solely to set the stage for more sequels. All told, this is "Apes Lite," a comic-bookish caricature of the original, made for the short-attention-span crowd. It made me want to do something I hadn't done in ages: fire up the VCR and roll the original again. It's typical of the 1968 movie's gritty, clever irony that the first word of dialogue uttered by an ape--his entire line, in fact--is "Smile."

A Mixed Bag, but Ultimately a Decent Addition to the Apes Saga

[Wuchakk · 6/10 · 14 March 2014]

YEAR: 2001 DIRECTOR: Tim Burton COUNTRY: USA RUNTIME: 119 minutes

THE PLOT: An astronaut (Mark Wahlberg) crashlands on a planet ruled by apes where humans are considered animals and slaves, even though they are intelligent and can speak. The astronaut soon leads the humans to revolt.

I don't think there's any question that Tim Burton really knows how to make a film look great. And so it is with this remake of "Planet of the Apes." The locations, sets, ape make-up, costumes, cast, score (Danny Elfman) and direction are all outstanding. Just as good as the original film and, in many cases, even better. Unfortunately, the overall results are a mixed bag.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: The biggest problem with this remake is that there is no build-up of mystery. Wahlberg crashlands to the planet very early on in the story, just like in the original film. Unfortunately, as soon as he lands he's IMMEDIATELY thrust into the ape/human conflict, captured and taken to the ape city. This flashes by so quickly that the viewer could easily MISS IT ALL if s/he got up for a few minutes to get something from the kitchen!! The original took its time in this matter; Taylor (Heston) and his fellow astronauts obviously crashland in the middle of nowhere and explore the planet for a long period of time before eventually encountering the inhabitants of the planet. It's all very mysterious, and there's a lot of build-up to the ape revelation.

It's also highly unbelievable that Wahlberg would crashland right into the midst of the human/ape conflict. The planet is the size of Earth, so what are the chances that he'd land right in the middle of the fray? I suppose Burton and the writers didn't want the film to bog down once Wahlberg crashlands, but couldn't they have at least given us FIVE MINUTES of exploration time, giving the impression that Wahlberg searches for a fairly long period of time before encountering the humans and apes? As it's presented it's simply too unbelievable.

This is a major misstep; and because it happens so early in the film it strongly tempts most intelligent viewers (who naturally MUST have some reasonable amount of believability to enjoy sci-fi) to lose faith in the picture and tune out or, at least, become excessively critical of the remainder of the film.

Another problem with the picture is that I just simply failed to really get caught up in the characters and their story. There needed to be more character-defining dialogue. A well written script causes the viewer to be CAPTIVATED by the storyline. Well, I never fully got captivated.

These factors explain why I was severely let down when first viewing the film at the theater in 2001.

WHAT WORKS: Seeing the film again recently, I was braced for these flaws and willing to suspend disbelief to (try to) enjoy the story. I now conclude that there are numerous worthwhile qualities to the remake.

For one thing, although Mark Wahlberg is no Charleton Heston (Taylor was Heston's greatest role and performance IMHO), I think he does a great job as the protagonist. Helena Bonham Carter is also fabulous in the Zira-like role of Ari; she really brings Ari to life and makes her unique. And as beautiful as Linda Harrison was as Nova, Estella Warren pretty much blows her out of the water in the counterpart role of Daena. Unfortunately her character is shallow and we never get a satisfyingly good look at Estelle in all her voluptuous glory. But, no matter, what we DO see is breathtaking.

Tim Roth is utterly evil as the villainous Thade. This is very much in contrast to Dr. Zaius in the original, who was actually a very noble character. Lastly, the giant Michael Clarke Duncan is magnificent as the gorilla general, Thade's "friend."

As to be expected, the ape make-up is WAY better than the original, even though I still love the job they did in the earlier film. The ape characters don't only look more like highly evolved apes compared to the original, they walk, talk, howl, grunt, jump, fight and climb more like real apes.

The ape city sets are fabulous too, albeit a bit too dark for my tastes. I find this unbelievable and verging on cartooney. I know Burton is into Goth and therefore prefers dark lighting, but it would be nice to actually SEE the wonderful sets made for the film (or perhaps he doesn't want the viewer to get too good a look and see how artificial they really are? I don't know, I'm just guessing).

I also liked all the homages to the original film -- the various lines, Linda Harrison, Charleton Heston as Thade's dying father, etc.

Although numerous people had a problem with the ending, I think they did a good job. How else better to end it? Notice how the camera mysteriously shoots from behind the "Lincoln Memorial" just like the original does with the Statue of Liberty.

FINAL ANALYSIS: Despite a couple major flaws there's a lot to appreciate in Burton's remake. It's not as good as the original or "Beneath," but it's, at least, on a par with "Escape." And it's certainly better than "Conquest" and, especially, "Battle."

The bottom line is that Tim Burton's remake of "Planet of the Apes" is a worthwhile addition to your apes film collection. For serious "Apes" fans it's even mandatory because, even though -- OVERALL -- it doesn't come close to the greatness of the original (or "Beneath"), it has numerous singular aspects that surpass it.

GRADE: C+ or B-

Aged well

[lenny-22959 · 7/10 · 1 April 2022]

It's April first 2020z.

Feeling very nostalgic. Went on date in 2001 in Germany while in the army. I was 18 years old. I feel asleep during the film. I'm now 39 watching it for second time. It's not bad don't understand the hate.

Not nearly as good as the original

[jzwetsloot · 7/10 · 7 July 2002]

This is not a bad "remake" but I still get a feeling that the original is, even though it is set back more than 20 years still highly superior in every way, only special effects are better but that can hardly be called an accomplishment considering the technical possibilities compared to the 60's. The first Apes movie spawned 4 sequels that got worse with every film, If this one is followed by one or more sequels I really hope these sequels can beat the sequels to the original ones. Go out to the video store and rent them both, you will know what I mean, the original is super(ior), the "remake" is not bad.

AWFUL!!!

[windegg · 1/10 · 31 July 2001]

"Why can't we all get along?" the Rodney King ape asks. Maybe it's because Hollywood insists on doing awful re-makes of classic movies! There is NOTHING worth seeing in this film (except, maybe, Charlton Heston's cameo). The remake is cliché-ridden, wholly predictable, and the ending makes no sense whatsoever . Why would anyone even THINK of tampering with a work of art like the original version of the Planet of the Apes? Avoid this travesty of a movie and rent the video of the 1968 classic.

A visually spectacular action movie.

[Shopaholic35 · 8/10 · 22 February 2014]

Personally I love this movie and cannot understand why so many other people disliked it. I respect the original for what it was but this version directed by Tim Burton is visually spectacular and exceeds expectations.

Nobody creates a fanciful world like Burton can and there is no better duo than Tim Burton and Helena Bonham Carter. The costumes for the apes are incredible with intricate details that look very realistic. The sheer enormity of the sets makes you realise how much energy and passion went into creating this film.

I love all the action, and the special effects still seem remarkable even after more than 10 years has past. Sometimes people can't move past the original but if you have never seen the 1968 version then I think you will enjoy this movie. Also it is perfect to watch again now that the new planet of the apes movie series has started to be released.

A planet where the apes oppress the humans.

[esteban1747 · 7/10 · 16 September 2001]

The miseries, believes and thoughts of our planet Earth are shown in another planet where higher apes rule. This is a good film for entertainment. The major deficiency is that the apes speak English and the hero, an astronaut is not coming from Russia, Germany, United Kingdom or Japan. No, as usual is another Flash Gordon-like North American. The end of the film is perhaps its best moment when the hero back to Washington D.C. discovers that during his absence the planet was invaded and governed by the same apes.

Biggest disappointment of 2001!

[the amorphousmachine · 25 October 2003]

Awhile back, I commented on the original 'Planet of the Apes' film prior to seeing this remake at the cinemas. When I saw the original, I was fully expecting the remake to kick some serious butt, and be far superior to the 1960s version. Why? Better visual effects being 2001 and all, one of my favorite actors in Tim Roth starring in it, and a great director named Tim Burton. Nothing could surely go wrong with Burton in the director's chair. Granted, I was never a huge fan of the POTA films, but seeing the potential here for a remake or revision by Burton made my mouth water. Then, in 2001, I got advance tickets and I began to watch one of the most anticipated movies for that year...

I left the cinema very disappointed! Disappointment can cloud criticism though, and sometimes makes you bitter towards a movie and not see the positives. So I tried to look at the good. The make-up was excellent, but inconsistent in parts, but I still feel that area should have been nominated for an Oscar. Okay, that's good! Tim Roth was amazing in his performance but his character was not that great and seriously lacked depth. Helena Bonham Carter was also fairly decent in this film. And, finally some of the cinematography was fairly nice.

What really let the remake of 'Planet of the Apes' down, was by in large, Tim Burton. This is, without a doubt, his worst film that I've seen! I cannot really compliment the direction of this movie, as it seemed self-aware and indulgent in being the "remake". The script was awful, as well as the integration of one-liners from the original films to this new one. I groaned completely during Heston's cameo, particularly due the referrals to the original film. The remake should have been a film in its own right, and should have focused on creating a compelling story and universe, instead of opting for lame jokes revolving around Charlton Heston in ape make-up as Thade's father. The hero of the new film in Mark Whalberg was one-note, but he was given such a boring character who just went through the motions. Going to take a risk- check, gets sucked through a new dimension- check, captured by Apes- check, escape- check and so on and so on. I never felt anything for his character at all, and that was partly his performance and partly the woeful script/direction. Estella Warren was awful, and Kris Kristofferson played the obligatory predictable role of the her father. Michael Clarke Duncan suited his part, but never became a well established character, and Paul Giamatti was okay as Limbo, but was obviously the comic relief. I also did not like the art direction was the Ape City, and found the original far more convincing in look and as a story.

While, General Thade was certainly a memorable chimp because of Roth's performance, it's a shame the character was wasted in an extremely formulaic and cliche story! 'Planet of the Apes' (2001) is nowhere near the worst film of 2001, it certainly was the most disappointing for me, considering the potential it had with the dynamic vision of Tim Burton and the modern visual f/x to create a film that stands out in its own right. It's just a pity Tim Burton chose to make a Hollywoodized self-aware gimmicky version that ends up being significantly inferior to the original film, instead of on par with it! And yes, Burton's 'Mars Attacks' is also better than his remake here! 'Planet of the Apes' gets a reluctant pass for Tim Roth's performance, the superb make-up and the decent cinematography, however that still doesn't save it from silly mediocrity.

**½ out of *****!

See the Original

[epsilon3 · 6/10 · 6 March 2002]

I was expecting a lot from this movie as the original had a major influence on me and is a genuine Science Fiction classic. I enjoyed this re-imagining but it was just okay - not great. The acting was mediocre - the sets and special effects were good and the make-up was of course spectacular.

What really lets it down is the plot. For example, in the original film the human slaves couldn't speak, reinforcing the fact that the apes saw them as savages. When Taylor (Charlton Heston) spoke, it was a potent weapon against the apes' prejudice - the fact that he had language and thus cognitive abilities shook their entire belief system. In this movie the humans are chatting away normally which lessens the importance of Davidson's (Mark Whalberg) arrival.

And could somebody please tell me what the point of the blond woman was? Sure she is beautiful, but her character just felt tacked onto the plot to provide some eye candy.

I found the ending to be a big let down - again it was clumsily stuck into the film to provide that twist in the tail. It just didn't feel like it was part of the story, but more of an afterthought.

Despite my criticism, I enjoyed the movie. There's some great action scenes and hey - it's Planet of the Apes! There's nothing horribly bad about it - it just doesn't live up to the wonderful original.

Rent this one or wait for it to be on TV.

7/10

Dissapointing...

[reverse_hsalf · 6/10 · 15 August 2001]

In short, Great acting, great effects, great make up, great sets, great idea but it just didn't seem right. I'm not a great advocate of remakes anyway, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, in this case the latter applies. Near perfection should be left alone.

Generally Despised, But If You're Not A Fan Of The Old 1960's Originals, This Can Be An Entertaining Two Hours.

[FiendishDramaturgy · 7/10 · 13 May 2007]

The modern remake has two purposes, A. to modernize the setting, characters, film technologies, etc., and B. to generate interest in the original work it remakes. The latter is used only when the former is weak and they have no idea how to really make the remake a better attempt than the original. This is one of those times.

The main problem with this work is not the other the top apes, the shortened story line, the effects, the story itself, or the premise. The problem with this work is that Mark Walberg, though I do like him as an actor, is NOT a lead actor. Sorry Mark, but you're not. Mark Walberg is a great supporting actor, but he does not bear the presence on screen to bolster any movie, unless it is something small and weak enough to make him seem stronger. It's not his acting, it's his presence, or lack thereof.

As far as this film goes, he IS the weakest element of what otherwise could have been a successful attempt, but Burton's works seem to deteriorate in the third act, with few exceptions, thereby calling for a strongly-written ending, something completely unexpected, or something totally over the top, in order to strengthen his inability to keep it together. Sleep Hollow is one example of a Burton work which does not fall into that generality, but only barely. A good example would probably be Ed Wood, which was bad enough on its own, and for other reasons.

The reinvention of the Planet of the Apes was generally despised by Baby Boomers who loved the original campy, sometimes horrid Apes run, by virtue of fond childhood memories. The idea of combining several of these "beloved" works into one movie failed to generate the positive response the studio hoped for, and even served as a catalyst to bring down the work entirely, were it not for the name Tim Burton.

As it is, this work went on to almost quadruple its initial budget, but the studios listened for once, and did not continue on with this line. At the base, this whole work was weak, from script to post production work, and in every way in between. So why the 6.8 rating? Because it served well to make younger audiences seek out the originals, and in spite of it all, this work IS entertaining! It rates a 6.8/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Formulaic movies are popular these days...

[benjambment · 1/10 · 30 July 2001]

Anyone care to tell me where they got the horses from? Were there horses on the ship when it crashed? Were there gorillas? Hmm, I don't seem to remember them being there... Not that gorillas could leap 30 feet into the air anyway. And someone find me that computer - it can tell what the year is even through a time-warp!

So we go through this horrid excuse for a movie not really ever knowing the names of more than maybe 3 characters - I managed to pick up 2. And to boot, Estella Warren has like 10 lines in the movie - she's basically Darth Maul all over again, but with a supermodel body instead of a lightsaber. Character development, which is crucial to any good story, is completely lacking - some characters sort of get a real cheesy and formulaic revelation near the end, but the hero and antagonist stay the exact same throughout the whole movie.

Sure, everyone's saying "well, they were up against a lot when they decided to re-make an old classic," which is true, but they didn't make a good movie - they just took the standard sci-fi / horror / action movie plotline and put apes in the place of villans. It's a formula and it's really really sad, and regardless of what movie they're trying to remake, going with the standard formula will satisfy the masses, but it won't ever be a "good" movie.

Nothing to go ape about

[snepsts · 6/10 · 4 August 2001]

This movie was a real letdown. I was expecting so much more from Tim Burton. All this movie did for me was help me to appreciate the original that much more. Whatever it was that made the original movie work is absent in this remake. Burton's 'Planet of the Apes' is a rental at best.

Bad Bad Film

[JAKick · 1/10 · 2 August 2001]

Actually horrible film, slow, boring, without focus, and probably the worst ending I have seen in years. The ending pushed it from bad film to horrible film. an absolute deus ex machina, since there was no ending in sight, then a badly made "suprise ending". The audience I saw it with about 40 minutes into the movie were just making jokes the rest of the time. This was a full audience on opening night that was excited to see it. Just pathetic. Right before the Deus Ex Machina happened , a person said " This better not be...(what it was)" and the crowd started just groaning in pain when it happened. TIm Burton needs to re-evaluate his ability to direct.

Jason.