Ive just watched the origional and thought it was brilliant. Ive heard the remake is aweful, was just wondering is it really that bad? and what are the differences from the origional?
shareWell, it depends on who you ask whether the film is bad or not, but the best judge will be you. Personally, even though I do recognise that it has some serious flaws, I still found it fairly entertaining on the whole and enjoyed it. The ape characters are the interesting ones, while the human characters, including the lead one, are fairly flimsy. If you go in there expecting something like the original, then you're bound to be disappointed, but if you take it as a film in its own right, then you might have a different experience.
As for the story, the film isn't really in the same universe as the original and its sequels, and doesn't impact on that story at all; it's very different in its story. The story is set in a different planet than Earth, which should tell you enough that there are big differences. In general, it's lighter than the original, doesn't have as much to say as the original, more a popcorn film than the original, but it has its moments... plus the make-up is good (well, some complain about the female apes, but I still think the make-up is good despite that). I'd say worth watching, at least to see if you really do find it awful.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
This film is no where near as bad as it is made out to be. It is quite entertaining, and is your average summer action movie.
However, it is no where near as good as the original. The original was groundbreaking at the time of it's release, and it had a much stronger lead. The majority of the remake was style over substance, andMark Wahlberg really was awful.
Yes, it really is pretty bad. This is another example of not messing with quality work. Yes, the makeup is better than the first. But the story is pretty poor, and the dialogue is less than stellar. The whole premise that the humans can't speak because of some genetic defect is central to the picture. To drop it ruins the whole idea. Let's be truthful. This cast is the bottom. Mark W. can't act. Period. I don't care how many teens and twenties think he is hot. He can't act, at all.
I bet dozens of quality actors passed on this. Charlton H. should also have passed, bad decision. But he did have Alzheimers late in life.
The best thing to do is watch the original. Then come back in 3 months and watch it again. You will understand the story. The story is the star. A nuclear holocaust that turns the world upside down in a matter of a few thousand years.
Let's be truthful. This cast is the bottom.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I take a lot of what you say, and you make some great points. Mind you, explain to me the decision of the original film to keep Kim Hunter's hazel eye colour, when all the other apes have the darker shade of brown? It was decided to keep her eye colour to allow her to be seen as more humane.
From: http://planetoftheapes.wikia.com/wiki/Zira_%28APJ%29
Ape actors were usually required to wear brown contact lenses if their eyes were not suitably dark, but Zira remained hazel-eyed, as make-up designer John Chambers explained, "We all thought it would add a 'human' touch".[3]
So when Michael Clark Duncan is made to reuse that sentence as an hommage for the 1968 film (more an insult) his saying "how can you distinguish them" doesn't mean anything, except that he's very stupid!
You should check out this web series called "Boots To ReBoots". They compare originals vs remakes in pretty good detail. They did one for The Planet of the Apes and other remakes.
http://www.stitchedtogetherpictures.com/category/boots-to-reboots/
They should of had Val Kil if only Roddy Mcdowal lived to be in it gosh darn it?
share