Planet of the Apes

Not rated yet!
Director
Tim Burton
Runtime
1 h 59 min
Release Date
25 July 2001
Genres
Thriller, Science Fiction, Action, Adventure
Overview
After a spectacular crash-landing on an uncharted planet, brash astronaut Leo Davidson finds himself trapped in a savage world where talking apes dominate the human race. Desperate to find a way home, Leo must evade the invincible gorilla army led by Ruthless General Thade.
Staff ReviewsAround the Web ReviewsAudience Reviews

Check back soon when the reviews are out!

Or why not join our mailing list to stay up to date?

 

SIGN UP!

Box office recaps sent twice a month (maximum).

( ̄^ ̄)ゞ (☞゚ヮ゚)☞ No spam! ☜(゚ヮ゚☜)




 ✍🏻  > 🗡️   Want to join our team? Email us!  
Kyle Smith4
National Review



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Tim Burton on His "Planet of the Apes": "I Tried." Also: a First Look at His "Sweeney Todd"
      An engaging, witty and self-deprecating Tim Burton was a hit before an adoring audience at the Time Warner Center last night, where he reflected on his films and introduced three clips from the upcoming “Sweeney Todd.” More on that later. The audience cheered wildly to clips from each of his films, but it was refreshing when Burton implicitly corrected his fans by acknowledging such messes as “Mars Attacks” and the Mark Wahlberg remake of “Planet of the Apes.” Of the latter, he asked of his interlocutor Richard Pena, who had derided Hollywood for churning out sequels and remakes that lacked Burton’s vision, “Was that one of your horrible endless remakes you were talking about earlier? I tried.” Burton said he made the film because he’d always thought “There’s something funny about apes dressed up and talking.” He later discovered, “Well, that’s really not a good reason to make the film.” Burton made “Mars Attacks,” a satire of 50s flying-saucer flicks, because he remembered how strange it had felt to grow up in the era. “For me, movies are a weird kind of therapy–something internal you want to exorcise….After doing ‘Ed Wood,’ I sort of became Ed Wood–I had to fulfill my destiny.” Pena interjected, “I think the flying saucers were the same.” More Burton: On his stint as a cell animator in the darkest days of Disney: “I was a terrible animator. If there’s any Disney bosses out there, I’m sorry. I fudged my time card all of the time. Films like ‘The Fox and the Hound’ were taking like seven years to make. There were all these talented people there like John Lasseter and Brad Bird not doing anything. Luckily, I was just so bad at it. I learned to fall asleep at my desk with a pencil for two hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. There was a kind of deadness to the place. So I started working on ‘[The] Nightmare [Before Christmas].'” On ‘Edward Scissorshands’: Burton said he conceived it as a teen. Then, “years later, after years of not having a girlfriend and total isolation, I revised the script.” Asked whether he wanted to comment On Johnny Depp, whom he gave his big break in “Scissorshands,” Burton said: “Not really. He gets enough attention, doesn’t he?…I had never seen ’21 Jump Street.’ I just connected with him because he was on the cover of ‘Tiger Beat’ and you meet him and you realize that’s not what he’s about…I don’t think he was very happy doing what he was doing. He probably didn’t want to do an 8th or 9th season of ’21 Jump Street.'” Burton added that Depp didn’t like to watch monitors of himself and “I’m not sure he’s seen any of the movies we’ve made.” On “Ed Wood”: “I grew up watching Ed Wood films and realized there’s such a fine line between success and failure. He’d talk about ‘Plan 9’ and you’d think he was talking about ‘Star Wars.’ As a filmmaker, even if it’s the biggest piece of crap in the world, you go into it loving it and wanting it to be great. He had a weird poetry to him. People talk about him as the world’s worst filmmaker–well, he’s not because people remember him…’Ed Wood’ was the biggest bomb of all time. It was like an Ed Wood movie.” Burton said when he pitched “Ed Wood” to a studio, outlining his idea to make it in black and white, the exec was on the phone talking about advertising ‘Last Action Hero’ with a satellite sent to outer space. “Shooting a black and white movie is a bad idea but launching a satellite with ‘The Last Action Hero’ into outer space is a good idea?” On “Sleepy Hollow”: “It was kind of like an old Hammer horror movie. [Depp] wanted to wear a big nose–like, ‘Can I look like the Disney character?’ With this huge beak. We talked him out of the nose thing. We finally said, ‘You can’t have the nose but you can play an action hero like a 13-year-old girl.” On “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”: “They kept thinking we were basing [Willy Wonka] on Michael Jackson–we weren’t. Three weeks before the movie opened, they [Warners] said, ‘Can you make his skin a little darker?’ Burton said no. On Depp’s look as Wonka: “He based it on that Vogue–what’s her name–Anna Wintower. He was trying to be scary.” (Burton is referring to Anna Wintour.) On Danny Elfman, whose band Oingo Boingo he used to go see before he made films and introduced to film by hiring him to score “Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure”: “We kind of like the same things, though he has a bigger taxidermy collection than I do. He has more shrunken heads.” On “Beetlejuice”: “You have to admit they are some of the worst [special effects] you have ever seen.” On “Sweeney Todd,” with which Burton has been involved for a decade (it opens in December; I’m seeing it Nov. 29), Burton said the film isn’t finished yet, though a few studio-friendly critics have seen a cut. Burton said he liked the idea of having rookie singers perform the operetta–there is only one professional singer in the cast. “For me it gave it an extra dimension that’s right for the film–different from the stage.” Burton also said that he recently came across an old drawing he did of his conception of “Sweeney Todd”–“and it looked like Johnny and Helena and it freaked me out because I didn’t know either of them at the time.” Burton then played three clips from Sweeney Todd. A few things stand out: –Despite its comic tones, this looks like the most serious, earnest film Burton has ever made. Stephen Sondheim has provided the macabre and Burton has no need to add his usual candy-colored irony to the proceedings. –Burton doesn’t shy away from the violence; this is an R film, which keeps out some of Depp’s fans and some of the most reliable recent fans of movie musicals–girls in their early teens. –Depp’s singing is fine, though the movie isn’t opera, it’s pop. He doesn’t have a big voice and he talks his way through parts of the songs but he is on key. [Burton said that the actors actually sang on set, by the way, because lip-synching would not have worked.] –Depp is likely to get an Oscar nomination. It’s a fiercely demanding role and based on these clips, Depp nails it. It’s hard to picture George Clooney getting nominated over Depp for doing not much of anything except look pretty in “Michael Clayton.”]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • The 10 worst movie remakes of all time
    (”Planet of the Apes” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    alfred hitchcockben affleckdavid fincherremakesstrangers on a train Still giggling and dazed from the surprise monster box office of “Gone Girl,” Ben Affleck and David Fincher are checking into Hubris House together. The two have decided to join forces again on “Strangers,” a remake of Alfred Hitchcock’s 1951 thriller “Strangers on a Train.” Hey, it’s only Hitchcock — what could go wrong? With that in mind, let’s look back at the 10 worst Hollywood remakes of all time. 10. ‘The Longest Yard’ (2005) Former “Waterboy” Adam Sandler reimagined himself as a studly quarterback in a hard-to-believe attempt to recapture the spirit of the gritty 1974 original starring Burt Reynolds. Reynolds featured as a mentor figure in Sandler’s version, which was neither funny nor dramatic. 9. ‘The Women’ (2008) Meg Ryan rounded up Annette Bening, Eva Mendes, Jada Pinkett-Smith and Debra Messing in a witless attempt to recapture the Champagne fizz of the ahead-of-its-time 1939 film, a sharp and groundbreaking work in which only women appeared. 8. ‘Poseidon’ (2006) The original “Poseidon Adventure” quickly came to be dubbed campy, but the 1972 blockbuster’s suspense was palpable, and its characters memorable. The remake featured a dopey cast of stock characters played by Kurt Russell, Richard Dreyfuss, Emmy Rossum and Josh Lucas. 7. ‘Arthur’ (2011) Hard to remember now, but Russell Brand was considered a hot property in Hollywood after he stole the show in 2008’s “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” For the remake of the 1981 classic that won Dudley Moore an Oscar nomination, Brand went fully infantile and insufferable as more of a spoiled toddler than Moore’s semitortured boy-man. 6. ‘Straw Dogs’ (2011) Sam Peckinpah’s 1971 film, a quintessential work from Hollywood’s period of giving artists a wide berth to make movies as dank and low as they pleased, was notorious for its level of violence (which today seems unexceptional). The remake, with James Marsden and Kate Bosworth as the sophisticated young couple who run afoul of local yokels, is so unintentionally snobbish that you’ll be rooting for the psychopaths. 5. ‘The Shaggy Dog’ (2006) Like “Straw Dogs,” this one sent up a loud “woof.” Tim Allen, unbearable even by Tim Allen standards, plays a D.A. who gets turned into a 300-year-old furry beast in an animal-rights-driven plot. 4. ‘Around the World in 80 Days’ (2004) Overblown 1950s comedy-adventures are a film genre that aged especially badly, but that didn’t stop Jackie Chan and Steve Coogan from doing their frantic best to make Victorian slapstick seem contemporary. 3. ‘Swept Away’ (2002) With a 5 percent approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, Guy Ritchie’s remake of the saucy 1974 Italian art-house film seemed to announce to the world how annoying it must be to be married to Madonna. The film sank immediately, and the pair never made another film together. 2. ‘Planet of the Apes’ (2001) Tim Burton’s bonkers remake of the 1968 sci-fi film decided it would be cool to ditch the original ending and replace it with a total head-scratcher. Burton himself later disowned this mess, saying, “I tried.” 1. ‘Psycho’ (1998) Gus Van Sant’s virtual shot-by-shot remake of Hitchcock’s 1960 chiller, starring Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche, was a useful lesson in cinematic history: Slavish imitation somehow gets you the worst possible remake. Share this:FacebookTwitterGoogleFacebook MessengerWhatsAppEmailCopy ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • My best memories of 17 years as The Post's film critic
    (”Planet of the Apes” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    lou lumenickmovie reviews Today, I retire from The Post 48 years after I first walked into its newsroom — located in 1968 on West Street, just south of where the World Trade Center towers were still under construction. Over the following five years, I phoned in my first front-page story, took a memorable call from the Weather Underground and finally left The Post for 21 years to toil for daily newspapers in Hartford, Conn., and Hackensack, NJ. I returned in 1995 as a rewrite man (“First cybersex divorce’’ was an early front page), somehow rising to the rank of metro editor within three years. As it turns out, that was all strictly back story for my incredible 17-year run as The Post’s chief film critic, which seemed far from a sure thing at the time. For one thing, it had been a full decade since this “repurposed editor’’ (in the words of one Metacritic commenter) had regularly reviewed movies over a nine-year period for the Bergen Record. “Wow, you really know what you’re doing,’’ said my then-boss, John Podhoretz, after I filed my first review. With that encouragement, I was off and running. Usually you have to be dead or a conservative politician to get a glowing career tribute like the one my longtime colleague and friend Kyle Smith serves up in today’s Post. He includes a very generous selection of my greatest hits, but for those of you wanting to kill a few more hours, here are links to a bunch more of my personal favorites from the past 17 years: • My long history with what became The Post’s Turkey Awards, with links to all 16 installments that I wrote starting in 2000 (2012 — the year Robert De Niro won Top Turkey — is my favorite, if you really must know). • I was a big booster of the Tribeca Film Festival when it launched in 2002, but within five years I was so disappointed that I urged De Niro to resign as the fest’s co-head. Still waiting. • Dispatched by then-editor Col Allan to Beverly Hills, Calif., for summations at Winona Ryder’s 2002 shoplifting trial, I awarded four stars for her “performance’’ in a non-speaking role. • Early on, I wrote some Page Six items. My 2001 squib on my former friend Kevin Smith’s “feud’’ with fellow director Tim Burton over the end of Burton’s remake of “The Planet of the Apes’’ went viral, and I’m still asked about it 15 years later. In 2002, I described Dustin Hoffman’s hilarious effort to persuade a huffy Susan Sarandon to give me an interview at the Toronto International Film Festival. • My withering review of “Terminator 3,’’ which prompted a spam attack that took down The Post’s email server for a couple of hours. • The most blistering pan of my career? That would be the all-star fiasco “Movie 43’’ (2013), the only movie I ever awarded minus four stars, which landed it on The Post’s front page! • I’ve interviewed scores of more famous people, but one of my favorites was over the phone with someone who refused to meet me in person: the Upper West Side’s elusive Sonia Darrin, who sparred with Humphrey Bogart in “The Big Sleep’’ (1946). • You want clickbait about stars? “Bob Hope, sex machine’’ with a handy scorecard of his major lovers has been racking up hundreds of page views pretty much every day for the past couple of years. And my more recent piece on Cary Grant’s days as a gay blade in ’20s Greenwich Village hasn’t done too badly, either. • Also incredibly popular: I revisited a marathon 1981 interview with Richard Castellano, who explained why he didn’t reprise his role of Clemenza in “The Godfather Part II.’’ • The long history of abortive “Casablanca’’ sequels, including a rejected treatment that one of the original writers told me about in 1982. • My reviews of two all-time favorites that still hold up beautifully: “The Royal Tenenbaums’’ and “Far From Heaven.’’ • Memorable road trips to NYC’s last grindhouse in Queens; the upstate village that bills itself as “the real Bedford Falls”; and Mel Gibson’s colorful hometown in Westchester, whose residents were up in arms over a Danny DeVito movie. • The DVD cover blurb derived from my 2000 review of “What Planet Are You From’’ (“Easily the funniest movie of the year!’’) haunts me to this day. Even star Garry Shandling seemed incredulous that I liked it. • While I think every movie released in 3-D over the past seven years (except “Avatar,’’ “Life of Pi’’ and “Max Mad: Thunder Road’’) would be better watched in 2-D, I was a big fan of the stereoscopic conversions of “The Wizard of Oz’’ and “Titanic.” • Digging into Orson Welles’ brief but eccentric career as a New York Post columnist. • Why my critical colleagues finally decided that “Vertigo’’ is a better movie than “Citizen Kane’’ — and why they’re wrong. • Along the way, I got to co-program a series on Turner Classic Movies, serve as a guest programmer for the network and even help them rescue a Bob Hope-Katharine Hepburn comedy from legal limbo. • A lot of people have written to me about my most personal piece, an appreciation of my Aunt Rose Lauria, the woman who kindled my interest in movies. And then there was the time I discussed my mother’s parenting skills with Kim Novak. • One of my most New York-iest pieces ever was a visit inside the Greenwich Village apartment that inspired Alfred Hitchcock’s “Rear Window.” • People (including some of my editors) were astounded when I liked Leonardo DiCaprio’s “The Great Gatsby” a lot more than his “The Wolf of Wall Street.” Yes, I still feel that way. Lou Lumenick (right) visits the set of “Jersey Girl” with director Kevin Smith.David Rentas• Leo’s fans were infuriated by my prediction he wasn’t going to win the Best Actor Oscar that year. But I also correctly predicted he was finally going to triumph for “The Revenant’’ after he started hanging out (at least temporarily) with the pope instead of with supermodels. • Where else could I interview the author of “Putting the Ass in Assets: The Objectification of Gene Kelly (and Other Men) on Social Media’’ or reveal that there is actually only 7 minutes of NYC location footage in “On the Town’’? I also proved there is not one frame from Manhattan’s most famous location shoot in “The Seven Year Itch.’’ • My story about an explicit rape documentary at the first Sundance Film Festival I attended in 2001 made the front page, even if the film itself ended up going straight to DVD. • Years of challenging the New York Film Critics Circle’s hypocritical secrecy policy for their awards voting culminated in this 2013 report that got me suspended from membership for a year. • One scoop I wish hadn’t come true — my 2012 report that the Ziegfeld Theatre was facing closure because of massive losses. Though the owners denied the story at the time, the Ziegfeld finally stopped showing movies this past January, and the location is being turned into a catering hall. You can’t win them all. The line of ticket holders for the 7 p.m. show at the Ziegfeld Theatre stretches down West 54th Street Thursday night.Chad RachmanFinally, I’d like to thank everyone who’s taken the time to read my stuff — The Post’s website lists 7,190 items (including posts from my 2007-2013 blog) — especially those who took the time to comment, email or send a letter. Yes, even those fanboys who got their tights in a twist when I jokingly suggested that “The Dark Knight’’ might be gayer than “Mamma Mia!’’ or that “Captain America’’ was “soft on Hitler.” I may have turned the page on daily newspapers (and, probably, reviewing current movies), but you haven’t read the last from me — I hope to return to blogging at a relaunched lumenick.com early next year. In the meantime, I’ll continue my lifelong love of classic films by introducing “The Best Man’’ (1964) in Asbury Park, NJ, on Nov. 5 and “The Wizard of Oz’’ (1939) on Dec. 11 at the United Palace in Washington Heights. Hope to see you there. Share this:FacebookTwitterGoogleFacebook MessengerWhatsAppEmailCopy ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

John Hanlon1
John Hanlon Reviews



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • “Boyhood” meets “Planet of the Apes” Video Mashup
    Check out this great new video mashup that Nelson Carvajal posted here Boyhood meets Planet of the Apes and the results are quite spectacular…     APEHOOD trailer (Boyhood & Dawn of the Planet of the Apes mashup) from Nelson Carvajal on...
    ...
    (Review Source)

The American Conservative Staff1
The American Conservative



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • What Will The Big Monkey Do?
    MIddle East A world leader speaks of art, humanity, and peace: We can cooperate, we can integrate. As much as we can. How can we do that? I think leaders in the world have a great responsibility in this. Human beings can live together. I remember a movie. Which one? Planet of the Apes. The old version, not the new one. There is new one. Which is different. Not so good. It’s not expressing the reality as it was the first one. But at the end, I still remember, this is the conclusion: When the big monkey, he was head of the supreme court I think — in the movie! — and there was a big scientist working for him,  cleaning things, has been chained there. And it was the planet of the apes after the destructive act of a big war, and atomic bombs and whatever in the movie. And the scientists was asking him to do something, this was 30 years ago: “Don’t forget you are a monkey.” He tells him, “Don’t ask me about this dirty work.”  What did the big ape, the monkey say? He said, “You’re human, you did it [to] yourself.” That’s the conclusion. Can we do something better for ourselves? I saw it 30 years ago. That is the role of the art. This is the very important role of art. Gone with the Wind has been treating social problems. Five in Hell. That was the Arabic title. Five Americans working behind German lines and they were using primitive military devices. I think it was Charles Bronson or something like that. My hard disk still carries a few things! That was Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi, in an interview with Time, published on November 28. Tonight in Cairo, anti-Morsi protesters rushed the presidential palace. You maniacs!  You’re blowing it up! Damn you! Damn you all to hell! I want to have a president who will speak of infrastructure and environmental policy by quoting National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation (NSFW). Is that so wrong? This is why I will vote Jonah Goldberg for president in 2024. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

John Nolte1
Daily Wire / Breitbart



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Countdown: The 165 Greatest American Movies Ever Made (91-115)
    Malcolm X (1992) That’s too much power for one man to have. Writer/director Spike Lee’s masterpiece, and one of the best films of the 90’s, is told in three magnificent, perfectly captured epochs in the life of a man of great historical consequence.  Denzel Washington plays the charismatic title character to perfection as he moves from street hustler, to a leader in the Nation of Islam, to a man who fearlessly embraces truth and conscience, even though he knows it will almost certainly result in a premature death. After more than an hour of witnessing only the title character’s anger, defiance, and resentment, Washington’s performance when he meets Elijah Muhammad for the very first time is a moment of unforgettable power. The picture, the director, and the star, were all robbed on Oscar night. See also: Do the Right Thing, Clockers, Jungle Fever, Summer of Sam.   M*A*S*H (1970) Goddamnit, Hot Lips, resign your goddamn comission! The tagline on the poster reads, “M*A*S*H is what the new freedom of the screen is all about.” That freedom is now long gone, not just on the screen but in our society, and the freedom I am talking about is the freedom to
    ...
    (Review Source)

Counter Currents Staff6
Counter Currents Publishing



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ EDGY 🔥 CONTENT 🔥 WARNING 🔥 (NSFW?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
    (”Planet of the Apes” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]1,237 words

    Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, the second movie in the rebooted Planet of the Apes series, establishes this as a superior franchise inviting comparisons with Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy [2].

    The movie begins exactly where Rise of the Planet of the Apes [3] left off, with a tracker plotting flights around the globe showing the spread of “simian flu.” An accompanying news montage informs us that ten years have passed since the outbreak began and that almost all humans have been wiped out. The apes, who at the end of Rise had crossed the Golden Gate Bridge and founded a new order in the forest, have now established a settled community.

    On the other side of the bridge a group of human survivors, who appear to be immune to the virus, have created a makeshift but well-armed fortress. When a small group of these survivors unwittingly trespasses into the ape territory intending to restart a hydroelectric dam, the stage is set for a fascinating examination of how two neighboring, but utterly distinct communities, might relate to each other.

    One interesting contrast between the two communities (leaving aside the fact that they are different species) is that the apes are a newly founded, tribal community, based on principles of in-group loyalty and highly hierarchical. The humans are the last remaining remnants, on the point of extinction, and desperately seeking a source of electricity without which they cannot survive. Thus the apes are strong and autonomous whilst the humans are desperate and dependent. Both groups, however, are small communities who cannot afford to sustain significant casualties. This means that both humans and apes are depicted in a defensive mode, and the movie explores different responses to the need for self-defense.

    As the action develops, it becomes clear that the majority on both sides are rather belligerent and see attack as the best form of defense. But Caesar, the leader of the apes, develops a relationship of trust with Malcolm, a member of the original human scouting party, and he allows the humans access to the dam. Malcolm similarly advocates for restraint among the humans and it is his influence that convinces Dreyfus, the leader of the human survivors, not to use their considerable weaponry to immediately wipe out all of the apes. This tentative truce is shown to be extremely fragile, and the tension in the movie derives from the inevitable, but unbearable, inevitability of its unfolding.

    Caesar’s rival is Koba, an ape whose experience as a subject of vivisection has given him a lifelong and justified antipathy towards humanity. Koba resents Caesar’s alliance with the humans and challenges his position as alpha male. When his challenge is unsuccessful he resorts to more nefarious means and introduces the apes to the humans’ arsenal of weapons. Apes had previously had an abhorrence of guns and living an isolated existence had not needed to consider how to defend themselves against armed outsiders. The irony is that Koba’s high sense of in-group belonging leads him to adopt the superior technology of the out-group humans; by trying to remain ape he becomes more like a human.

    I read this as a subtle comment on the impossibility of retaining a separated, traditional community in an age of technology. The apes live a self-contained, balanced, and peaceful existence but unfortunately for them their land happens to contain a resource valued highly by invading Americans. There are many, many humans around the world who would look on the apes’ plight with a great deal of empathy.

    In Rise the symbol of the fasces was used to demonstrate the maxim that a single ape is weak but apes together are strong. In Dawn the overt fascist/Roman Imperial imagery has been toned down and distilled into the apes’ central credo: ape not kill ape. This more sanitised message is also in keeping with the apparent moral of the movie, which seems to indicate the truth (platitude) that there are good people in out-groups and bad people in in-groups. But in many ways, this overt moralizing is undercut by the logic of the movie itself.

    For one thing, it is not at all clear that the doves on both sides have actually acted to protect their respective communities in the most effective way. Dreyfus’ original impulse was to wipe out all of the apes using the humans’ extensive weaponry. He makes a speech to the survivors, whipping up their antipathy to the apes and appealing to the shared suffering the community has undergone over the preceding years; classic appeals to in-group loyalty. It is Malcolm’s influence that persuades Dreyfus to allow a more peaceful approach. By the end of the movie it’s clear that this approach has led to many human deaths, however inadvertently. Malcolm’s and Caesar’s humanitarian diplomacy might be foregrounded as the most reasonable position to take in the movie, being a more rational and intelligent response to a new threat, but the movie does not pretend that it brings about a peaceful solution. The movie ends with a larger war between ape and human imminent, and Malcolm and Caesar both have to retreat back to their own sides.

    Because the movie is so concerned with issues around in-group loyalty it is tempting to read it in a racial context, and I’m sure that some will do so. For me this is not the most interesting way to think about it because the apes and humans mirror each other in so many ways, even to the extent that they can both be seen as multicultural, the humans in an obvious sense and the apes due to the different simian sub-species who have banded together.

    For me the most interesting way to read the conflict between man and ape was to see one group as a dying, late civilization, utterly dependent on technology, and the other as a newly emerging culture, reliant on physical strength and hierarchy. Both sides have particular vulnerabilities but there is no doubt which side history favors.

    In its depiction of a technologically dependent humanity, decimated by a lethal virus, and struggling to adapt to harsher conditions, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes seems to have taken inspiration from the 1970s British TV series, Survivors. Survivors (which really demands an essay of its own) showed in relentless detail just how much we take the functioning of the modern state and economy for granted. Much of the series showed people coming to terms with how inept they were when there were no shops full of food and other goods. None of us is well equipped to begin from scratch, and Survivors gave an unflattering portrait of our dependency on state and commercial functions. It also managed to question whether its characters’ need to re-establish communities and get society functioning again was actually a desirable goal, or whether, in contrast, the collapse of society was a liberation. Dawn echoes Survivors in many ways, even to the extent that the last series of Survivors ended with a hydroelectric dam being brought back into use.

    Dawn of the Planet of the Apes has taken the Christopher Nolan approach to blockbuster film making by embedding ambiguity and complexity into its otherwise very entertaining narrative. As the sickly, dying race of humans gives way to the new order of virile ape warriors I look forward to the next installment where, perhaps, the apes will discover their numen.

     

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Rise of the Planet of the Apes: Take Three
    (”Planet of the Apes” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]1,157 words

    Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a triumph of intelligent film making. The plot is interesting and well executed, the direction is fast paced and engaging without being too heavy handed, and the apes are brought to life with astonishing realism. In fact, the brilliance of the apes’ characterization, largely due to the presence of the “performance capture” actor Andy Serkis, is so compelling that the best parts of the film center on the apes’ captivity and the way in which they interact with each other.

    These scenes are reminiscent of the opening sequence of Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. In both films, language is unavailable to the simians so the story has to be told through mimesis rather than exposition, a distinction to which few directors nowadays pay sufficient attention. The obvious criticism of the film is that the human characters are rather shallow and one dimensional in comparison with the apes.

    But perhaps the most remarkable thing about this film is that it deals explicitly, and favorably, with ideas of imperialism and fascism. The ape who leads the simian revolt is named after Julius Caesar by the father of the scientist who rescues him. The circumstances of Caesar’s birth provide a few subtle references to this identification.

    There are contradictory stories about the reasons for the naming of the Roman Caesar family. One is to do with birth by Caesarian section, which at the time was occasioned by the death of the mother in childbirth. In the film, Caesar’s mother dies shortly after giving birth, although there is no suggestion of a Caesarian section.

    Another reason given for the naming of the Caesars is that it is from oculis caesiis, which refers to the bright grey eyes of an ancestor. In the film, Caesar’s mother is named Bright Eyes. Admittedly, this is also a reference to the first Planet of the Apes film where Charlton Heston’s character is called Bright Eyes, but as the film progresses the symbolism becomes less oblique.

    As mentioned before, the best parts of the film feature the apes in captivity where their social communication is shown through physical interaction. In this section, Caesar is “imprisoned” in an ape sanctuary against his, and his owner’s, will. He quickly learns which apes are the alpha males through their aggressive behavior. One of the apes is so large and aggressive that he is kept behind bars and is not allowed to interact with the other apes at all.

    Whilst captive, Caesar learns how to unlock the cages that the apes are kept in. He cleverly demonstrates to the alpha males that he has this power of giving freedom. This higher intelligence, combined with an unashamed use of violence, causes the other alpha males to submit to Caesar as the new leader.

    The fact that we are witnessing apes behaving in this way allows the film makers to depict the reality of power relationships without tagging on the usual liberal caveats that would litter any other film about such a subject. Even the most brutal gangster film will show the pressures, or other problems, of the wives or girlfriends. In Apes, the females are not “actors,” as such, in the narrative at all. The only female ape who has a role to play is Caesar’s mother, and her role in the story is to give birth. In this sense the film can be read as exemplifying Nietzsche’s maxim, “A man should be brought up for war, and a woman for the recuperation of the warrior: all else is folly.”[1]

    Due to the brilliant physicality of Serkis and the other ape actors, all of this feels perfectly natural. The central conceit, or sleight of hand, of the director is the use of apes to tell harsh truths about humans. The audience is willing to watch the depiction of the power play amongst the apes with a certain sense of remove. If these were human characters then clearly the film would be misogynist, shallow, etc.

    [2]

    Graphic by Harold Arthur McNeill

    Whilst incarcerated, Caesar makes friends with an orangutan who learned sign language when he was kept in a circus. Caesar explains his game plan, his political ideology if you like, to his new friend. Taking a stick Caesar snaps it in half and explains that a single ape is weak. Taking a bundle of sticks he shows how hard it is to snap and he explains that apes together are strong. This, of course, is the symbol of the fasces, and it is the defining symbol of the apes’ revolt. The apes who have submitted to Caesar follow him with a fierce loyalty and willingly kill and die for him, and for their new cause. This cause is not simply freedom, still less democracy or other such daft platitudes, but “home.”

    In his younger days Caesar was taken to a national park where he climbed the redwood trees with exhilaration. When the apes escape they do not embark on a wild rampage but instead head for this forest to start a new society. The exciting climax to the film involves a battle between the apes and the police on the Golden Gate Bridge which the apes must cross to reach their destination. Happily, the apes win, and Caesar crosses the Rubicon to found his New Imperium.

    Throughout the film we overhear snippets of news programs concerning the first manned mission to Mars, whose fate occasioned the scenario for the original Planet of the Apes film. In a nod to the sort of overreaching arrogance that the film finds in humanity the space ship is named Icarus. But it is not only for such unnatural hubris that man is condemned. The drug that grants intelligence to the apes was developed to cure Alzheimer’s disease, and senility is really the keynote for humanity as depicted here. We are a species which has reached its natural conclusion, the film seems to tell us.

    It is emphasized that the Alzheimer’s cure is pursued by the drug company purely because of its commercial value. Unfortunately, it has a fatal side effect that causes death in weak, senile, man, but not in the hardier apes. As the apes start their incipient warrior society we see, in a wonderful coda, an infected commercial airplane pilot heading across the globe spreading his fatal germs to all of humanity.

    This ending is shown by following the flight path on a digital display. As each flight ends, several more depart in a web of green LCD encircling the globe. Despite our arrogant command of technology we are still subject to nature. For me, the total annihilation of a weak and hubristic humanity to make way for a new, healthy, warrior species made Rise of the Planet of the Apes the ultimate feel-good movie.

    Note

    1. Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, translated by Graham Parks (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 57

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • More on Rise of the Planet of the Apes
    (”Planet of the Apes” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]773 words

    One of the strongest aspects of Rise of the Planet of the Apes is the fact that once the apes receive intelligence, it is expressed in a much different way than we Americans usually conceive of it. In the original movies, we find the apes wearing bifocals and eloquently pontificating with stuffy English accents on the finer points of science and philosophy over tea. This is the average American’s idea of intelligence — civilized Englishmen who hold rational thought as the highest good. The original movies sought to illustrate that apes could make better Englishmen than real Englishmen.

    However, in the latest movie, when “Caesar” is magically endowed with “intelligence,” he does not don a pair of spectacles and quote Chaucer. He immediately perceives that he is not like the people around him and that society is hostile to him. Of course he could have “worked within the system” to improve his own personal situation (he gets several opportunities to “go home,” and he learns early on how to escape from his cell), but he realizes that there is no real or lasting security living among potentially hostile aliens.

    Although his own kind seem to have little to offer him, he selflessly works to free them. For Caesar, it’s not about what his people can offer him, but rather Caesar’s realization that he can’t survive in any real sense without being among his own kind. When Caesar declares that he is “at home” in the end, he isn’t referring to any geographic location, but rather the fact that his distinct group is no longer forcefully integrated with the outside world.

    Intelligence for Caesar is expressed through the classical virtues of courage, honor, pride, dignity, strength, and strategic silence. It is noteworthy that racial solidarity is considered a self-evident virtue in this film. After Caesar becomes aware of his people’s situation, their salvation becomes a categorical imperative. His intelligence could no longer be satisfied by receiving his master’s praise or sitting around solving crossword puzzles because he obviously valued honesty and knew that a return to his former life would require intellectual dishonesty. I must say I was relieved that the filmmakers didn’t screw it all up in the end by allowing Caesar to extend a helping hand to his enemy to “save a precious life.”

    I didn’t think the movie was directed particularly well, but the plot was nicely paced. I was also glad to see them “keep it real” with Caesar’s character when they had ample opportunities to provide a politically-correct moral to the story. I use finger quotes for “keeping it real” because this is low-class talk for behaving like an animal. But acting without inhibition can be a good thing when that action is tempered by discipline and guided by honor. However, in America, only certain minority groups are permitted to act in the manner of Caesar while the majority are under a different set of laws and penalties prohibiting this type of behavior (Hate Crime Laws).

    Incidentally, Caesar’s healthier way of thinking allows him to evolve into a more enlightened character. Ultimately he begins to speak as a wise man, teaching in parables that apes are only weak alone, but strong when they band together.

    I for one hate CGI and love the campy feel of the original series. I get distracted and annoyed when the camera starts calling attention to itself by twisting and spinning and following fake apes up fake trees into the fake sunset. I don’t understand the argument that CGI apes look more realistic than men wearing costumes. I can reach out and touch a man wearing a costume, and that makes him more real to me than any cartoon. Overall the film was not an improvement on the 1968 sci-fi classic. But its message was healthier, and it was more entertaining than Tim Burton’s 2001 remake.

    One final thought. The Planet of the Apes franchise always tried to eliminate any black and white interpretations of race by providing several categories of “apes”: chimps, orangutans, gorillas, etc. This leads the less thoughtful viewer to think that the “apes” don’t represent a single unified group, thus they cannot be categorized as racist. However this intentional confusion is nullified by the commandment that is unequivocally established from the outset of the very first movie: Ape shall never kill Ape.

    In Rise of Planet of the Apes, I believe there is a healthy, traditional racial subtext (which makes it racist by today’s standards), so to confuse matters, the movie makers slathered on an “animal-rights” message. Perhaps this focus was necessary so the audience felt permitted to root for the racists.

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • The Hollow Empire Why Argo Won Best Picture
    (”Planet of the Apes” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    argo-poster-header3

    [1]3,030 words

    Zero Dark Thirty [2]is not propaganda. Argo is. Zero Dark Thirty lost the Oscar for Best Picture. Argo won.

    Argo is not one of the flag waving, guns and glory cinematic tributes to God and Country of yesteryear. As the American Imperium grows more distant from the real American nation that gave it shape, its justifications have become more sophisticated. Argo is propaganda for America 2.0 [3], Obama’s America, the Empire that will fulfill the founding destiny of the United States by eradicating all authentic nations and traditions from around the world, even if this means destroying itself. 

    While Zero Dark Thirty began with the deliberate provocation of audio footage from 9/11, Argo gives us a comic book. As Howard Zinn and his People’s History of the United States (and probably the comic book version [4]) is now required reading in government schools [5], it’s not surprising that the graphic novel style intro checks off the required boxes of apologies for imperialism, Orientalism, and racism. The ancient land of Persia is simultaneously hailed for its ancient culture but condemned for its history of oppression under brutal monarchies. The evil CIA, all white men in suits and ties, overthrow the heroic Mohammed Mosaddegh and install the Shah, who is evil because he wears opulent clothes and has a secret police. His wife even “bathes in milk”! Therefore, when the Shah tries to “Westernize” the country, the masses rise up in righteous rebellion.

    The entire Iranian hostage crisis occurs because the United States allowed the dying Shah to receive treatment for cancer in America, and, in the world of Argo, many of the characters are sick about it. As officials run around in the midst of a crisis, actors quickly utter lines like “What did you expect? We helped a guy torture and deball an entire population.” While some government officials grouse that the “Russians wouldn’t put up with this. They’d fucking invade!” and news reports show outraged Americans, Argo marginalizes these reactions. A relatively lengthy news report shows Americans striking an Iranian in front of an embassy. The point is clear – we are just like them. The masses are dumb, xenophobic lunatics who need to be managed carefully.

    However, this is all front-loaded in the film, a de rigueur nod to political correctness that allows the remainder of the movie to focus on the fanaticism of the Iranian revolutionaries. It dodges many of the questions raised by other film treatments of terrorism. Zero Dark Thirty admirably confronted the desire for violent revenge and the complicated issues that arise in pursuit of “justice.” Some would suggest that it even hinted at a kinship between Maya and the jihadists, both driven by some inner fanaticism rather than careerism or money.

    Argo simplifies it for us. The Americans in the film are victims, passive unfortunates in a world gone mad, paying the price for the sins of their wicked ancestors. The Marines are ordered not to fire to avoid starting a war, an embassy employee who goes outside to “reason” with the crowd ends up with a gun to his head being forced to let the mob in. Later, Marines are subjected to fake executions; after the empty “click” one of them falls to his knees and sobs. This is what Americans want to pretend to be – innocents abroad, not prideful centurions coolly administering their Empire.

    Six Americans manage to escape the fall of the embassy and are staying with the Canadian ambassador. The Iranians don’t know – if they find out, the Americans will most likely be executed. Ben Affleck plays Tony Mendez, an “exfil” expert. As expected, we can check off the boxes of “drinking problem,” “lost family,” and “brusque demeanor” as Mendez tells shocked officials that “Exfils are like abortions. You don’t wanna need one, but when you do, you don’t do it yourself.” Such bluntness seems appropriate seeing as how the State Department’s initial plan is to send them bicycles and road maps. Mendez’s mission is to figure out a better way to smuggle them out of the country.

    As a good modern father, Mendez isn’t allowed to see his own son, but he can watch television with him (in separate locations, talking on the phone). While watching Planet of the Apes, Mendez creates his scheme of posing as a Canadian film crew looking to film a science fiction movie in a desert location. His “contact” in Hollywood is Academy Award winning prosthetic maker John Chambers [6] (John Goodman), who recruits (fictional) producer Lester Siegel. Together, the three create a media campaign, production studio, and promotional materials for a science fiction movie called Argo that will never actually be produced.

    The plan allows Affleck to make some loving jokes at the industry’s expense. Chambers cracks about Mendez acting like a big shot in Hollywood without doing anything – “you’ll fit right in.” In response to Aflleck’s disquiet with teaching a diplomat to act like a director after a day, Chambers shrugs, “You can teach a rhesus monkey to be a director in a day.” Mendez explains his plan to the incredulous CIA director by saying, “We think everyone knows Hollywood people. And everybody thinks they would shoot during Stalingrad with Pol Pot directing if it would sell tickets.”

    Besides the admission that the CIA works with Hollywood, we also see the now casual acknowledgment by Hollywood that Jews own everything. One telling scene about how they operate involves Siegel negotiating with one “Max Klein” to buy the rights to Argo. With many obscenities and insults, one Jew tells the other that his career is over and that more powerful figures are offering him huge amounts of money for the script. Jew #2 calls him a liar, recounts a (fictional) conversation with Warren Beatty, and offers less money than his initial offer. Once he has the script, he can pretend to make a film. The Empire of their Own [7] is an empire of lies, posturing, and corruption.

    Fortunately, it all serves Mendez’s purpose. Armed with a script, production, and backing from Washington, Mendez leaves for Iran. Before entering the country, he stops in Istanbul to meet with a contact and make final preparations. The meeting takes place at the Hagia Sophia, as the two spies gaze at a picture of Christ in the converted cathedral and commiserate about their job saving the remnants of “our friend’s fallen dictatorship.” Like some Byzantine captain centuries before, they are officers doing the best they can to prop up a crumbling empire.

    Mendez is able to fly into Iran with a fake passport and discuss his film with the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. The Iranian official sneers at the Westerner’s Orientalism, accusing him of looking for “snake charmers and flying carpets.” Revolutionary Iran is a combination of the worst global junk culture and Islamic fanaticism, as bodies hang from cranes on the streets while peddlers sell trinkets and women covered in robes munch on Kentucky Fried Chicken. Troops with rifles patrol the crowded streets. Mendez is able to negotiate all this and get to the Canadian embassy, where he meets the “houseguests” and presents them with the outlandish plan.

    Unfortunately for them, the Iranian government calls Mendez’s bluff and invites the entire team to tour the “bazaar” the next day, accompanied by a government official. The terrified Americans have to pretend to be a film crew while surrounded by people who want to kill them. Even driving a van to the meeting site is fraught with danger, as mobs screaming revolutionary slogans block the path of their vehicle and angrily beat the van as Mendez delicately weaves it through. When they arrive, government spies take pictures of the foreigners and a confrontation erupts between one of the Americans and a shopkeeper. The shopkeeper accuses the “Canadian filmmakers” of being Americans involved with the CIA and an angry crowd gathers. Of course, the irony is he’s absolutely right. The Americans are able to make it back to the embassy, deception intact, but are terrified.

    At the same time, the Iranian housekeeper at the Canadian embassy has guessed who the ambassador’s “guests” really are. She is approached by members of the Revolutionary Guard who quote both the Koran . . . and Mossadegh. She lies to them, telling everyone in the embassy is a “friend of Iran.” (What happens to her later is left unanswered.) The soldiers leave, but the Iranian government is watching, and now they have pictures. Meanwhile, the government has children reassembling the shredded documents captured from the embassy, including pictures of the six “missing” employees. As a final blow, Washington DC suddenly decides to cancel the operation, pinning everything on a military rescue operation to take place later. This means that the Hollywood “production” office is called and told to shut down, meaning that there will be no one there if Iranians call to verify the film is real.

    Thus (with very little of all this based on the true story), Affleck is able to create a genuinely terrifying final day for the houseguests. Mendez unilaterally decides he is going through with the rescue, presenting his boss Jack O’Donnell (Bryan Cranston of Breaking Bad [8]fame) with a fait accompli. O’Donnell comes through to get Mendez’s tickets approved, intimidating underlings, threatening colleagues, and even faking an emergency phone call from the school attended by the children of the White House Chief of Staff. The Revolutionary Guard puts it all together, but are just one step behind Mendez and the houseguests. At the critical moment at the airport when security pulls them aside for future questioning, one of the more hesitant houseguests enthusiastically describes the film in Farsi to skeptical (but enthralled) soldiers. A phone call to the LA office is answered (just in the nick of time) by Chambers, convincing the Iranians the film is real. The plane takes off with gun-toting Revolutionary Guard soldiers just behind them, and there is rejoicing and celebration when alcohol is served in the air, signifying that the Americans have finally escaped Iran.

    It’s one cinematic cliché piled upon another, it’s wildly historically inaccurate, and it doesn’t make any sense. (Why wouldn’t the Iranians send fighters to force back the plane? Why wouldn’t the pilot notice that there’s a column of soldiers right next to him pointing guns?) Despite it all – it works. Even though I know how the story ended, I couldn’t help but be on the edge of my seat and admit that whatever one says about Ben Affleck, he knows his craft. This is a simple but suspenseful story, competently done, entertaining to watch. The hostages return home to wild celebration. Mendez gets the Intelligence Medal (as does Chambers) and he even gets his wife and son back.

    Nonetheless, as the credits make clear – there is a political motive. Stills from the film are put side by side with news photos from the time, and the actors are portrayed next to pictures of their real life doppelgangers. Despite the fantasy, the film has pretensions to realism. Also, former President Jimmy Carter pays tribute to the mission, explaining how in the end, the hostages were all brought home without violence, and the “integrity of our country” was protected. The efforts of the Canadians to help the American houseguests is still a “model for international cooperation among governments.” There’s a happy ending for peace, cooperation, and global unity.

    Unfortunately, Argo gets a lot of the big picture wrong here. Argo has already received criticism for changing many of the crucial details of the movie for dramatic purposes. However, what is truly shocking is the way Argo changes the core realities of what the United States and Canada were doing in response to the hostage crisis. The claim that all the hostages were brought home “without violence” is absurd when one remembers that President Carter authorized the disastrous Operation Eagle Claw [9], a humiliating failure that killed eight Americans. If it had succeeded, surely many Iranians would have died. Ambassador Ken Taylor is a courageous man and a friend to the United States, but he was not shielding Americans out of humanitarianism. He was in fact spying for U.S. Intelligence the entire hostage crisis, including [10] scouting out military locations for Operation Eagle Claw. It should be noted that it was precisely the charge of serving as “spies” that the Iranians used to justifying holding the embassy team. If anything, they were too restrained – the Canadians were spying too.

    What Argo gives us is a friendly face of American Imperium. Americans may have done some things we are not proud of in the Bad Old Days, but relax, that was decades ago! Our military is a humanitarian force and our government means well – it’s just that sometimes we make mistakes. Those mistakes either occur beyond our vision or through a video screen, the death and suffering far removed. Americans are still the forces of enlightenment surrounded by foreign mobs tied down by ancient prejudices like religion, national pride, or the need to avenge the deaths of loved ones. The outraged sense of Iranian honor isn’t something we should take too seriously, any more than we take our own honor too seriously. It’s simply a problem to be managed.

    The problem is that exercising power abroad requires bloodshed, death, and suffering. Contra kosher conservatives, America is (and has always been) a center-Left country that would prefer to live with illusions than face hard truths. One of those treasured myths is the idea that Realpolitik is simply something that other peoples do. Even before the end of “isolationism,” the United States has always been an incredibly warlike country that built its North American empire on military victory and territorial expansion. However, rather than offer a defense or even an acknowledgment of America’s “victory culture,” we cling to the old idea that Americans are simply misunderstood. In the minds of our political class, though we make mistakes and are plagued by our own racism, sexism, and all the rest, America was founded on egalitarianism and we continue to strive forward [11]. In the end, that will redeem us. It’s this kind of thinking that allows “community organizer” Barack Obama to administer the most far flung military empire the world has ever seen without progressives being too upset about it.

    It’s worth noting that a more instinctual sense of patriotism, built upon a visceral sense of identity and honor, is spat upon in the film, seen as a mirror image of Iranian fanaticism. Instead, decline is seen as a natural thing. Siegel remarks in disgust while watching the news, “John Wayne’s in the ground six months and this is what’s left of America.” Ultimately, this sense of malaise and yearning for national renewal led to the election of Ronald Reagan, who gave the United States an Indian Summer of American patriotism (but whose most lasting historical achievement will probably be the 1986 immigration amnesty). Reagan goes unmentioned in the film, and the Carter Administration is, if not glorified, presented as unjustly suffering for the imperialist sins of America’s past. Argo is one small step towards trying to rehabilitate the foreign policy reputation of a President The Simpsons famously [12]lampooned [13] as “history’s greatest monster.”

    The main criticism of the film in the media is that it is not progressive enough. Tony Mendez is part Latino, meaning that Ben Affleck exploited his white privilege [14] rather than casting a Hispanic. For what it’s worth, Tony Mendez himself [15] doesn’t speak Spanish, doesn’t consider himself Hispanic, and saw no problem with the casting, but who cares what he thinks? Color blind casting (remember black Heimdall in Thor?) only goes one way. Kevin Lee over at Slate has accused [16] the film of racism because the Iranians should be the heroes. And walking cliché Max Read over at the tiresome site Gawker took a break from sobbing over the St. Skittles of Civil Rights Trayvon Martin [17] to slam [18] Michelle Obama for awarding the Best Picture award to “CIA Propaganda.” Presumably it would have been better for Michelle Obama to give it to Django Unchained [19].

    Of course, the movie is CIA propaganda, but of a very specific type. The anti-imperialist Left (what remains of it in the age of Obama) never quite understands that the ruling powers of the United States generally support their values. It is a dispute over means and not ends, and ultimately the existence of “antifa” are dependent on a System designed to support Goldman Sachs [20]. The Establishment vision of American foreign policy is defined by aggressively using the hard fist of American power to support post-American ends of global democracy, international finance, and state enforced liberalism. Both old fashioned American nationalists and reflexive anti-Americans miss the point.

    Argo is important because whatever its inaccuracies, it is telling us what the System wants us to think about American foreign policy. Even as a superpower, America remains exceptionally innocent. The reality that Empire means killing is safely hidden away, as Last Men don’t like to think about anything to kill or die for. There are still enough conservative useful idiots who will die for the honor of a long dead Republic, but we don’t want to show those people as heroes or their values as positive.

    Instead, Argo is about guilt-plagued Americans using roguish (but nonviolent) derring-do to save other regular Americans for humanitarian reasons. The enemies are Muslims who have unfortunately responded to their oppression through the false consciousness of traditional religion. This is the kind of patriotism Hollywood can get beyond, and it’s no wonder – in this film, Hollywood itself is the hero. This is the kind of cultural propaganda that can support an interventionist foreign policy of drones, bombs, and universally applicable values. Best of all, this is the kind of foreign policy that can avoid having to call upon shared sacrifices in the name of national identity, history, or (worst of all) kinship.

    Argo is entertaining, it’s exciting, it’s worth renting from the Redbox, and it won Best Picture. But like all products of the Establishment, no one will remember it in a year. It’s hard for something to stand out when you see it every day.

     

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Hunter / Prey: Pro-White Sci-Fi
    (”Planet of the Apes” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    [1]1,450 words

    Hunter / Prey
    Written & directed by Sandy Collora
    Starring Isaac C. Singleton, Jr. & Damion Poitier
    (2010)

    “I sold my comics to make this movie!” — Sandy Collora

    Hunter / Prey is an independent sci-fi movie from 2010 by producer Sandy Collora. Although Collora is potentially part of the tribe, Hunter / Prey is such a departure from popular sci-fi in the current year that it’s an interesting examination of how the genre can be revived and redirected. With a constraining budget of under half a million dollars, Hunter / Prey is a tightly-scripted, action-focused film that makes the most out of what can be achieved with that small sum — actors running around in costumes in the middle of the desert, with a computer graphics starship to set the thing in motion.

    [2]

    The ship, carrying a dangerous prisoner, is forced to make a crash-landing onto a desert planet that experiences scorching 33-hour days. During the crash, the masked captive makes his escape. The soldiers who pursue him are all dressed in what looks like Power Ranger armor if it had been designed by King Leonidas. Unlike real Spartans, however, these mercenaries are barely competent and argumentative, and so are easily picked off one by one. Nonetheless, they have the edge of possessing superior armor and weaponry, and thus begins a deadly cat-and-mouse game of misdirection and deceit. A rescue ship has been summoned, and the countdown to its arrival keeps the tension high.

    [3]

    With the believability provided by professional actors, costumes produced out of a labor of love, and a plot mercifully free of any politically correct tropes or moralizing, Hunter / Prey is an immersive film that is outright superior to much mainstream cinema. It demonstrates that more really can be less when the audience focus isn’t spread like Marmite over multiple protagonists (for example, Infinity War and The Last Jedi both suffered from an overload of potential leads). Hunter / Prey has eight walking characters plus one disembodied computer voice, and no more than four are present at any one time. As the movie progresses, this is whittled down to two: the handsome and muscular Aryan, Clark Bartram (an American fitness guru and author), and the alien African-American Damon Poitier wearing Blue Man Group face-paint. Poitier stars alongside another alien played by an African-American, Isaac C. Singleton, Jr., so the ethnic breakdown of the cast intentionally matches the fictional species. Besides this, Collora himself stars as one of his own monsters, a bounty hunter with orc ears and plenty of teeth. Between the well-crafted and memorable outfits and clearly inhospitable setting of Mexico, Hunter / Prey creates a racially-charged tale of survival and revenge through its cast and direction alone.

    With such paltry resources to work with, and absent big sets and swathes of extras to establish that this distant planet really is another planet, Hunter / Prey has to rely on expository dialogue to build up the universe and bring further meaning to the violence the actors mete out to each other. Without this, Hunter / Prey would lapse into being a costumed tussle-up. In order to make itself work and to make the actors representative of larger, believable factions in conflict, Hunter / Prey falls back on cinematic tropes that have since been abolished by multicultural cant: the heroic white man enduring and overcoming savagery, and something even more taboo, irreconcilable ethnic conflict. Racial animosity and the threat of might-makes-right genocide is at the heart of this film.

    Collora and his writers take pains to demonstrate the essential difference between the human prisoner and his pursuers: The prisoner mask Bartram is forced to wear has some kind of inhibiting or feeding tube that goes down his throat, and the aliens drink the blood of the resident rodents by impaling them with a tube that feeds into their helmets. Engrossing body horror elements like this and others make the characters of Hunter / Prey believable as individuals acting out part of a galactic conflict.

    We learn early on that the prisoner is “the last of its kind” and that Earth has been snuffed out for the war-crime of harboring refugees of another race. Lieutenant Oran Jericho, bearded and with piercing grey-blue eyes, is on a vengeance mission to return the genocidal favor. When the treasonous Centauri-7 recaptures him, there’s a dialogue of constant taunts and bluffs as “human” (white) and alien try to assert the moral high ground. The audience is explicitly told that Centauri’s race of Sydonians enslaves or destroys all others races it encounters — “if they don’t accept our way of life, then yes!” There is clearly no room for compromise and no separate peace is possible — unlike the cosmopolitan Cantina of Star WarsHunter / Prey offers a species that is not only savage and stupid, but believes itself completely entitled to wipe out entire worlds that don’t assimilate to Dhimmitude. “It is our way!” yells the indignant alien.

    [4]

    All of this may seem a bit much for the safely neutered soyboys of contemporary geekdom. In order to make it palatable to the Hollywood Left and keep himself employed, Collora has the Amazon Alexa that the soldier Centauri-7 carries sound suspiciously like a coy white woman;  it is too humanized to be properly believable, but this is the future, so I guess an artificial intelligence can have an interracial crush now. They had to cram this crap in somewhere, so Damon Poitier ridiculously schemes with her to off his commanding officer, and calls her “Baby” on more than one occasion. However, in a pleasingly sexist kind of way, she is still just an object (a talking box featuring some lights and a computer chip, actually) and so can easily be repossessed by the white man by the end of the film.

    The end of Hunter / Prey leaves a lot to be desired. Having laid its metapolitical cards on the table as a biologically determinist, racial annihilation tale, Collora and crew clearly could not resolve it. Centauri-7 and Oran part ways, presupposed by the film as moral equivalents, even though this idea has already been completely torpedoed by earlier scenes. Centauri-7 is a weak-minded and impulsive simpleton — he flipflops between being a racial loyalist when it comes to blowing up other peoples, and a racial traitor when his resentment towards his superiors gets the better of him. Unlike the original Planet of the Apes, where the “aliens” were explicitly less intellectually-gifted members of the animal kingdom, Hunter / Prey and all other contemporary sci-fi can only go to the point of showing rather than telling the audience about racial differences. Nonetheless, as Sylax the bounty hunter comments, “Nobody likes Sydonians.”

    Despite its loose ends and at times threadbare content, Hunter / Prey is brisk and entertaining. The previous year, 2009, had seen two major films of the multiculturalized box-office sci-fi genre: District 9 and Avatar, both of which were laden with implausible anti-white tropes. Hunter / Prey is a refreshing contrast in its moral seriousness. As a piece of filmmaking, it’s an outstanding accomplishment that makes use of physical props and attempts to achieve captivating results. Collora comments that “there’s something that’s been lost from the brilliant films of the late ’60s and ’70s in contemporary sci-fi and fantasy, and I want to try and bring that back.” For Star Wars fans looking for fare more like the original Star Wars, this is it. Thematically, it returns sci-fi to where it belongs as a genre: produced by, for, and about white men overcoming the dangers of a threatening universe.

    [5]

    It’s a useful reminder that independent filmmaking need not be constrained by either modern speech rules nor fashions, and that even with a modest sum, creative ambition and determination can produce a work to which the culture at large will respond. Clark Bartram’s Batman, in Collora’s previous eight-minute short, Batman: Dead End, brought a new and believable vision of both the Bat and the Joker to Comic-Con (with Batman donning incredibly fascistic leather gloves to beat up a babbling, narcissistic Joker) which translated in a masterfully comic way to the Bigger (auditorium) Screen, and raised the awareness and hype needed to make Hunter / Prey possible as a movie.

    Hunter / Prey itself, whilst not well-known, definitely pulls the zeitgeist away from superhero flummery and towards a harder and more sincere science fiction of the last man standing — more in keeping with the loving fascist pastiche of Starship Troopers than the present day Kosher-Bosher slop served up to “geekdom” audiences. The excellent “Making Of” feature included with it documents the admirable lengths to which the filmmakers went in order to fulfill Sandy’s creative vision. Hunter / Prey shows what can be achieved with ingenuity and dedication, and there is little more inspiring than intrepid heroism and success against the odds.

    ...
    (Review Source)

Mark Steyn1
Fox News



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • War for the Planet of the Apes
    (”Planet of the Apes” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Pierre Boule was working on a rubber plantation in Malaysia when the Japanese invaded and carted him off to a POW camp. He escaped, and spent the rest of the war as an intelligence agent for the British and French. Back in Paris in the late Forties, he
    ...
    (Review Source)

VJ Morton1
Right Wing Film Geek



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)
  • Charlton Heston can’t RIP
    (”Planet of the Apes” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    Charlton Heston can’t RIP

    Here is the Washington Times obituary, a second-day piece for Monday’s paper. Heston died so late Saturday night, that all the late-night crew could get before the last print run was a four-paragraph brief noting the bare facts. (I insisted Sunday that if the Washington Times ever needed a staff-byline on an actor’s obituary, it would be for Charlton Heston, and I’d have written it myself if I’d had to.)

    Heston was a political figure and by design, we had a lot of that material up high. But there also was a Newsbusters account, the basis for the following paragraphs:

    Such devotion offended liberal firebrands, however. Filmmaker Michael Moore sprung what many considered an unfair on-camera interview on Mr. Heston at the actors home in the 2002 film “Bowling for Columbine.” Mr. Heston was starting to display neurological symptoms at the time.
    Yesterday, some progressive bloggers offered less than flattering comments about Mr. Heston’s passing.
    Warner Todd Huston, who monitors liberal media for the conservative watchdog Newsbusters, yesterday drew attention to the Daily Kos, citing dozens of contributors who called Mr. Heston a “gun nut” — that’s one of the printable epithets — shortly after his death was made public.
    “Too often people confuse the politics with the man and the passion for the issues overwhelms civil behavior,” Mr. Huston said.

    But what made the awful crap worse, as Stacy points out, is that so many liberals felt a need to say, on this day of all days, that Heston was a bad actor (though I don’t believe Fire Dog Lake or the Yglesias commenters are doing anything but rationalizing their political judgments; you want to retch at stuff like this). Acting tastes differ and acting fashions change (more on that in a moment), but how narrow must a man’s moral sight be to waste neurons, silicon space, and perfectly good 1s and 0s ranting about what a bad actor a man (supposedly) is on the day of his death. Though political figures by definition have mixed legacies, and noting this in a respectful fashion is quite fair even in an obit, I devoutly believe in “de mortuis nil nisi bonum,”¹ particularly about artists, and doubt the moral sanity and basic decency of those who do not — one reason I doubt that moral sanity and basic decency are widespread among liberals. (In the interests of equal time, here’s a piece from a Huffington Post writer that isn’t the usual bile, though the commenters note that it’s the exception even on that site.)

    When I found out late Saturday night that Heston had died, the movie I decided to watch was MAJOR DUNDEE, the extended version of which is I think was the only Heston movie I have but never seen. It’s an intermittently brilliant if ultimately unsatisfactory Sam Peckinpah film. A story with some resemblance to THE SEARCHERS, Heston plays a bottom-of-the-rung Union cavalry commander in New Mexico near the end of the Civil War who goes hunting Apaches to avenge a slaughter at another fort and saved some kidnapped children — and let’s say he cuts some corners from the very beginning. The film looks gorgeous (Peckinpah could make dust and grime sing better than anybody not named Sergio Leone), the action set pieces, particularly the French lancers, has Peckinpah’s staging and framing, and Heston has one of his better characters and a very strong co-star in Richard Harris as a Confederate prisoner and former West Point colleague (the relationship and push-pull of male honor between the two is the dominant theme). But it’s very hard to react to what it is because even the extended version is so plainly the victim of studio butchery — the obviously expository voice-over is as off-toned and ill-fitting as anything in Bresson or Ed Wood, e.g., and supporting characters drop in and drop out without rhyme or reason — that you’re thinking more about what MAJOR DUNDEE could have been than what it is. Heston tried to save it from cost overruns and Columbia’s midstream budget-squeezing by deferring his salary, an unheard of mid-shoot gesture at the time and an indication of how much he believed in this project.

    But as to Heston as an actor … in his terrific appreciation of Heston for the American Spectator, Stacy makes a very sensible point about any actor who was such a enormous star as Heston … that it can’t be just looks:

    HESTON’S VOICE WAS his greatest asset as an actor. He was handsome, but so were many other actors. He had the muscular physique required for such sword-and-sandals epics as Ben Hur, but directors never had a shortage of brawny leading men, and neither Steve Reeves nor Johnny Weismuller ever won Oscars. It was his deep, resonant voice that set Heston apart from the Hollywood herd.

    Heston also had a voice — a voice that had resonance and timbre that, combined with his physique (I’m talking about his frame, his facial shape and the way he carried both) screamed authority and gravity. Or as Stacy puts it:

    His stage training gave Heston the gravitas necessary to seem believably natural when speaking the almost comically stilted dialogue required by his many historical roles. (Sample line from The Ten Commandments: “What change is there in me? Egyptian or Hebrew, I am still Moses. These are the same hands, the same arms, the same face that was mine a moment ago.”)

    Even in schlocky sci-fi films, Heston’s voice had the power to turn an otherwise absurd phrase — “Soylent Green is people!” — into a memorable line. Roddy McDowell was a fine actor, yet no one ever quotes his dialogue from Planet of the Apes. Instead, they remember Heston: “Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!” A silly sentence somehow infused with significance, simply because Heston said it.

    I swear to God that it is a coincidence that Stacy and the Times quoted almost the same two lines — they were such clear-cut choices for quotation. The first-named line was cited when people were discussing Heston on Sunday — it’s a guttural cry of despair that a lesser voice could not make so memorable, even for parody’s sake (there’s an SNL sketch parodying Heston). As for the second line, it’s the first time that the apes have heard humans speak, and hearing them from the Charlton Heston voice, you better believe it shook them down to the bones as much as an ape talking to us today would.

    Now, I’m gonna say this carefully. Heston was definitely a Big Actor — and I’m not referring to his size or his build (though they’re not irrelevant; his body fit his voice) but to his voicy and dramatic style. It was made for larger-than-life heroic roles, and there was no better actor of this type than Heston. But it’s nevertheless a style that’s somewhat out-of-fashion, for reasons having nothing to do with the NRA, Time Warner and Ice-T, or any of that. As I say, it’s perfectly sane — if a bit tactless on this day — not to like Heston as an actor or to note that he made some rather bad movies (as did most stars of his era or the studio era).

    But though my aesthetic preference is for more-understated styles, part of being a great actor is knowing what you can do well and getting that roles that fit you. I once wrote the following in denouncing the 2001 desecration remake of PLANET OF APES, with Mark Wahlberg in the lead:

    And then we get to the lead performer. Now it needs no saying that Charlton Heston in the original overacted in that muscular-barechested-hero sort of way, but at least he’s acting (in fact, Heston is quite effective in those roles he’s had where his Acting is appropriate). Mark Wahlberg seems like he’s hardly interested. To cite Jonah [Goldberg] again, he’s giving a Henry V, loin-girding speech to his troops and it’s in the tone of a mechanic telling someone when his car will be ready. Then he says “c’mon, let’s go” (or something very similar) as though he was the QB breaking huddle at a pickup game of touch football.Wahlberg has all the range of a plate of grits and half the flavor.

    John Wayne said “I play John Wayne in every picture regardless of the character, and I’ve been doing all right, haven’t I?” Now Heston had far more range than Wayne, but he was still an icon who could never do a light romantic comedy, say, or play an outright heavy. But **if a role called for an icon,** there was nobody better in his generation (his peers were usually about 10 years older — Wayne, Cagney, Peck, Mitchum, Douglas, Lancaster). My turkbud Bilge Ebiri once said that “if any film needed Charlton Heston in the lead, it was PLANET OF THE APES.” It was Heston’s unforgettable presence and heroic performance turned a lengthy Twilight Zone episode into a classic.

    Kenneth Branagh has tried every casting gimmick known to man or beast, often with ludicrous results, but the one that paid off the most handsomely was having Heston play the Player King in his 1996 film of HAMLET, when Heston recorded on film for all time what he could really do as an actor, with the most stylized and greatest of English-language writers. I couldn’t find a way of working mention of that role into the Times obit, but I think it was his best performance, if not so well-known as Ben-Hur, El Cid, Moses, etc. Anybody who thinks Heston couldn’t act is invited to watch this until he repents:

    ————————————————–
    ¹ There are some spectacular exceptions of course — I doubt I’ll feel too bad on the day of Charles Manson’s or Fidel Castro’s death (Father Martin Fox once explained to me how to licitly pray for Castro’s death: “pray that he be in Heaven soon”). But nobody who would compare being on the wrong side of the relatively low-stakes issues of American politics for being a murderer or a political dictator has a sense of proportion or self-skepticism that I feel bound to respect.

    Advertisement
    Advertisements
    Report this ad
    Report this ad

    Like this:

    Like Loading...

    Related

    April 7, 2008 - Posted by | Charlton Heston |

    6 Comments »

    1. It’s odd that Heston became so anathema to the LEft and so beloved on the Right, because the films he’s best known for were practcally infomercials for the Daily Kos’ pet issues!

      “Soylent Green” has to be Planned Parenthood’s favorite movie (there are just too many dang PEOPLE!).

      “Planet of the Apes” is a no-nukes commercial buried inside a “Twilight Zone” episode.

      “The Omega Man” says that the evil U.S. government is going to annihilate mankind via germ warfare.

      What more could he have done to ingratiate himself with the Left?

      Comment by astorian | April 7, 2008 | Reply

    2. Glancing around some forums discussing Heston’s death, I was struck with the realization that if not for the Internet, I might not know that people are as truly vile as they are. With no Internet, I surely wouldn’t have access to countless comments from people celebrating his death because they didn’t agree with his political stance. You’d think there weren’t scores of left-wing actors who talk about politics as if they were life-long senators or renowned scholars on their topics of interest. As an NRA member myself, it makes sense to assume that if people cheerily celebrate Heston’s death, then I became a celebrity, they’d cheer mine, too. Also, see Michael Moore’s web page for one hell of a cheap shot and middle finger aimed at the departed.

      I’ve bumped Major Dundee to the top of my Netflix queue. Never seen it, and now seems like an ideal time.

      Comment by James Frazier | April 7, 2008 | Reply

    3. As soon as I heard of Heston’s death late Saturday night, I wrote a piece that I posted on Screengrab. I couldn’t overlook his political leanings altogether, but I mentioned them only to reference how they had colored the perception of many viewers who came to his films in recent years. I may not have agreed with some of his ideals, but I never let that detract from my appreciation of his work. He was one of the last stars who was capable of being larger than life, and a much better actor than many gave him credit for being. To skim over this in order to engage in political points-scoring, especially now, is both cheap and tasteless.

      Comment by Paul C. | April 7, 2008 | Reply

    4. One striking thing to me is that he seemed to be a stand up guy. I know that whenever nearly anyone dies people start gushing about them, but Heston seemed to always be well-liked and respected for years.

      Considering his high-profile as the NRA prez it would be tricky to write about him and not at least allude to it, but the way he is commonly addressed you’d think his gun stance was one of an extreme minority, on par with those who think child molestation should be a misdemeanor. I suppose that a pro-gun view IS an extreme minority among journalists, but not among your average American, so it’s quite annoying for me to read all these obits that reference his politics as if he were a card carrying American Nazi.

      I think that we as viewers might even simplify celebrities based on politics. I’m a Republican and all but most of my friends aren’t, and I’ve met Republicans and conservatives that I absolutely can’t stand. Maybe I’d have hated Heston if I knew him, and would prefer the company of George Clooney. I doubt it, but it’s wholly possible!

      Comment by James Frazier | April 8, 2008 | Reply

    5. James- for what it’s worth, Heston doesn’t seem to have based his friendships on politics, either. He worked several times with Vanessa Redgrave, and he thought the world of her, both as an actress and a person, though they probably would have come to blows if they ever talked politics.

      Comment by astorian | April 8, 2008 | Reply

    6. I’m a left wing film geek, and doubtless you and I would–as the last post on this thread says of Heston and Redgrave–come to blows if we discussed politics.

      But I appreciate and agree with your views on Chuck Heston. Not only do I view him as a fine man and one truly dedicated to his art–based on everything I’ve seen of him and his personal integrity stretching from civil rights work on, I had personal dealings with him and found him a man of exemplary character and temperment. He graciously wrote a piece on gun issues for a magazine I worked with that is viewed as liberal, and then complimented the magazine even though he disagreed with much of what it said.

      He deserved more praise than he received, and NONE of the derision.

      Comment by WA | May 15, 2010 | Reply


    Leave a Reply Cancel reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s

    « Previous | Next »

    ...
    (Review Source)

Jay Dyer1
Esoteric Hollywood



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ 𝐄𝐃𝐆𝐘 🔥 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐍𝐓 🔥 𝐖𝐀𝐑𝐍𝐈𝐍𝐆 🔥 (𝐍𝐒𝐅𝐖?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • War for the Planet of the...
    (”Planet of the Apes” is briefly mentioned in this.)


    By: Jay Dyer We often think of the Darwinian mythos as coming to us packaged in the form of “science,” science classes, public education, television “documentaries,” so on and so...

    ...
    (Review Source)

PJ Media Staff6
PJ Media



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • 1970s SCI-FI PARANOIA MAKES A FLASHBACK ON TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES
    (”Planet of the Apes” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Ed Driscoll Bob Cook of Flak Magazine has a humorous look at TCM's recent triple play of 1970s paranoia movies: Rollerball, Soylent Green, and Silent Running. Having just recently dusted off my laser disc, letterboxed copy of THX-1138, I'd say Cook's commentary is dead-on. What a gloomy period the early '70s was for Hollywood, especially its science fiction films. Cook says "These movies were made when the hippie dream was just about dead, large conglomerates like ITT were all the business rage, and the environment was a wreck," but he leaves out the real reason why these films were made: after Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey every science fiction film that Hollywood cranked out had the same tone: heavy, ponderous, lugubrious, and dull. 2001 wasn't dull, but then there was only one Stanley Kubrick.So until Star Wars came along, with its swashbuckling, Republic Serial tone, we were stuck watching films like those in the Flak article, and their equally paranoid cousins: Colossus: The Forbin Project, Logan's Run and the Planet of the Apes films.Looking back at George Lucas's THX-1138, with its impressive Kubrickian/Orwellian production design (made for about $1.98), it's amazing how differently the world turned out since then: we don't all look like, dress alike, work in the same jobs, and worship the same God. I'll take a Tofflerian world over an Orwellian one any day. Fortunately, as one of the few directors to make a second science fiction film in the 1970s, Lucas was able to make a much more enjoyable sci-fi universe.The Flak article ends on a note as scary as any of those films:Even amid talk of remaking Westworld, The Omega Man, Logan's Run and the like, it's doubtful; as the Planet of the Apes and Rollerball remakes proved, today's pessimism doesn't come close to the misanthropy, dashed dreams and nuclear fears of the '70s.Or maybe it was the cocaine.Heh.™ class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2002/3/8/1970s-sci-fi-paranoia-makes-a-flashback-on-turner-classic-movies/ ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • THE RAZZIES: With all of
    (”Planet of the Apes” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Ed Driscoll THE RAZZIES: With all of the talk about the Oscars, I've seen little in Blogland about the Razzies, their annual competitors, who handout awards for the worst films in Hollywood. This year, for the first time, a "winner" showed up in person--Tom Green, for Freddy Got Fingered. "Green was cited as 2001's Worst Actor, Worst Director, co-author (with Derek Harvie) of the year's Worst Screenplay and as Worst Screen Couple (Green and "Any Animal He Abuses")." Congratulations, Tom!The other big "winner", with three Razzies, was Tim Burton's awful remake of Planet of the Apes. Hard to believe that the guy who directed the first two Batman films and Mars Attacks and other very quirky but watchable films could have directed such a mess. The day after we saw Apes, my wife and I saw Apocalypse Now Redux, during its brief run in cinemas, reminding us just how far it sometimes feels, that Hollywood has fallen. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2002/3/26/the-razzies-with-all-of/ ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • The 10 Most Underrated Classic Science Fiction Films
    (”Planet of the Apes” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle In these days of seemingly weekly science fiction blockbusters (which are usually SF in name only... they're actually just big gun actioners that take place in the future) and the hype that surrounds them, it's easy to forget that once such films were the low man on the totem pole. Stuff fit for kids and juveniles but not serious adult audiences. Thus, in past decades, except for a few A list films like Them and The Day the Earth Stood Still in the 1950s and Planet of the Apes, Soylent Green, and Logan's Run in the '60s and '70s, many SF movies slipped under the radar or were simply shrugged off by the critics.But in our more enlightened age, as the serious adult film has given way to the tastes of teenagers and young adults, the science fiction film has come to be accepted as just another genre, even worthy of professional criticism. Ironic in that as such films have become more accepted, their intellectual content has shriveled. As a result, SF fans have been forced to search through back catalogs in hopes of finding lost gems that, if nowhere as sharp-looking as 21st century fare, at least offer ideas to think about and to ponder.We all know the standards that no one questions: 2001, Forbidden Planet, Things to Come. But what about the less well known films? Are there any worthy entries from BCGI (Before CGI) that may not have received their proper share of recognition when they were first released? And if so, how have they fared in the decades since as the magic of VHS and then DVD and now Netflix have placed them at viewers' fingertips? Have they been rediscovered? Reevaluated? Newly appreciated?Answer: Many of the best still haven't.But how to discern the good but underrated SF films from those deserving oblivion? First, any solid science fiction movie must be driven by one or more science fiction concepts such as a new invention, social novelty, or exploration of other worlds, times, or dimensions. In that regard, some films such as Forbidden Planet or Logan's Run are chock full of many such concepts while others like Colossus: The Forbin Project or The Andromeda Strain concentrate on only one.Another thing that's needed are filmmakers who take the subject matter seriously no matter the size of the budget. If that happens, then a film that cost a few hundred thousand dollars with cheesy FX can still top one of today's hundred million dollar blockbusters.With the foregoing in mind, we come to our list of the 10 most underrated classic science fiction films which will be rated not strictly from least underrated to most underrated, but from good to best of the bunch. All of them, in any case, are films that never really took the screen world by storm, nor the SF community for that matter, but that offer elements that deserve the attention of any SF film fan. All are solid little films each with surprising angles that will reward the patient viewer willing to look past production values and embrace the singular worlds they bring to life. var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'The Twonky', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); 10) The TwonkyIncluded here because you can never go wrong when you adapt a classic SF story…well, almost never! Loose and whimsical adaptation of the story by Henry Kuttner produced and directed by Arch Oboler, this 1953 film follows a college professor who finds himself in possession of a new TV set that not only displays intelligence but proceeds to control his life apparently for his own good! Much of the entertaining short story is preserved in this film except for the ending. In the story, the Twonky disposes of the college professor while the movie version has the contraption destroyed in an auto accident. Extremely low budget and not very well acted, the film updates the story’s radio/twonky to a television set but is worth viewing due to its unique concept as well as its sheer audacity! class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/8/4/the-10-most-underrated-classic-science-fiction-films/ previous Page 1 of 10 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • It's Time to Take Ben Affleck Seriously as a Director
    (”Planet of the Apes” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle Ben Affleck petered out as an actor, but as a director he has petered right back in, and with his third movie Argo he may well find himself the helmer of an Oscar nominated movie.Is Argo that good? Yes and no. Affleck takes substantial liberties with the story of the bizarre rescue of six American hostages who were separated from the rest in the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis in Tehran, and all three of his films (the others are Gone Baby Gone and The Town) end melodramatically. Still, Argo is hugely entertaining, with a smart script and a deft sense of humor.Affleck the actor (he probably should have cast someone less lackluster in the lead) plays Tony Mendez, a CIA agent at Langley and a specialist in “exfiltration.” He rejects several possible solutions to the problem of how to save six U.S. Embassy employees in Tehran who sneaked out the back when angry ayatollah-loving revolutionaries demanding the return of the U.S.-backed shah of Iran stormed the compound and took 52 Americans hostage. (The 52 eventually returned safely, more than a year later, by which time President Jimmy Carter was seen as hopelessly weak and Ronald Reagan had just been sworn in.)The subgroup of six hid out in the home of the Canadian ambassador but couldn’t come up with a plausible reason to leave the country without being detected and arrested. Mendez, back in Virginia, thinks outside the box. Way outside the box. He suggests papers be forged to indicate that the six had been in the country for just a couple of days -- and had arrived to scout locations for a schlocky Star Wars ripoff called Argo.Affleck has a lot of fun with late-70s L.A., and he clearly is more interested in showbiz than in international politics. The Hollywood sign in the hills was crumbling and forgotten, and a makeup man (John Goodman) whose credits include a Planet of the Apes movie serves as an introduction to several cynical, wily, loveable characters including a caustic producer (Alan Arkin). Told that the CIA needs him for a mission involving “the worst place you can think of,” Goodman’s character replies, “Universal City.” As for Mendez’s cover story of being a small-time producer, Goodman says, “You want to come to Hollywood and act like a big shot without actually doing anything. You’ll fit right in.” class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/10/12/its-time-to-take-ben-affleck-seriously-as-a-director/ previous Page 1 of 2 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Pixar's Alternate Universe?
    (”Planet of the Apes” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Lifestyle Everybody's a geek about something culturally. For some it's science fiction, while others may geek out over sports. For me, it's Disney culture (don't act so shocked), college sports, and Star Wars. But everybody has something that they're a geek about.Some geeks -- and I'm using the term in a cultural light, rather than referring to nerds or dorks -- go too far in their obsession. Some dress in elaborate costume for events like Comic Con or DragonCon, or even renaissance fairs. (Yes, I realize I'm stepping on some toes here.) Others show it off on their skin. Still others devote months of their time to devising theories on how a certain studio's movies are interconnected. Meet Jon Negroni.By day, Negroni manages social media and SEO for a non-profit organization, and he writes a blog for young professionals. And -- bless his heart -- he's apparently a Pixar fan. Negroni has developed an elaborate theory explaining how all the features in the Pixar canon are related.Several months ago, I watched a fun-filled video on Cracked.com that introduced the idea (at least to me) that all of the Pixar movies actually exist within the same universe. Since then, I’ve obsessed over this concept, working to complete what I call “The Pixar Theory,” a working narrative that ties all of the Pixar movies into one cohesive timeline with a main theme.Negroni's timeline runs as follows:Brave: 14-15th centuriesThe Incredibles: 1950s-60s (...thought that's up for debate, as we'll see...)Toy Story: 1997-1998Toy Story 2: 1999Finding Nemo: 2003Ratatouille: 2007Toy Story 3: 2010Up: 2011-2016Cars, Cars 2: ~2100-2200Wall-E, ~2800-2900A Bug's Life, ~2898-3000Monsters University, Monsters Inc., ~4500-5000...and all of it cycles back to Brave.class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/7/26/pixars-alternate-universe/ previous Page 1 of 6 next   ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Steve Sailer2
Taki Mag



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • The Fighting Irish
    (”Planet of the Apes” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    On Friday, I was shocked like the rest of America to learn that Richard Nixon had been taped in the Oval Office subscribing to a stereotype: “The Irish can’t drink.…Virtually every Irish I’ve known gets mean when he drinks. Particularly the real Irish.” On Saturday, I went to see The Fighter, a first-rate biopic about the pugnacious family life of boxer “Irish” Micky Ward, “The Pride of Lowell.” The Fighter is only the latest in a long series of Oscar contenders, such as Good Will Hunting, Mystic River, and The Departed, about sozzled Greater Boston residents pounding the hell out of each other. In recent years, awards-season movies have featured working-class Irish giving each other fraternal concussions almost as often as upper-class English serving each other tea in a marked manner. Both The Town and The Fighter are good bets to join The King’s Speech as Best Picture nominees. Like Ben Affleck’s The Town, The Fighter is the kind of hybrid movie that benefits from doubling the number of Best Picture nods from five to ten. It’s half crowd-pleasing genre flick, half loose-limbed actors’ showoff piece. In fact, the producers released two wholly distinct trailers. The mass-market preview features glossy footage of the hero’s inspirational comeback. The upscale trailer emphasizes cheap shaky-cam footage of Lowell lowlifes that makes The Fighter look like an ensemble drama.“In recent years, awards-season movies have featured working-class Irish giving each other fraternal concussions almost as often as upper-class English serving each other tea in a marked manner.”  In truth, it’s both. That’s a difficult combination to pull off, but The Fighter succeeds. Ever since Mark Wahlberg, a hard-working leading man in doubtful remakes such as Planet of the Apes, earned a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his formidable cop in The Departed, he’s been trying to pull this movie together. An authentic ex-juvenile delinquent from Dorchester, Wahlberg has wanted to get in again on the white-underclass fad before it’s mined-out by Cambridge boys such as Affleck and Matt Damon. Darren Aronofsky was long attached to The Fighter but ultimately passed on it to make The Wrestler and The Black Swan. David O. Russell, who has been mostly idle in the eleven years since he notoriously started a fistfight with George Clooney on the set of Three Kings, parachuted in. Next Page ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Will Ferrell's The Other Guys: Surprisingly Funny
    (”Planet of the Apes” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Despite both a forgettable title and the fifteen years in which Will Ferrell and writer-director Adam McKay have been beating their brand of comedy into the ground since they first teamed up at Saturday Night Live, The Other Guys is an implausibly funny movie. McKay’s approach hasn’t much changed since he revitalized Chicago’s Second City improv troupe with his revue Piñata Full of Bees in the mid-1990s. As he’s done in his previous collaborations with Ferrell—Anchorman, Talladega Nights, and Step Brothers—McKay provides a framing narrative while letting his stars stretch the show in silly directions. There’s nothing terribly new here: as Woody Allen likes to point out, his hero Bob Hope’s 1940s movies were fully postmodern in their surrealistic self-awareness. Humor is about surprising, but successful comedy movies, such as Anchorman, become influential so quickly that their style soon stops amusing. Thus, comedy careers, such as Jerry Lewis’s or Jim Carrey’s, tend to have a high burn rate. Objectively, Eddie Murphy was as funny as ever this summer as the voice of Donkey in Shrek Forever After, but there’s nothing objective about being funny: Murphy’s time will always be the early 1980s. That Ferrell and McKay have, after all these years, still come up with enough startling shticks, enough new riffs on masculine rivalry and revelry to keep audiences from getting completely sick of The Other Guys is surprising. This buddy cop spoof begins with the triumphant exploits of the NYPD’s coolest cops. In cameos played by Samuel L. Jackson, as the same character he’s done since Pulp Fiction, and Dwayne Johnson, the genial half-Samoan, half-black ex-pro wrestler formerly known as The Rock, the two supercops wreak $12 million in property damage to Manhattan while arresting a smalltime weed dealer. Then Jackson and Johnson take a victory lap around the police station, tossing their unfilled-out paperwork to “The Other Guys,” the precinct’s most pathetic desk jockeys, played by Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg, who become the movie’s main characters. “Ferrell has ingeniously portrayed numerous morons, so it’s about time he played somebody smart. This might be his freshest character since 2003’s Christmas classic Elf. The Other Guys could have been more memorably entitled The White Guys. Much of comedy these days, especially funny TV commercials about doofus dads, gingerly deals with the paradox of a culture in which white guys have seemingly been dethroned from the top of the masculinity pyramid. Yet, the people who have the really good jobs making the movies, TV shows, and ads poking fun at white guys remain, overwhelmingly, white guys like McKay and Ferrell. Wahlberg revisits his one apt role of the last decade—the vicious but truehearted policeman in The Departed—just with his IQ lowered 30 points. A juvenile delinquent from the white slums of Boston, Wahlberg has enjoyed a curious career in which he has starred in remakes of roles originated by Cary Grant, John Wayne, and Charlton Heston. Hollywood seems to envision the former rapper and underwear model as a man exuding technical competence. Hence, he played an astronaut in Planet of the Apes, a master jewel thief in The Italian Job, and a super sniper in The Shooter. In The Other Guys, however, Wahlberg portrays an angry idiot, and does a fine job. His cop has been stranded on desk duty since his trigger-happiness at Yankee Stadium cost New York the World Series. He is particularly incensed by his deskmate (Ferrell), a Prius-driving “forensic accountant” who doesn’t share any of his Lethal Weapon-style rogue cop ambitions. (It’s doesn’t help the bantam cop’s composure that Ferrell’s nerd is eight inches taller.) Ferrell has ingeniously portrayed numerous morons, so it’s about time he played somebody smart. The rise of the self-conscious, self-confident nerd might turn out to be the most important cultural development of the last 35 years, and Ferrell nails the general type, while adding some uniquely insufferable twists. This might be Ferrell’s freshest character since 2003’s Christmas classic Elf. Ferrell remains the anti-Bill Murray, a high-energy star not afraid to fail, which he does frequently. But not always, as exemplified by Ferrell’s jaw-droppingly literal response to Wahlberg’s claim about who would win in a fight between a lion and a tuna. On the downside, too many red herrings clutter the plot, which has something to do with Ferrell and Wahlberg busting a Bernie Madoff-like financier trying to steal $32 billion. Yet, casting in the Madoff role Steve Coogan, a suave Englishman of Irish descent, seems to intentionally miss the joke. Ironically, McKay sees himself as a strident leftist speaking truth to the power of the corporate overlords, as his closing credits—which lecture us about the AIG bailout over a Rage Against the Machine song—attempt to prove. Yet, despite the nonstop hype about “edginess” since SNL’s debut 35-years-ago, post-1975 American comedy has been anti-political. McKay’s SNL-honed style of character-based silliness striving to concoct popular catchphrases is, effectively, the opposite of political satire. googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1456852648633-0');}); if(display_ads_server){document.write('');}; SIGN UPDaily updates with TM’s latest // delete this script tag and use a "div.mce_inline_error{ XXX !important}" selector // or fill this in and it will be inlined when errors are generated var mc_custom_error_style = ''; var fnames = new Array();var ftypes = new Array();fnames[0]='EMAIL';ftypes[0]='email';fnames[1]='FNAME';ftypes[1]='text';fnames[2]='LNAME';ftypes[2]='text';var err_style = ''; try{ err_style = mc_custom_error_style; } catch(e){ err_style = 'margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 1em 0.5em 0.5em 0.5em; background: ERROR_BGCOLOR none repeat scroll 0% 0%; font-weight: bold; float: left; z-index: 1; width: 80%; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; color: ERROR_COLOR;'; } var mce_jQuery = jQuery.noConflict(); mce_jQuery(document).ready( function($) { var options = { errorClass: 'mce_inline_error', errorElement: 'div', errorStyle: err_style, onkeyup: function(){}, onfocusout:function(){}, onblur:function(){} }; var mce_validator = mce_jQuery("#mc-embedded-subscribe-form").validate(options); options = { url: 'http://takimag.us1.list-manage1.com/subscribe/post-json?u=0ba7696a8a378946b7e688500&id=f7706afea2&c=?', type: 'GET', dataType: 'json', contentType: "application/json; charset=utf-8", beforeSubmit: function(){ mce_jQuery('#mce_tmp_error_msg').remove(); mce_jQuery('.datefield','#mc_embed_signup').each( function(){ var txt = 'filled'; var fields = new Array(); var i = 0; mce_jQuery(':text', this).each( function(){ fields[i] = this; i++; }); mce_jQuery(':hidden', this).each( function(){ if ( fields[0].value=='MM' && fields[1].value=='DD' && fields[2].value=='YYYY' ){ this.value = ''; } else if ( fields[0].value=='' && fields[1].value=='' && fields[2].value=='' ){ this.value = ''; } else { this.value = fields[0].value+'/'+fields[1].value+'/'+fields[2].value; } }); }); return mce_validator.form(); }, success: mce_success_cb }; mce_jQuery('#mc-embedded-subscribe-form').ajaxForm(options); }); function mce_success_cb(resp){ mce_jQuery('#mce-success-response').hide(); mce_jQuery('#mce-error-response').hide(); if (resp.result=="success"){ mce_jQuery('#mce-'+resp.result+'-response').show(); mce_jQuery('#mce-'+resp.result+'-response').html(resp.msg); mce_jQuery('#mc-embedded-subscribe-form').each(function(){ this.reset(); }); } else { var index = -1; var msg; try { var parts = resp.msg.split(' - ',2); if (parts[1]==undefined){ msg = resp.msg; } else { i = parseInt(parts[0]); if (i.toString() == parts[0]){ index = parts[0]; msg = parts[1]; } else { index = -1; msg = resp.msg; } } } catch(e){ index = -1; msg = resp.msg; } try{ if (index== -1){ mce_jQuery('#mce-'+resp.result+'-response').show(); mce_jQuery('#mce-'+resp.result+'-response').html(msg); } else { err_id = 'mce_tmp_error_msg'; html = '
    '+msg+''; var input_id = '#mc_embed_signup'; var f = mce_jQuery(input_id); if (ftypes[index]=='address'){ input_id = '#mce-'+fnames[index]+'-addr1'; f = mce_jQuery(input_id).parent().parent().get(0); } else if (ftypes[index]=='date'){ input_id = '#mce-'+fnames[index]+'-month'; f = mce_jQuery(input_id).parent().parent().get(0); } else { input_id = '#mce-'+fnames[index]; f = mce_jQuery().parent(input_id).get(0); } if (f){ mce_jQuery(f).append(html); mce_jQuery(input_id).focus(); } else { mce_jQuery('#mce-'+resp.result+'-response').show(); mce_jQuery('#mce-'+resp.result+'-response').html(msg); } } } catch(e){ mce_jQuery('#mce-'+resp.result+'-response').show(); mce_jQuery('#mce-'+resp.result+'-response').html(msg); } } } ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

The Unz Review Staff1
Unz Review



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Sibling Revelry: How Do the Coen Brothers Avoid Sibling Rivalry?
    (”Planet of the Apes” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    With a 17th Coen Brothers movie on the way this week, I return to an old question: How have the two middle-aged men gone over 30 years without the kind of public spats that are common among showbiz brothers (e.g., in rock music: the Everlys, the Davies of the Kinks, the Fogertys of Creedence, the Gallaghers of Oasis, etc etc). An interview in the Washington Post suggests one Coen strategy is to blur their individuality: In conversation, as in their work, sibling filmmakers Joel and Ethan Coen are known for a kind of uncanny symbiosis. Their sentences run together as effortlessly as they divide the writing, directing and producing duties they have shared over the course of 17 feature films, beginning with their 1984 thriller, “Blood Simple,” and culminating in their new satire of 1950s Hollywood, “Hail, Caesar!” So it seemed reasonable to ask, as they began a recent interview on a conference call from Los Angeles, that each brother identify himself before speaking. “This is Joel talking,” a disembodied voice says with a sigh. “But we don’t care if you misinterpret. We really don’t. It’s not an issue. You can say whoever you want is saying it.” “You can say you’re saying it,” chimes in Ethan, amid what sounds like cackling laughter. Back to Joel: “You can make stuff up if you want. We don’t care. It’s fine.” My guess is that the blurriness of the Coen identities is an act. These guys are masters at insinuating images and assumptions into audience minds, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they consciously strategized a long time ago that they would get more work done if they de-emphasized in public their individuality and instead strove to give off the vague impression that they are identical twins (Joel is actually 3 years older than Ethan.) Over their 30+ years of doing interviews to promote their movies, they’ve managed to make the question of their differences seem extremely boring to the outside world. As with most things involving the Coen Brothers, that’s probably not an accident. Since the Coens showed it could be done, there have been more brother acts who make movies together. So far, there haven’t been many sister acts writing or directing movies, although they are not unknown. There have been over the years a number of married couple writing teams in the movies (and in songwriting). It seems like a pretty reasonable way to get started making a date movie, having both a male and female perspective. Casablanca, for example, started out as an unproduced play by a husband-wife team of writers. (It was later worked on by the Epstein identical twin brothers, who supposedly each came up with the single best line in Hollywood history — the reuse of “Round up the usual suspects!” — simultaneously. But then they would say that, wouldn’t they?) There seem to be fewer husband-wife teams these days, although Jaffa and Silver, who wrote the fine 2011 reboot of Planet of the Apes, come to mind. It’s hard, however, to think of brother-sister creative teams (no, the Wachowskis don’t count). There have been brother-sister performing teams in show biz, such as the Astaires, the Carpenters, and the Osmonds, but it’s hard to come up with any brother-sister creative teams in the mode of the Coens. Woody Allen has employed for the last two decades his younger sister as his chief movie producer, but that’s presumably more of a business than creative relationship. Probably the best known sibling pair behind the cameras is Garry Marshall and his younger sister Penny Marshall. He created the TV hit Happy Days and spun off Laverne & Shirley, casting his sister Penny in it. He then moved into directing movies, including 1984′s Flamingo Kid and had his biggest hit with with 1990′s Pretty Woman with Julia Roberts. He encouraged his little sister to direct and she may have been the first in the family to make it to the $100 million box office level with Big with Tom Hanks in 1988. But as helpful as they were to each other’s highly successful individual careers, I think they did most of their work separately. I’m not sure why there haven’t been many brother-sister creative duos. Is it because entertainment usually involves sex in some fashion, and brothers and sisters are averse to discussing it? Is it because brothers and sisters don’t hang around together all summer watching movies? ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Soiled Sinema1
Soiled Reviews



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

⚠️ EDGY 🔥 CONTENT 🔥 WARNING 🔥 (NSFW?) ⚠️

🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻🔻


  • Kamikaze 89
    (”Planet of the Apes” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Being a lonely, sluggish, and slob-like fellow in an absurd campy leopard-colored detective outfit is probably not the way German...
    ...
    (Review Source)

Want even more consensus?

Skip Rotten Tomatoes, they’re biased SJWs too afraid to criticize things like the Ghost Busters reboot. Avoid giving them ad revenue by using the minimalist alternative, Cinesift, for a quick aggregate:

 🗣️ Know of another conservative review that we’re missing?
Leave a link in the comments below or email us!  

What’d you think? Let us know with a video:

Record a webcam review!

Or anonymous text review:

Submit your review
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Submit
     
Cancel

Create your own review

Average rating:  
 0 reviews
Overall Hollywood Bs Average rating:  
 
Anti-patriotism Average rating:  
 
Misandry Average rating:  
 
Affirmative action Average rating:  
 
LGBTQ rstuvwxyz Average rating:  
 
Anti-God Average rating:  
 

Buy on Amazon:
⚠️  Comment freely, but please respect our young users.
👍🏻 Non PC comments/memes/vids/links 
👎🏻  Curse words / NSFW media / JQ stuff
👌🏻 Visit our 18+  free speech forum to avoid censorship.
⚠️ Keep your kids’ websurfing safe! Read this.

Share this page:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail