Siize Punabantu
I enjoyed the first installment of this movie and it encouraged me to watch Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (DPA) 2.
I enjoyed the first installment of this movie and it encouraged me to watch Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (DPA) 2.
On the
whole this was a very average movie. This would be fine. The problem is that
the subject material based on original literature is not average; its very creative.
To then produce an average movie out of
it makes the quality of the product mundane. What the writers of DPA seemed to
try to do is produce a cultural event where what the audience observes is the social
evolution of a new species of a sub-human ape-tribe. The work done on imaginary ape
“culture” in DPA 2 is good enough to be screened on the Discovery Channel or
National Geographic, except that this has very little to do with what lies at
the core of this story and this kind of movie. The writers completely dropped
the ball in this aspect. The Planet of the Apes originally explores nothing
more than the role of intelligence in creating a dominant species. Human beings
generally believe they are so remarkable, so accomplished, so much more
superior than other animals. What Planet of the Apes originally attempts to do
is demonstrate that this “superiority” is only skin deep, in that if the observer
scratches the surface of this thin layer of intelligence and looks beneath
human beings can often be no different from the animals they deem lesser than
themselves. This creative idea is very
well portrayed in DPA 1, but totally bungled in the latest installment of this
movie. Failing to tackle the core subject matter of this movie made it an
experience full of thumb twiddling and long yawns.
Indeed
there is an aspect of culture, family, relationships and values and so on, but this is not fundamentally
what this particular movie should be about. The movie hypothesizes what happens when human beings
encounter an intelligence, not just equal, but superior to its own except in a physiology
it considers inferior; in this case the unfortunate physiology of an ape; one of those dubious gifts to mankind from Darwinian theories of evolution exploited by shady eugenicists. If this is
understood the mistakes made in developing the story for DPA 2 become glaring.
In DPA 1, human beings are just beginning to be overwhelmed by the increasing
intelligence of the apes. The apes begin to speak, to outwit and outsmart human
beings even when it comes to the ability to manipulate tools and technology. Wow,
that was really scintillating to watch. This is what lies at the core of the
entire movie and is what made the first installment a resounding success, it
sticks to the interesting idea examined by the original author. But then the audience
arrives at DPA 2 remarkably, the apes whose intelligence was growing
exponentially before has now hit a plateau. Their intelligence, which is meant
to rival that of human beings is at a road block. If that’s the case then why
did the producers even bother to make this second movie? It’s a waste of
investor money if the story can’t be understood. The apes are still speaking in
grunts and gestures. Huh? Duh - what the heck does human intellect
and intelligence need to fear about this; yes that’s the problem – nothing. The apes should at this point (between
grunts and gestures) have been able to speak eloquently using a wide vocabulary as an indication of growing intellectual
ability. The apes which were once in cages and are surrounded by depreciating
human infrastructure but are living in the bush or forest use stick-spears and
so on, they don’t even make fire. Using dialogue in the movie to try and turn
the fact that they are too dumb to use or make fire into a philosophically profound
development was cheesier than mozzarella.
Where is the superior intelligence that is meant to rival that of human beings, this was supposed to give the audience a chill and scare it to its core – no-where. Instead the movie begins to demonstrate what happens when two cultures rather than two intelligences clash. This is beyond stupid. This is one of those rare so badly handled movies a person begins to wish they had never watched it. It’s like an uncomfortable event that a person wished just never took place. It’s a waste of time and money to get a story this badly interpreted. The apes at this stage should have taken human technologies and began to use them in ways human beings never intended. In ways that left the audience in shock and awe. They may still be primitive in the sense that they have aggressive characteristics, but their minds are evolving in ways that appear to move them beyond human intelligence. They should be able to read, understand what a circuit is, take apart a pc and build something new and more troublesome out of it; take an assault rifle and rig it to be able to fire different kinds of projectiles, bend light in ways that make them partially invisible; indeed arrive at a point where when the two intelligences meet, it’s the human intelligence that is struggling to keep up with its nemesis. There should have been scenes where during a competition, to the astonishment of humans, an average ape is solving a complex mathematical problem faster than the brightest human as the two write in chalk on a blackboard. The apes in the movie should be evolving science and philosophy, evolving it beyond where humans had taken it upto that point, solving scientific problems humans were failing to get the answers to. This trauma is the moral teaching of the Planet of the Apes; it discourages people from associating intelligence with a specific physiology an idea popularised by Darwinian theories on evolution tainted by eugenics. Traumatized by this intelligence rivaling its own, we humans then learn we can only survive through creativity, not by intelligence alone since that belonging to the apes is gradually overwhelming us. There is more to being a human being than how intelligent you are or may think you are. This is good, captivating story telling an audience would enjoy. If there will be a DPA 3 this is the way to go, not the stale approach DPA 2.
The fighting technique portrayed by the apes was also poor. Primates are able to use all four of their limbs like hands. This would have allowed the action sequences to show evolved ape martial arts. The apes would be shown to grip with any limb, swing with agility, strike and block with lighting speed to create a super "ape" style kung-fu that has evolved from their enhanced intelligence. Whoever is directing the fight scenes should go back and watch masterpieces such as Hou hsung kou shou (1979) - Snake in the Monkey's Shadow directed by Sam Cheung, starring John Cheung. Look at the artistry and creativity in developing monkey fist. Watch Jackie Chang's Snake in the Eagles Shadow (1978). There is a rare kind of genius in how the martial arts are used to tell a story. This kind of mastery could have been used to bring this movie to an entirely new level. A brawl between apes, or between man and ape would have been like something out of the matrix with a fantastic twist in style and technique. But what do we see instead? Apes primitively pounding each other with double fists like they are in the Flintstones - all that intelligence and they fight like they're in the stone age? Urggh..this was as silly and ill thought as it gets.The confrontation between Koba and the two guys in the arms bunker provided some decent comic relief. Alternatively, when the guys spotted Koba, he could have played the clown at first, then risen to full height and walked ominously towards one of them until the muzzle was against his chest. After a momentary stare down by both individuals Koba would fearlessly say to him, "You humans and your guns.....in the time before your finger squeezes the trigger, my reflexes can move the muzzle of your weapon." A gunshot would go off and the audience would fear Koba has been shot, but in a cut scene Koba would be holding the weapon by its muzzle with its butt suspended in the air, ripped from the shooters hands. Koba would then say, "You do not even possess the strength to hold onto your weapon." As the second guy's weapon goes off Koba would similarly disarm him, yank it out of his hands and toss the weapons at the two other apes he came with, then with his characteristic rasp slowly and softly say, "...too slow." As the two apes finish off the job Koba would then be heard by the audience to say, "Humans...against Ape, you can no longer hide behind your weapons." Then Koba would turn ominously and stare into the audience. The idea is to build the new nemesis in a sweeping cinematic style that leaves the audience breathless. In the same way that the Apes are formidable, it will take formidable humans to take them on; this is good, captivating story telling on the big screen, after all, this is fiction.
The plot was also too predictable and way, w-a-y too simplistic. The audience can see Caesar's betrayal by Koba coming like a punch in super s-l-o-m-o. Caesar is too perfect and too goodie two shoes to be a believable character. Koba with his scars and past is too predictably a bad apple. In a well told story good and evil is rarely this simple minded; sometimes even the worst people are good people struggling to comprehend the meaning of good and evil, and the best people are simply those who have survived close shaves and learned to handle this never ending struggle as a result of having had better luck. The intrigue and fascination is lost by the paper thin characters in DPA 2. By the movie having only one community of intelligent apes evolve significantly reduces the degree of complexity that can be applied to characters. The other mistake made is dividing apes and human beings into separate and individual camps. Again this is way too simplistic. There should be some communities where apes and humans have integrated well and work together, others where they haven't and some where the species are separate in order for the movie to create an intriguing story that examines what could happen when these diverse communities meet or clash. DPA 2 rides too heavily on the coat tails of DPA 1. The story telling approach, technique and delivery is either too sloppy or too cautious.
In terms of appearance the apes are often indistinguishable from each other. The audience has to look for cues to determine which ape is which. This was a big mistake.The director of art in developing each individual ape may have assumed that by placing a scar here and there its easy to identify each ape, but failed to see that this would not work for the audience. The audience does not have the time to easily identify these markings. It is necessary to clearly identify apes. This can be done by giving each ape its own characteristic clothing, gestures and expressions that are more obvious to the audience.
Where is the superior intelligence that is meant to rival that of human beings, this was supposed to give the audience a chill and scare it to its core – no-where. Instead the movie begins to demonstrate what happens when two cultures rather than two intelligences clash. This is beyond stupid. This is one of those rare so badly handled movies a person begins to wish they had never watched it. It’s like an uncomfortable event that a person wished just never took place. It’s a waste of time and money to get a story this badly interpreted. The apes at this stage should have taken human technologies and began to use them in ways human beings never intended. In ways that left the audience in shock and awe. They may still be primitive in the sense that they have aggressive characteristics, but their minds are evolving in ways that appear to move them beyond human intelligence. They should be able to read, understand what a circuit is, take apart a pc and build something new and more troublesome out of it; take an assault rifle and rig it to be able to fire different kinds of projectiles, bend light in ways that make them partially invisible; indeed arrive at a point where when the two intelligences meet, it’s the human intelligence that is struggling to keep up with its nemesis. There should have been scenes where during a competition, to the astonishment of humans, an average ape is solving a complex mathematical problem faster than the brightest human as the two write in chalk on a blackboard. The apes in the movie should be evolving science and philosophy, evolving it beyond where humans had taken it upto that point, solving scientific problems humans were failing to get the answers to. This trauma is the moral teaching of the Planet of the Apes; it discourages people from associating intelligence with a specific physiology an idea popularised by Darwinian theories on evolution tainted by eugenics. Traumatized by this intelligence rivaling its own, we humans then learn we can only survive through creativity, not by intelligence alone since that belonging to the apes is gradually overwhelming us. There is more to being a human being than how intelligent you are or may think you are. This is good, captivating story telling an audience would enjoy. If there will be a DPA 3 this is the way to go, not the stale approach DPA 2.
The fighting technique portrayed by the apes was also poor. Primates are able to use all four of their limbs like hands. This would have allowed the action sequences to show evolved ape martial arts. The apes would be shown to grip with any limb, swing with agility, strike and block with lighting speed to create a super "ape" style kung-fu that has evolved from their enhanced intelligence. Whoever is directing the fight scenes should go back and watch masterpieces such as Hou hsung kou shou (1979) - Snake in the Monkey's Shadow directed by Sam Cheung, starring John Cheung. Look at the artistry and creativity in developing monkey fist. Watch Jackie Chang's Snake in the Eagles Shadow (1978). There is a rare kind of genius in how the martial arts are used to tell a story. This kind of mastery could have been used to bring this movie to an entirely new level. A brawl between apes, or between man and ape would have been like something out of the matrix with a fantastic twist in style and technique. But what do we see instead? Apes primitively pounding each other with double fists like they are in the Flintstones - all that intelligence and they fight like they're in the stone age? Urggh..this was as silly and ill thought as it gets.The confrontation between Koba and the two guys in the arms bunker provided some decent comic relief. Alternatively, when the guys spotted Koba, he could have played the clown at first, then risen to full height and walked ominously towards one of them until the muzzle was against his chest. After a momentary stare down by both individuals Koba would fearlessly say to him, "You humans and your guns.....in the time before your finger squeezes the trigger, my reflexes can move the muzzle of your weapon." A gunshot would go off and the audience would fear Koba has been shot, but in a cut scene Koba would be holding the weapon by its muzzle with its butt suspended in the air, ripped from the shooters hands. Koba would then say, "You do not even possess the strength to hold onto your weapon." As the second guy's weapon goes off Koba would similarly disarm him, yank it out of his hands and toss the weapons at the two other apes he came with, then with his characteristic rasp slowly and softly say, "...too slow." As the two apes finish off the job Koba would then be heard by the audience to say, "Humans...against Ape, you can no longer hide behind your weapons." Then Koba would turn ominously and stare into the audience. The idea is to build the new nemesis in a sweeping cinematic style that leaves the audience breathless. In the same way that the Apes are formidable, it will take formidable humans to take them on; this is good, captivating story telling on the big screen, after all, this is fiction.
The plot was also too predictable and way, w-a-y too simplistic. The audience can see Caesar's betrayal by Koba coming like a punch in super s-l-o-m-o. Caesar is too perfect and too goodie two shoes to be a believable character. Koba with his scars and past is too predictably a bad apple. In a well told story good and evil is rarely this simple minded; sometimes even the worst people are good people struggling to comprehend the meaning of good and evil, and the best people are simply those who have survived close shaves and learned to handle this never ending struggle as a result of having had better luck. The intrigue and fascination is lost by the paper thin characters in DPA 2. By the movie having only one community of intelligent apes evolve significantly reduces the degree of complexity that can be applied to characters. The other mistake made is dividing apes and human beings into separate and individual camps. Again this is way too simplistic. There should be some communities where apes and humans have integrated well and work together, others where they haven't and some where the species are separate in order for the movie to create an intriguing story that examines what could happen when these diverse communities meet or clash. DPA 2 rides too heavily on the coat tails of DPA 1. The story telling approach, technique and delivery is either too sloppy or too cautious.
In terms of appearance the apes are often indistinguishable from each other. The audience has to look for cues to determine which ape is which. This was a big mistake.The director of art in developing each individual ape may have assumed that by placing a scar here and there its easy to identify each ape, but failed to see that this would not work for the audience. The audience does not have the time to easily identify these markings. It is necessary to clearly identify apes. This can be done by giving each ape its own characteristic clothing, gestures and expressions that are more obvious to the audience.
Now what is enjoyable about this Planet of the
Apes franchise is the way the writers and producers have used several different
types of apes including chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. This was
excellent. It would be great to have a story line where the simian flu spreads
intelligence, not just amongst apes that were formerly captive in zoos and so
on, but also begins to spread this intelligence to wild apes. Every species
infected by the intelligence begins to develop its own advancing technology
adapted from humans, their own culture, selective alliances with other apes species,
their own attitude to humans and other apes some they like others they hate. Some
apes might be outright feared by other apes since they have become mental, like
a clan of highly intelligent psychopathic monkeys, cold blooded and quirky. It
would be better story telling if the apes that grew up in captivity or in close
association with humans were more sympathetic to humans while the apes that
emerged from the wild to take over, adapt, and improve human technology and
knowledge were less sympathetic, less friendly to humans to the extent that
humans have to make alliances with apes to protect themselves from those that
are inimical to humans. There are so many different species of apes, this would
be loads of fun for CGI and story telling. There are those pesky baboons that harass
tourists at the Victoria Falls in Zambia and half way across the world there
are those bright faced cold-climate snow monkeys soaking in the hot springs
found in Japan. Everywhere you look in the world there is a rich diversity of monkeys
that could make the Planet of the Apes an intriguing fantasy if the story
telling made sense.
There is a
lot of room for improvement in this franchise to move it from good to great.
