This iteration the Planet of the Apes series directed by Tim Burton is an action movie starring Marc Wahlberg on a…well, a planet of apes. It’s pretty standard low-goal, high-budget sci-fi action fair with one of the most bewildering, shoehorned twist endings in the past decade. The film itself is rather underwhelming, failing to meet the assumed criteria set by the previous films and television programs of the franchise other than having a planet with apes on it, passing as a shiny action movie and little else. It really shows — the action is fairly well-paced and the overall, but its merit as a work of sci-fi is severely lacking by using science fiction as a setting rather than a genre. If you want a synopsis, go to the link at the top of the paragraph; I’m here to analyze, not summarize.
It should be noted that this film is not to be confused with Planet of the Apes (1968) or Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011), both of which are much better science fiction films in almost every dimension.
Now, where to begin on this science-fiction train wreck of a movie?
The main issue I have with this movie is that, while it is a reboot, it completely undermines the point of the first movie of the series in which the overarching motif was the complete role-reversal of apes and humans. The original themes and motifs of the original were pretty heavy stuff, if a bit narmy by today’s standards. Humans become savages without complex language or civilized structure, while apes have language, culture, and guns. It makes an effective commentary on the treatment of animals (especially primates) while also criticizing the manipulation of science by bureaucracy, politicians, and religion in favor of anti-intellectualism.
The new Planet of the Apes looks this concept straight in the eye and slaps it across the face with a damp towel. It’s pretty much just using the name as a marketing tool for a mediocre action flick. Sadly, there’s not much surprise in that; as the genre of science fiction expands and becomes more profitable, many of the more subtle ideas, motifs, and conflicts are cut in both time and budget in favor of large set pieces, high-end CGI, and lengthy action sequences. Executives just seem think the general public is too … well, dumb to grasp a lot of the intangibles of science fiction and fantasy. Some actually considered Inception to be a bit of a gamble on these grounds, which is why we see more movies like Clash of the Titans and Transformers than we do in the vein of District 9 or Brazil.But I digress.
In this installment of the Planet of the Apes saga, the human subordinates are able to speak perfect English, changing the original juxtaposition that made the original so moving. It sacrifices the strong commentary on animal cruelty, sapience, and anti-intellectualism for a shallow criticism of racism and slavery. Now, this idea is not without merit; heck, I think it could have made a great movie. What’s so frustrating is that it takes no risks in showing any sort of duality in its presentation, thus lacking the ethical punch of the more successful films of the series. As a result, we end up getting a watery “racism is bad, mkay?” message instead of anything more meaningful.
That’s not to say that everything is bad in this film. The apes have a very real feel to them thanks largely to the handiwork of Rick Baker, using massive amounts of makeup and cosmetics to create the face of each character to give each a certain fleshiness that just isn’t obtainable with CGI. Technology, weapons, armor, clothes, and set pieces are well designed and set a good tone for the film, taking heavy inspiration from the likes of John Howe and the Brothers Hildebrandt. Overall, it’s a very pretty movie; there’s definitely no arguing that point.
What’s really holding this film back is lack of purpose, for lack of a better term. To me, this seems to be an endemic problem to many of Burton’s films. In any good example of science fiction, there is always a core hypothesis that drives the story. Part of what made the original so frightening and intense was how the anti-intellectualism of the apes was limiting the society of both humans and apes as a whole. We draw parallels between the hypothesis and modern society and see ourselves reflected in alien scenarios, giving a different appreciable context of human actions to the viewer. We project ourselves and society onto the template and make (sub)conscious inferences from there.
Burton’s story has no real hypothesis of the sort — there’s little conflict outside of the physical danger for the protagonist. Wahlberg’s character is rather dull and has no appreciable personal motivations, making him uninteresting and unrelateable. The newer film’s simplicity keeps you waiting for the second moral conflict or plot twist that never really comes to pass. The film instead plays into Burton’s strengths and focuses on the portrayal of the world the characters are in. However, as so many Star Wars fans are eager to tell you, pleasing aesthetics rarely make up for bad acting or plot. The thing that really bothered me, though, was that the apes didn’t really have a purpose. If you’re going to make a choice in something as important as character species, the choice you make should have purpose in order to pull the story into a tighter focus. This movie could have almost any sapient species or characters and still carry about the same weight. Let’s say he wanted to use jaguar-people. The story still works and has the added benefit of being a bit more original and interesting. Maybe they could have used lizard-men? or how about centaurs? or perhaps just classic greys? This flaw is largely endemic to the branding attempt, but I feel that another species would have been a lot more interesting to view without detracting anything significant from the experience.
I stand by what I said regarding The Day the Earth Stood Still. If they had stuck a little closer to the original premise of the film, the film would have had a tighter focus and would have held its own more effectively as a sci-fi movie. It’s not really a “more than once” movie, so I wouldn’t go out of my way to buy a copy unless it were in a $5 bargain bin at the local mega-mart. After all, there’s a reason that Burton said he’d “rather jump off a bridge” than make a sequel — that should say a lot in of itself. That said, if you find a cheap copy, know a friend who has it, or see it at the library, give it a look. If you’re just looking to kill some time riffing a movie over a bowl of popcorn with your friends, you can definitely do a lot worse.
Doc Watson is the founder of The GameRx Clinic and editor for The RedShirt Crew blog. He would really like to know how any ape in a starkly anti-intellectual society could identify aspirin by name. If you have any questions, comments, or input, leave a comment below or send him a tweet @DocWatsonMD
The Red Shirt Crew Blog and Podcast Network 
You lost me in life the first paragraph, after you implied that APES DON'T ALREADY HAVE CULTURE. SO MUCH RAGE. APES DO, IN FACT, HAVE DISTINCT AND DEVELOPED CULTURAL PRACTICES. GO CRACK OPEN A CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY TEXTBOOK. THERE ARE LIKE ENTIRE CHAPTERS DEDICATED TO APE CULTURE.
Where did he imply that apes don't have culture? When he claimed the roles of humans and apes have reversed? They have. Apes in the movie have very different cultural patterns than standard apes for obvious reasons. Not sure what you're seeing here
I'm seeing the damn article.
“Humans become savages without complex language or civilized structure, while apes have language, culture, and guns.”
There you go. Straight from the article. If apes having culture was a change, as is stated here, that implies that apes did not have culture before, which they do. Apes also have quite good linguistic capabilities, as it's been pretty well proven that apes can learn to comprehend even the ENGLISH language. The studies and results are amazing, look into it (primatology promotion, sue me). Besides that, it's also not accurate to imply that apes do not have “civilized structure”… whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. First of all, it's a very subjective and broad statement, and definitely not accurate. Ape culture is actually quite complex. Just because it's different from YOUR culture doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that it's inferior. Ape culture has structure. Apes are intelligent. Apes are capable of language, building complex tools and teaching others how to use them by using only spoken language, logical problem solving, etc. Seriously, look up primatology, you'll learn a lot.
Anyone who's actually read anything on primatology should be able to identify the difference between “culture” and “civilization”. “Culture” can apply to almost any living organism to some capacity, while “civilization” refers to human culture specifically. Seriously, anon; this is Anthropology 101. I would hope someone as allegedly well-read on the topic as yourself would have been wise to this.
As for complex language, I refer of course to the written word as opposed to physical or acoustic communication. This is the major key that separates the two groups in terms of communication. I'm familiar with studies regarding apes in understanding of ASL and comprehension of spoken language. However, this does nothing to change the fact that apes do not keep written records of their activities — perhaps the largest boon to our own advancement as a species. It is this ability that allows the future apes in the film to maintain technological and scientific superiority over the feral humans. Again, these are all points I hoped anyone learned in primatology beyond the amateur level would have recognized and understood.
As a side note, writing in all caps does nothing to strengthen your point, serving largely to make it seem as though you are trying to compensate insecurities in your position with zealousness. If you want your points to be taken more seriously in any particular forum, I would advise you move your pinky away from the Caps-Lock key.