Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (Matt Reeves, 2014)

[mfunk9786]

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, especially following the high standard set by the previous film, was a disappointment for me. There's some virtuoso action cinematography going on, particularly during a moment involving a turret gun on a tank - but this film is missing the compelling human characters that the previous film had. I realize that we're now supposed to be somewhat on the side of the apes (or at least seeing the film through their perspective), but their characterization outside of the two main ape characters is unremarkable. Worse though, as I mentioned, were the human roles this time around, they always felt awkwardly cast and played, and they very rarely had much to do. Gary Oldman, in particular, was given very little to do. I know it might elicit some eyerolls to say this, but James Franco was in many ways the heart of the first film and what made it work so well. Jason Clarke and Keri Russell do their best to fill that role here, but don't add up to much by comparison. That being said, the motion capture performances by Andy Serkis and more notably this time around, Toby Kebbell (who is genuinely menacing as Koba, a truly frightening villian), are fantastic, and I just wish the film were up to the challenge of matching their craft and intensity. It's still a franchise I'll come out for every time, because the effects work is dizzying, and because I really can't say enough great things about Rise of the Planet of the Apes, so hopefully this one is a low point in the series.

[wattsup32]

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, especially following the high standard set by the previous film, was a disappointment for me. There's some virtuoso action cinematography going on, particularly during a moment involving a turret gun on a tank - but this film is missing the compelling human characters that the previous film had. I realize that we're now supposed to be somewhat on the side of the apes (or at least seeing the film through their perspective), but their characterization outside of the two main ape characters is unremarkable. Worse though, as I mentioned, were the human roles this time around, they always felt awkwardly cast and played, and they very rarely had much to do. Gary Oldman, in particular, was given very little to do here - I know it might elicit some eyerolls to say this, but James Franco was in many ways the heart of the first film and what made it work so well. Jason Clarke and Keri Russell do their best to fill that role here, but don't add up to much by comparison. That being said, the motion capture performances by Andy Serkis and more notably this time around, Toby Kebbell (who is genuinely menacing as Koba, a truly frightening villian), are fantastic, and I just wish the film were up to the challenge of matching their craft and intensity. It's still a franchise I'll come out for every time, because the effects work is dizzying, and I really can't say enough great things about Rise of the Planet of the Apes, so hopefully this one is a low point in the series.

This is practically a replica of my experience with the film. I zoned out (not on purpose) almost every time a human was on screen, except for the couple of conversations Clarke (wooden as a dime store Indian) had with Caesar. Ditto on the photography, especially the tank scene, but almost all of the still-ish close shots of the apes/ape families.

In addition to Caesar and Koba, Maurice's characterization was well rounded, clearly defined, and occupied a distinct place in the moral hierarchy of the film. He wasn't given much time, but they got 100% out of what time he was given.

The main monkey fight was dumb as hell. If you were in a theater on Saturday with some asshole repeatedly laughing out loud during that fight, apologies--that was me.

[mfunk9786]

I was at a drive-in for the first time, actually - if the film was going to click with me in any setting, it would've been that one!

[Professor Wagstaff]

I only came back from a screening of "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" a short while ago and can already feel my initial satisfaction with the film dwindling for many of the same reasons, but I'd like to throw out some positive words while they're fresh in my mind. Reeves and his crew's choice to use practical effects wherever they could made a real difference for me in buying the plague-stricken world of the film. When characterization lagged, I could always lean back in my seat and marvel at the lush sets of a ravaged San Francisco, the terrain just outside the city, and the glorious construction of the ape civilization. Reeves has great sense when it comes to his visual language, editing, and tone. His character work actually feels like the biggest impediment in all his films. "Cloverfield" had hollow protagonists and he always seemed to be at such a great distance from his characters in "Let Me In", never really making them his own. If he could find a worthier script or a project more personal to him, I bet Reeves could make a real knockout film somewhere down the line.

[AMalickLensFlare]

I enjoyed this overall, as much as Rise anyway, which I went into with completely neutral expectations.

My biggest problem with the film was how dark it was (i.e. dimly lit). Maybe it was just the theater I was in, but it was distractingly poorly lit, with next-to-zero detail in all the shadows. It was just so damn dark. I asked an usher to have a projectionist check if there was a problem with the projection's lighting (nothing changed). Was this a problem for anyone else? I'm curious if it was just my theater or an issue with the cinematography itself.

[Professor Wagstaff]

Was this a problem for anyone else? I'm curious if it was just my theater or an issue with the cinematography itself.

I'll blame your theater. I never had a moment's issue with lighting and actually thought the film was well-photographed overall.