The Bombs: Planet of the Apes (2001)

  • user warning: Table './listology/profile_values' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT f.name, f.type, v.value FROM profile_fields f INNER JOIN profile_values v ON f.fid = v.fid WHERE uid = 96668 in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/listology.com/modules/profile/profile.module on line 229.
  • user warning: Table './listology/profile_values' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT f.name, f.type, v.value FROM profile_fields f INNER JOIN profile_values v ON f.fid = v.fid WHERE uid = 0 in /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/listology.com/modules/profile/profile.module on line 229.
Tags: 

The worst thing about big FX science fiction spectacles is that no matter how boring they are you feel compelled to watch until the end in case something cool happens. Unfortunately, in the case of Planet of the Apes, that phenomenon ropes you into watching perhaps the most nonsensical ending ever. I can summarize this movie as follows:

Yaaaaawwwwwn ZZZZZZZ yaaawwwn . . . What the hell?!

Here's the deal on the ending:

Spoiler: Highlight to view
If the spaceship calendar is to be believed (I love how the calendar is the most prominently displayed navigational instrument on a ship that is designed to travel through space, not time), then a monument to Thade is built before he exists. If the calendar is buggy (a contrivance that serves no purpose but to mislead the audience), and it scrolls the wrong way, then I suppose it's possible that there'd be a monument to Thade, but why, thousands of years and however many apocalypes later, do the apes build an exact replica of Washington DC (a contrivance that serves no purpose but to one-up the original)?
.

So I watched the Tim Burton commentary track to see what he had to say about the ending. I never would have thought a director that has produced so many good movies could babble so incoherently. I think what it boiled down to was something like, "I had this image I wanted to end on" (logic be damned).

At least the ending elicts a reaction. The rest is just dull. Preachy commentary on "human rights", fairly uninteresting visually, and an otherwise fine Tim Roth performance spoiled by its incongruity.

I'm a Tim Burton fan, but I'm sad to say I Have to second your thumbs-down on this one. The make-up, fx and aping of various sorts of ape are quite good, but they are badly let down by a tediously PC script that tells a story even more groan-worthy than that of the pre-make.

This remake does not even compare to the original. I was very dissapointed in this film. Tim Burton and Mark Wahlberg!?! I would think we could have expected something a lot better out of those guys.

I have to agree, I really looked forward to this movie and it was such a disappoinment. Think about how cool it would have been in they had this level of special effects knowledge when the original was made. But I always have to wonder about why any movie company wants to remake a classic that was already pretty much flawless. The bozo's that remade "The Time Machine" made that same stupid mistake. Why not remake old movies that sucked and try to make them better. Why take a perfect movie and attempt to make it better, the only thing you can hope for is to equal it, you aren't going to top it. And in my entire life I have only seen one remake that I thought was as good as the original and that was John Carpenter's "The Thing".

Hey, thanks to you I just realized I hadn't added this to my disappointing movies list. It's there now.

There *have* to be more remakes that are as good as (or superior to) the original than The Thing, but I can't think of any at the moment. How 'bout any of you Listologists just tuning in?

Hmm... that depends. If two different movies are based on the same play or book, does that count as a remake? If so, I think The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), His Girl Friday (1940), Ben-Hur (1959), or Red Dragon (2002) might qualify - though I haven't seen all of those films, sometimes I'm just going by critical acclaim. If not, then I guess it depends on your taste. I know some people who like A Star Is Born (1954), Scarface (1983), The Ring (2002), or Insomnia (2002) better than the originals. I personally would nominate Ocean's Eleven (2001).

Then there are some films with great remakes, but maybe not superior. I think the two Western remakes of Kurosawa classics, Fistful of Dollars (1964) and Magnificent Seven (1960), are supposed to be great but not greater than the originals.

According to the IMDB, Alien (1979) is a remake of It! The Terror From Beyond Space (1958). Not sure about that one, but if that is true, it would certainly qualify.

Cool, some promising examples in there, AJ. I'd second the nomination of Ocean's Eleven. I also forgot about ash_campbell's Original and Remakes list, and UncRoger's Remakes list. dgeiser13 also has a list, Remakes of Foreign-Language Films, but it makes no value judgements on which is superior.