I know 9 parts of “Planet of the Apes” by heart. I have more than one problem with the newest one [RECENZJA]

Schaffner’s “Planet of the Apes” from 1968 is a classic of sci-fi cinema. Although 56 years have passed since the film’s premiere, the production has not aged at all. Maybe the rubber masks of the apes and some of the costumes don’t look the best, but they don’t hinder the viewing in any way and don’t take away from the seriousness of the film – just like the rather exaggerated acting. The production, based on the novel by Pierre Boulle from 1963, is guided by a universal idea that has not become outdated. Its strength was to show human hypocrisy, which has only deepened over the years. The film delights with its script and perfectly balanced drama. It is difficult for viewers to clearly support one side of the conflict, which is an invaluable value of every film. Even knowing the final twist, “Planet of the Apes” can be watched in one breath.

From Schaffner to Reeves. The first Planet of the Apes film was released 56 years ago

The continuation of the now cult film – “Into the Planet of the Apes” from 1970 – is probably the worst shot in the history of the universe. Ted Post unfastened his roller skates and took us to the titular underground, where a group of mutant people operated in the Forbidden Zone. This strange combination of the Illuminati and a religious sect distracts the viewer from the main plot and, above all, from thoughts about the essence of humanity. In order to expand the fantastic elements, the film lost its realism and credibility and gave us an absurd plot that did not enrich the message in any way and did not deepen the production’s plot. In Rise of the Planet of the Apes, released a year later, Don Taylor got the series back on track. This time there was a double role reversal and the focus was on time complexities, which was a great move. In turn, “Conquest of the Planet of the Apes”, released in 1972, unsuccessfully tried to set the plot in a new era. Unfortunately, the film still looked like an overpainted, slightly too edgy 1970s. On the other hand, the finale of “Battle for the Planet of the Apes” (1973) is difficult to take seriously. The clash looks like a parody of the universe loved by millions of viewers around the world.

In 2001, the series was to be refreshed by Tim Burton. Unfortunately, “Planet of the Apes” with Mark Wahlberg turned out to be a failure. The director introduced some darkness and his own unique atmosphere to the series, Tim Roth was great as the ruthless madman General Thade, and Paul Giametti as Limbo has a lot of comedic potential. However, when watching the work of the creator of “Edward Scissorhands”, it is difficult to get rid of the thought that we are watching a film about nothing. The characters are exaggeratedly square, at times cringe-worthy (Ari’s advances towards Leo, ow, ow, ow), and the script is nonexistent. It’s not a bad watch, but it’s hard to get fully involved in the story when you have such an unfortunate set of film elements at your disposal.

A new quality was introduced to the Planet of the Apes universe only 10 years later, when Matt Reeves took over the series. “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” is not without its flaws, but it introduced a lot of freshness to the story. The scenario realistically and thoughtfully explains how the situation on Earth has turned around and monkeys have become the dominant species. Of course, the culprit was man and his endless layers of hypocrisy, as well as the greed of corporations. The biggest problem of the production are the human characters, who seem to be plot pawns. However, the perfectly executed transformation of Caesar (played by the brilliant Andy Serkis) was worth it. The subsequent parts of the “new” Planet of the Apes are at the same level and are one of the best reboots made in the 21st century.

Reeves’ trilogy ends with Caesar’s death. The creators left fans of the series with a handful of questions that Wes Ball was supposed to answer in “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes”. And well – he didn’t answer. However, it provided viewers with quite a lot of pleasant entertainment with a not necessarily good script. The film underwent changes not only in the cast, technical and plot, but above all in terms of genre, which can be seen on the screen from the beginning of the screening. Science-fiction took a backseat, and creators from the world of fictional science took viewers to the land of legends and myths. And this change hurts.

“Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes” [RECENZJA]

“Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes”, which hit Polish cinemas on May 10, welcomes us with beautiful shots of a dense jungle. If it weren’t for the parts of cars, bridges and buildings sticking out here and there from among the grass and moss, we would never have guessed that the land was founded on the ashes of our civilization. The special effects and technical aspects of the film cannot be faulted. The monkeys’ fur is temptingly soft, like that of little kittens, and every emotion in the actors’ voices is enhanced by the incredible expression of the monkeys’ faces. There is no question here of sloppy technical displays or style over substance. Almost every shot is justified by the plot and perfectly polished.

However, viewers for whom the visual layer is of no or very little importance (played by me) will not be so quickly deceived by subsequent spectacular frames. Nature triumphing over the products of human hands was recently brilliantly shown by the series “The Last of Us”. Realistic animals that bring to mind a visit to the zoo rather than a cinema are no longer a novelty. And when we dig a little deeper into “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes”, the stairs begin.

The main character of the story is Noa, who lives in one of the clans in a world dominated by monkeys. It is almost immediately noticeable that over the last 300 years the titular animals have made a significant evolutionary leap. Their speech became much smoother, and the group of chimpanzees learned to tame another species. The Noy clan is engaged in eagle breeding, and the practice has a ritual, even mystical character. The day we meet the young chimpanzee is a breakthrough for him, he is about to enter adulthood, but just before the “passage ceremony” the village is attacked by gorillas. Their leader is a certain Proximus Ceasar, who has created an almost religious cult around himself. He is a despot and the self-proclaimed successor of Caesar, a friend of humanity. However, the tyrant is far from the character we know from the previous trilogy, the gorilla has perverted every value that his predecessor had.

Not my circus, but a bit of my monkeys

The next scenes are a predictable story that every Star Wars viewer knows. The hero wants to save his family, so he sets off on a dangerous journey. On the way, he meets an orangutan who reveals to him the story of his origin – he tells the legend of Caesar – for him he is not only an authority, but also someone like God. Soon the apes are joined by Mae – a young girl who is one of the few human touches in the story. Mae and Noa’s interests do not coincide, but the cooperation of apes and humans is once again necessary to face the obsessed Proximus.

The story about searching for one’s identity, fighting for freedom and survival, which we get in “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes”, is thoroughly formulaic, has plot holes, and the characters’ decisions can be completely absurd. Noa’s transformation happens too quickly, it lacks any significant turning points. The least written character, however, is Mae, whose exaggerated mystery combined with incredible calculation deprived the viewer of the desire to identify with her goals. In turn, the thoroughly terrifying Proximus Ceasar, whose madness gives chills in the eyes, and the funny orangutan Raka work flawlessly. The first one adds a strong element of danger and reveals the stakes (I won’t say what, because spoilers), the second one naturally introduces a comedic element to the world.

“Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes” is a formulaic, predictable story, but it cannot be denied its charm. The creators took a risk and presented viewers with an original idea that is not based only on nostalgia (although it sometimes winks at it), which is also worth praising. Unfortunately, the chosen path, although the right one, turned out to be very winding. During the screening, the viewer does not focus on the moral dilemmas that tormented him while watching the previous parts, because the creators placed emotional accents in completely different places. However, once again they showed a perspective in which the overriding desire to survive, the lust for power and revenge is not the domain of our species alone.

Ball’s work does not complement the history we know like Reeves’ trilogy, but builds on it. The created world lacks context and the questions multiply, which distracts from the moving story. I believe that the production will prove to be a great introduction to the new trilogy when we learn the rest of the story, but as a standalone film it does not work as well as its scope requires.