Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Saw this for first time. It was pretty much as I expected, a bit better. Overall nowhere near as good as it seems to be rated and purported by others.

It is the best POTA movie after the original

Absolutely, I don't deny that. Look what it is standing up against though

Except it is.

You gotta love threads on this forum.

>movie gets announced
>FUCK NO THIS IS GONNA SUCK (insert name here) can't write and (insert name here) can't direct for shit THEY ARE RUINING MY LIFE I'LL NEVER WATCH THIS MOVIE
>people watch movie
>AMAZING

>Pretty much what I originally expected and not great

This was fantastic. I should make threads like this more often.


Sequel in 2014 though? Fuck, I'll probably be grown up by then

I think there will always be room for monkey business

Hopefully this will happen with The Dark Knight Rises.

Not great movie at all

Not great but... amazing?!!!

this was entertaining, but with nothing of worth to say about ethical issues etc. which really should come with the territory

fixed

I saw it on the plane and liked it more than I expected to. I remember noticing a few pretty major plot holes, but they really managed to make it an emotional film. I think it all rested on Caesar and James Franco's character and both held it together really well.

People who mention "plot holes" without explaining what they meant do not understand what plot holes actually are.

Or they watched the movie months ago, thought about it for a couple of days, and didn't bother thinking about it again and they no longer care or remember what the plot holes were.

So why even throw that out there, if you either don't remember or don't care? To show that you're a super knowledgeable film buff who can spot inferior products with the slightest of efforts?

Yes... exactly. Every time I share my opinion of something, the extent to which I enjoyed it, and why, my intention is to demonstrate my knowledge of the topic being discussed. Oh wait, that's you.

The main one was something to do with the decision to develop the second drug. Overall that whole dynamic between Franco and the CEO didn't make a whole lot of sense... the profit driven suit saying "Who CARES about Alzheimers... this can make people smart!" The ease with which Franco convinced him to do it again, after exhibiting so much untrustworthy and aggressive behavior. But there was something in particular beyond the unlikely behavior of the CEO. And something else that had one character doing something really convoluted and difficult when a much simpler option was staring him in the face.

A character acting dumb is not the same thing as a plot hole. That was/is my point. As expected, you saw what you found to be bad writing (e.g. "characters acting dumb") and threw out "plot hole" because you do not understand what it means.

The CEO was angry about pouring money into a program that saw its best ape flip out and nearly injure and ton of people right when the board meeting was happening. We know (as the audience) that it was survival instinct after having a baby, but the CEO still has to explain why the ape went ... well, apeshit. As of this time, he sees that it MIGHT work for Alzheimers but also produced violent and unpredictable behavior (again, not knowing about the baby). He orders a reboot so that 1) they can still hopefully get their desired results and 2) they don't have to worry about the ape(s) that flipped out before. Sure enough, the second time, it works (at first) ... he has BOTH his father's progress AND Caesar's progress. This is all clearly shown in the movie and I am not filling in holes with my own explanations.

Again, RE: your second point, a character ignoring a simple option isn't a plot hole, just like teenagers in the woods investigating a strange noise instead of calling the cops isn't a plot hoe.

I addressed the second sentence already, and the first sentence just has you re-iterating "I swear there was another plot hole somewhere". Good for you.

ok tough guy

spoiler alerts dammi--oh wait no one cares the plot is disposable

It's nice to see someone say this. I always think that when people say "why would they do that?" and call it a plot hole.

Past a certain point it can be. But argue semantics all you want, it wont make the plot any better.

I'm just arguing that the semantics are more important than people think. Saying a writer left a plot hole is saying that they can't keep track of their own writing or attention to detail, and directly contradict their established narrative and/or universe. Saying a writer includes contrivances that are there to advance the plot is saying that the writer cares more about genre convention, popcorn entertainment, and Hollywood formulas than he/she does about intelligent, challenging, realistic writing. These are two very different criticisms even though they both relate to writing.

For ROTPOTA, it's clear the writer cares more about delivering a Hollywood action movie than about realistically predicting how this type of research would go. That's why I don't care so much about "why would they do that" moments in the movie, and why it doesn't even pop into my head when I'm watching it. Sure, it would be a GREAT and pleasant surprise if they could combine intelligent writing with big-budget action, but for a movie about super-human apes taking over Earth, I'm more interested in the latter. Hence why it doesn't bug me and I can highly enjoy this movie through multiple viewings.

Fair enough... without remembering the specifics I really can't put forth an argument about plot holes that are in the movie. The reason I brought it up was to say that in spite of aspects about the narrative that would usually put me off a film, the emotive qualities of the film were enough to bring me back in and make it an enjoyable movie. That movie and District 9 both are pretty awesome in terms of having a non-humanoid (as opposed to smeagol or the Navi) CG character with a lot of screen time who you can really take seriously.

I would hardly call this an action movie. It was about the relation ship between the dude and his cool chimp, if you got overly focused on details of how his research was handled by the company he works for well, you just need to take it easy, and you're missing the point.

This was not a great movie

Thanks, mate.

lol. i can't remember ever seeing a more offensively manipulative action movie, and that's saying something. from the opening scene i could pretty much tell what i was in store for, yet for some reason i kept watching...

lol

That's the internet I remember.

Manipulative how

in the sense that it has zero depth, but it tries to make you think it has depth by cramming in a bunch of issues people feel strongly about (e.g. alzheimer's, apes, scientific research, etc). like we're supposed to care about john lithgow because he has alzheimer's, but we don't know anything about him or his relationship with james franco. he's just a dad with alzheimer's, therefore we should care about this movie and every character in it or else we are bad people who don't love our dads.