THE END
Subject: Planet_of_the_Apes
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001
From: Jonathan

It is interesting to note that no one talked about the irony that is shown in the ending sequence of the movie. Notice that Gen. Thade is in the Lincoln spot. Lincoln was known as the great emancipator who helped to free the slaves. The inscription behind the Thade statue leaves the impression that Thade helped to free the world from the humans. Thade therefore becomes a sort of "anti-Lincoln",instead of freeing the slaves, Thade rids the world of them. The nightmare world in the end of the movie is another rift in time, where Wahlberg's character didn't show up to free the slaves, and unite the apes and humans together. I think it is also a tie to the earlier POTA movie series where Cornelius, his wife, and their other ape companion use the spaceship to break the time barrier and enter the past. Notice in "Escape of the Planet of the Apes" the opening sequence is similar to the ending sequence in the recent movie. I know that the ending sequnce is puzzling and I believe that it was left that way. There is a mystery there that is difficult to solve, but from a postmodern view point, that is a good thing, because postmoderns don't like everything explained to them.

Also the movie isn't intending to be a strick retelling of the Exodus (just a repeat of some of the themes), so trying to find a parallel of the ending of the movie to the Exodus story, I believe, is futile. Also it is interesting to note that the final battle scene in the movie between the apes and the humans echoes an "Armageddon" type battle. In Revelation 16:12 the Euphrates river is dried up in order to prepare the way for the kings of the East. Some how the apes found a way around the river, since they wouldn't go through it because they could not swim. The scene of the huge army of apes facing off against the mass of humans also gives one an impression of the Armageddon battle in Revelation. This scene also recalls a similar scene in "The Mummy Returns" where the tribes face off against the army of the jackel humanoid creatures in the end of the movie.

The river scene not only echoes the Red Sea story, but also echoes the crossing of the Jordan when the Israelites finally cross the Jordan in order to enter into the Promised Land (the Jordan crossing is also considered to be a smaller Red Sea crossing).
Jonathan

BOW YOUR HEADS
Subject: Planet_of_the_Apes
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001
From: Darren

It seems as of this writing, "Planet", despite a good opening, is what the media wants to tell us, a "disappointment'. We even get a news report on director Tim Burton complaining about how the studio (Fox) handled the film and how it was given to him. (To me, this is passing the buck- he had, what? Nine different 'endings' to choose from? I'd say that's creative control if there ever was.) Anyway, I am pleased by HJ's review of the film, hitting on just about everything there is in the spiritual parrells. I noted that this film is co-produced by Ralph Winter, a Christian. (His recent producing credits include "X-Men" and "Left Behind") This film was also a HUGE step up from Tim Burton's previous effort, "Sleepy Hollow" which I liked mildly at best (now if people are looking for a few Anti-God/ Anti-Christian messages in favor of 'White' Wicca, there you go.) But I too would like to address the board.

1. PETA. Perhaps the Goldwater reference was ad-libbed by an actor (these things happen) or, I think it was written and later on, someone pointed it out and it all was unintentional. Because, y'know, I didn't see any agenda pushing in this film. Besides, there are scenes of Apes attacking other primates (see below) so this arguement is flimsy.

2. The film was terrific. Yes, I loved this film too, but I question Burton's faith in some of his actors. Kris Kristofferson doesn't get to do much (but when he does, he gives his life for his daughter and the other slaves) and I think Estella Warren is a great up and coming actress (see "Driven") but she hardly says much. It's like she is there to give a nod to Raquel Welch in "1 million yrs BC" or something.

3. Rick Baker & crew? Oscar? The little golden guy? Nah...ya' think?

4. I liked Cary H. Tagawa as Krull. Michael Clarke Duncan as Attar...Tim Roth...as Thade.. heck, any actor in Rick Baker's ape makeup.

5.Beastiality. There was another summer flick, "The Animal". Someone got that and "POTA" confused. Human characters smooching space aliens or space monkeys/apes is nothing new. I bet these people had a heart attack when Star Trek's Captian Kirk made out with that Green alien woman in the original "Trek" series!

6. Thade. Tim Roth has done 'great' villians before ("Rob Roy") but this guy is so bad he IS the one character who is actually being shown harming a small monkey. (He also kills two ape warriors -in the back!)

7. The ending. I don't think it was stupid. I thought it opened the door to speculation and was a neat sf plot twist.

8. Evolution. This isn't "Jurassic Park" people. You aren't spoon fed evolutionary thought. Hey, that reminds me. Can I recomend a website? Creation World View This site really debunks evolution not only from a Judeo-Christian perpective, but a scientific one as well. As for 'evolution' in this film, there wasn't any. Here's what happened:

*The ship goes looking for its lost pilot. They get caught in the rift and instead of going to the future, they hit a wee bit into the past (*they got thier own distress call!) on the planet. The rift also caused a genetic change in the monkeys, making them stronger and more agressive. They killed most of the crew. The human surviors became what remained of the "Human tribes" seen in the film. While the apes and the chimps formed in a period of mirco-evolution, and eventually, spoke english. The Apes dominated the planet, and used humans for slaves.
-Darren J Seeley

THADE'S SHIP
Subject: Planet of the Apes
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001
From: "David"

Thade must have use the ship that sank in the swamp. Also the orangutan had the bag from Pericle's ship. What do you think. maybe Pericles show Thade how to fly it.

REVIEW IS OFF THE MARK
Subject: Planet of the Apes
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001
From: D. Humber

I totally disagreed with your website's review of "Planet of the Apes". I went in to the theater really pulling for this film to work (partly because I worked on it). My disappointment knows no bounds. Bad dialogue- ("I'm recieving transmissions from Earth. And they're from all time!!"; "You go this way, you go that way"), overacting worthy of it's own Oscar category- (Tim Roth didn't steal the show, he leered, screamed, and wrenched it out of the hands of the other cast members. It appeared he did it to compensate for the makeup), and the hurried tacked-on ending- (Wahlberg enters the atmosphere at rocket speed, burns his way across the sky, slams into a monument in D.C., and immediately climbs out and walks up the steps without so much as a blink) all added up to a bad moviegoing experience. Yes, the makeup is incredible. Even in real life you couldn't tell that the actors weren't talking monkeys, but I'm sorry, it can't overcome what is simply a badly executed movie. A key grip friend of mine said it perfectly, "it looks like it was directed from storyboards."
D. Humber

THE LOGIC OF THE ENDING
Subject: Planet of the Apes
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001
From: Mark D.

After much discussion with those I saw POTA with, we still haven't figured out the logic of the ending. Gen. Thade must escape from his "prison" in the ship's wreckage where we had previously seen him, okay. But how does he get to earth? They were not on earth all along like the original (two moons in the sky on the ape planet). Does Thade follow Davidson back through the wormhole (but what does he use for a spaceship) and arrive in a time prior to Davidson's landing on earth? Is this Burton's joke on us as a final homage to the original? If you are carrying out the Davidson as Moses leading the Israelites analogy then is the ending a sort of Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai and seeing the golden calf? Mark D.

DISAGREEMENT OF OPINION
Subject: Planet of the Apes
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001
From: Rudy

Yah, this one goes out in dedication to "DG". (Posting Below)

Planet of the Apes:

1. Rampant religious bias: a great portrayal of what religious commitment sometimes looks like. These gorillas, specifically Michael Clark Duncan's character which was the only religious character with integrity, are extremely militant about executing their beliefs. It is a metaphorical statement about how people with religiously exclusive beliefs (whether that exclusivity be right or wrong) sometimes act toward those who aren't like them and have differing religious views.

2. I don't even know/care about the Goldwater thing, frankly it's irrelevant and seems thrown in to add another point to compensate for a weak argument (i.e. the method some use because they believe that the importance of the number of points made far outweighs the importance of the validity of those points).

3. PETA-polemic - unless the writer(s) of POTA are member(s) of PETA, I do not believe this point has much relevance either. Actually, the whole ape-human reversal seems more obviously a figurative portrayal of ignorant prejudice and abuse of minorities, just as it was in the original movie.

By the way, it would seem to me that the words "sci-fi" and "implausable", when used in a sentence, being that the latter describes the former, create an oxymoron.

Oh yeah, one last thing: MARGINAL ACTING!? Oh wait, maybe you saw the original movie and were told it was the new one. In this reviewers opinion, the acting was supreme with the exception of Mark Wahlberg (although maybe he did his best, I think the role was miscast). Tim Roth and Michael Clark Duncan stole the show with help from other supporting players and a phenomenal cameo by Charleton Heston himself, not to mention some fantastic lines recycled from the original.

NOT "RAMPANT ANTI-RELIGIOUS BIAS"
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001
From: HB

I want to say that as far as the "rampant anti-religious bias" is in some people eyes, I saw something different. When slaves were brought from Africa to America they were brutalized and raped by many people who claimed to be Christian. We have glorified one such narrow, bigoted, prejudiced, and brutal man who kept slaves and raped slaves and fathered illegitimate children with slaves by putting him on our currency that we use everyday.

I don't think the intention of the movie is to show religious people in a negative light but rather to show the age old principle "one bad apple can ruin the whole bunch." When Jesus returned from the grave he forgave those who turned against him, he understood they were misled. Just as Mark Walburg forgave the Apes who tried to kill him. We need to look at the flip side, Mark Walburg was leading his people to hope (so he thought) and when he arrived he found there was no tangible hope, no ship, and no other people to save him. He realized that he was the hope (maybe Christ himself) and he had to lead his people to salvation. He had to turn the hearts of his oppressors.

I know that some people saw the PETA aspect but I saw more parallels with the slave movement. We are talking about people in the movie, not animals, and we were talking about people when we spoke of slaves, not animals. But they were treated the same way. As if they had no souls, as if they were evil, and as if they deserved to be brutalized for the profit of others.

Bestiality? I think the whole reason they threw in the term "human lover" is to show yet another parallel with people who formed the slave movement. Ephetats of "nigger lover" were shouted at people who rose in favor of slaves.

I think the Moses parallel is great as well. I think the overall theme in my eyes was the Civil War. The Lincoln monument was the clincher for me as well at the end.
HB

MARK WAHLBERG IS SPIRITUAL?
Subject: Planet of the Apes
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001
From: Frank Sherwin

Mark Wahlburg? I read somewhere that he was a Church-goer.
Amazing.

LOSER -SAVE YOUR MONEY
Subject: Planet of the Apes
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001
From: DG

Well, I gave in and went to "" with my teenage son. SAVE YOUR MONEY. I was told NOT TO GO by people who are serious film buffs, and I should have listened, but gave in under the pleading of the kid. Shoulda known better!

1. Rampant anti-religious bias -- The bad guy apes are mostly devout believers in a Supreme Being and a Deliverer who will return again some day. They are also narrow, bigoted, prejudiced, and brutal.

2. Anti-Goldwater slap -- The main antagonist is made to say "Extremism in the defense of apes is no vice." Sound familiar? Barry Goldwater's quote at the SF Cow Palace, I think, when he said "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Gratuitously nasty.

3. PETA-polemic -- Of course, the entire movie is rife with PETA themes about animals having souls, being equal in how they should be treated, and how they must not be used for medical research. 4. Bestiality -- Not content to bend most rules, APES then has the male star and the female "human lover" ape smooching at the end in genuine affection . . . suggesting crossover affection is both possible and acceptable. Makes the audience wonder if they could have nice little kids with tails and opposable thumbs too. How nice!

Generally, the FX were not any big deal, the acting was marginal, the science beyond far fetched, and the sci-fi themes just too implausible.

LOSER MOVIE but Tim Burton obviously had fun. I lost my "willing suspension of disbelief" very early and never had a reson to regain it.
DG

STUNNING AND DISAPPOINTING
Subject: Planet of the Apes
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001
From: "David

While the make-up and visual effects were stunning, the storyline was quite disappointing. A vague departure from the original film, there were quite a few loopholes left unanswered.

Back to main page of POTA