While I agree that the saga has a beautiful conclusion in the fact that it ends with Caesar leading them to the promished lands in his final breaths.... and apparently the humans are then left to either become dumber or simply be near extinct.... however, excellent it surely is not.

I dare say the story itself is dumb and riddled with oddities and just unbelievable scenes. Like when a guard with all the keys to the apes decides to lock himself in their clousure to shoot one of them, when he could easily have done this from the outside safety... well, his stupidity was needed for the plot but is it excellent story telling? Or when a mute Newt cries over the death of a Gorilla who she had known for one day, and who gave her one flower (as the only point of contact) and who, btw, assisted in killing her dad the previous day - whom she shed no tears over... makes sense, I do not think so??

But more profoundly I ask; Where is the War? Where is the epic conclusion we are led to expect? Where is the Planet of the Apes?

In fact this chapter is about forced labor, while someone else is fighting a battle for some evil lair. When I think about it the beginning text explaining the situation seem not to agree too well with the rest of the movie. The true epics was a war between human men of different ideas (I guess, cause we are only introduced to one of them)... the apes were mere bystanders if anything really.

I am very concerned on Reeves spearheading THE BATMAN.... very concerned indeed.

Interesting interpretation of the film.

I was so enamoured by the craft of the film I didn't really notice some of the plot holes you had mentioned - will have to watch again. As I mentioned in my review, I didn't like 'Dawn' all that much because of its simplistic storytelling and I feel there were many more obvious plot holes than there were in this.

As for the war, I would say the clue is in the title. It is a war for the survival of the apes in general and their capture and torture by Woody Harrelson's Colonel threatens their survival. If they cannot guarantee their survival, there will be no planet of the apes. Similarly from the humans' perspective, the rise and dawn of the apes threatens their survival and the Colonel does his 'best' (albeit with aforementioned plot holes) to not have this future.

I think the film touches on a wider context, for example with Steve Zahn's Bad Ape and with the other human army who at the end, infiltrate the compound. It hints at a wider context and that perhaps there are other batches of apes and humans fighting out their survival even if it isn't explicitly shown.

As for 'The Batman', I have to agree with you that I also have reservations. For me, this is the first really good film Reeves has made and I haven't really enjoyed the rest of his back catalogue. I don't think his style really fits with the dark and noir-like superhero and I really would have preferred more of an auteur of a director - as slippery as that term is, I still can't really tell what Reeves' defining characteristics are other than having a film with a Michael Giacchino score. But he surprised me a lot here so although I'm concerned, there is the possibility he could make a really good film.

Perhaps we are not completely disagreeing.

I found Rise very exciting and a great way to tell us the story on how it all began. I was surely at the end of my seat when they finally rebelled and escaped to the forest. Bad bad humans :) And even though Dawn was critically loved around the world I was not entirely sold either. I cannot really put my finger on why that is, as it technically was a master piece and too very well acted… but I did not find myself so engaged in the story as I should have been. And mind you, I am huge fan of the original from 1968, and the follow-ups in Beneath (1970) and even Escape (1971). I have not yet seen (or think that I have not seen) Conquest (1972) and Battle (1973), mostly because I feel Escape needed no further tellings… but they are on my list for sure. My point is that even though I am inclined to love any iteration of this story, something made me a bit meah about Rise… I suppose, a bit like you.

However, when War was announced and the trailers started, I surely got excited once again. The story still have much to offer . We needed to learn about how Humans and Apes became so separated as they are in Planet (1968). Wauu, cannot wait… plus in truth, the connection to the first Planet (1968) was/is hoped for

And then they give us this War (2017) story.... Yes, it is very well done and the acting is truly phenomenal, not least from the Apes… and yes, the ending is beautiful and even sets up for Planet (1968) in a subtle way..... But what sets a good movie above others is the story told and more importantly; HOW it is told. And here I frankly feel he failed miserably.

Even the movie posters are eluding from what the story actually is… I mean, stop reading this for a moment and take a look….. I will wait :) Okay, am I right? This poster just screams epic conflict and war…. Two forces attacks one another, may the best Ape win… the poster is sadly lying. Or rather; if it would delete the apes on the Poster it is sort of true. And this is my biggest biff.

The movie should not “not explicitly show” the War (like you mention it does). That is cheating us. The true conflict of this movie is a conflict between humans. That story seems more interesting than what we were fed, to be honest.

Instead of being told a tale of Apes and the last of men, we are told a story about a stir-crazy colonel who eventually is taken down by the virus… If Caesar or not, Apes would win…. This is essentially the lesson. You see, when we meet Bad Ape, we learn then that other apes from other places also have gained intelligence (which is the first time we learn this)…. And this then at the same time tells us that whatever happened here is essentially irrelevant to Planet of the Apes. It would happen with or without Caesar and friends. That is not epic? Well, one may argue that IF the avalanche had not wiped out that army in the end, humans might very well have re-conjured the world as this army seemed superior is every way…. but then what this is telling us is that ONE AVALANCHE is guilty of wiping out the human race???? War for The Plane of the Aalanche…

Much fails in the story and the story telling. I mention a little above and a few in my previous post, but what about:

• The Colonel goes himself to the Apes lair in his second attack on them, because??? (and remember their first attack was a total fail). He wanted to get Cesar son? Why? Why was he there if his real threat was a marching army only a few days away… is this good story telling?

• The Men goes back and captures all the apes in their third attack, to build a wall against helicopters…. I repeat, against HELICOPTERS . And likely against an army which is just a couple of days away. Sure Woody, that is worth the trouble and risk indeed. One answer is that it shows how crazy he was, but was this why they told it like this or was it again simply poor story telling? If the story tellers had instead made the Apes more like, let us say “human” shields or perhaps a ploy to make them all in to “Donkeys” to fight along with them… but no, the story actually want us to believe that The Men wanted to risk hunting and capturing and forcing labor out of them (remember the Aps had again and again showed to be superior in fighting), in order to build a wall against an army with Helicopters… an army only a few days away… so the men are thinking; "let us capture Apes who we know can beat us (so we probably cannot catch them) to build a wall we have no time to build and a wall we do not really need"... not good story and not good story telling.

• 100% of the winning army storms the exploding fortress of The Colonel (did we learn nothing from Batman Rises??). I mean what army employs their troops like this? Well, it worked for the plot, but not for reality.

• 100% of the wining and well-equipped army got wiped out in one avalanche… I know I mention this above but if this isn’t a “I’ll be damned” moment, than what is? I accept such moments, but damn, it was not well delivered here and not least when the story will have us believe this was the last hope for humans….

• Caesar travels with his people across a great distance to never attend his wound from the arrow and dies because of it (and no ape sees that Caesar is bloody and fatally wounded in their travels. Guessing he is no hugger).

• The virus takes humans ability to speak away…. Yes, fair enough. But come on, it should make them gradually dumber or similar. The speech effect which apparently happened within the blink of an eye (not gradual), is.... well, show us to de-evolutionize in a more credible way, just saying.

• Soldier man who was spared by the hero and who the movie shows us is conflicted through the whole story is given the perfect moment to show mercy, and is then blown away by an redeeming Ape who was a dick the whole time.

• The Ape who was a dick the whole time is having a change of heart while he stands next to a giant machine gun, and who notices a leaking gas tank that can end the bad men in one blow…. And then decides to stop one solider in his track with one grenade (next rewrite of the script should have him overpower the machine gun and go nuts until taken out…)

Many of these point is a strong signal that this is pretty far from an amazing movie. No offence.. Well done as it was, well told it was not.

The conflict is acceptable and even the base line of the story, but then do not call it a War and a final chapter kind of thing…. I get the feeling that this story was on the table to have been the second one really…. The story they should have told us is the one on the poster.

On Mat Reeves belt, I was impressed by Cloverfield and I am still impressed by the technicality of these two Ape movies. But the rest on his belt is not giving me any reassurance. I think “Let me In” is great, but it is a remake of another great (that needed no remake) and then does not quite showcase abilities…. So I surely have my doubt.

Now going back to my initial comment on Dawn. What I felt was off, was perhaps that Matt Reeves simply is not a good story teller…. And dammit, THE BATMAN deserves one.

I didn't like it. The end was good (the final 20 minutes), but that overly long and boring middle with all the captions as language was really boring. I did lose interest and almost shut it off. I also almost fell asleep about three or four times in there.

However, the ending was good and it was good to see at least some redemption in entertainment after hearing some raving reviews about the film and wondering what all that hype was about.

@HAL 9010' said:

Perhaps we are not completely disagreeing.

I found Rise very exciting and a great way to tell us the story on how it all began. I was surely at the end of my seat when they finally rebelled and escaped to the forest. Bad bad humans :) And even though Dawn was critically loved around the world I was not entirely sold either. I cannot really put my finger on why that is, as it technically was a master piece and too very well acted… but I did not find myself so engaged in the story as I should have been. And mind you, I am huge fan of the original from 1968, and the follow-ups in Beneath (1970) and even Escape (1971). I have not yet seen (or think that I have not seen) Conquest (1972) and Battle (1973), mostly because I feel Escape needed no further tellings… but they are on my list for sure. My point is that even though I am inclined to love any iteration of this story, something made me a bit meah about Rise… I suppose, a bit like you.

However, when War was announced and the trailers started, I surely got excited once again. The story still have much to offer . We needed to learn about how Humans and Apes became so separated as they are in Planet (1968). Wauu, cannot wait… plus in truth, the connection to the first Planet (1968) was/is hoped for

And then they give us this War (2017) story.... Yes, it is very well done and the acting is truly phenomenal, not least from the Apes… and yes, the ending is beautiful and even sets up for Planet (1968) in a subtle way..... But what sets a good movie above others is the story told and more importantly; HOW it is told. And here I frankly feel he failed miserably.

Even the movie posters are eluding from what the story actually is… I mean, stop reading this for a moment and take a look….. I will wait :) Okay, am I right? This poster just screams epic conflict and war…. Two forces attacks one another, may the best Ape win… the poster is sadly lying. Or rather; if it would delete the apes on the Poster it is sort of true. And this is my biggest biff.

The movie should not “not explicitly show” the War (like you mention it does). That is cheating us. The true conflict of this movie is a conflict between humans. That story seems more interesting than what we were fed, to be honest.

Instead of being told a tale of Apes and the last of men, we are told a story about a stir-crazy colonel who eventually is taken down by the virus… If Caesar or not, Apes would win…. This is essentially the lesson. You see, when we meet Bad Ape, we learn then that other apes from other places also have gained intelligence (which is the first time we learn this)…. And this then at the same time tells us that whatever happened here is essentially irrelevant to Planet of the Apes. It would happen with or without Caesar and friends. That is not epic? Well, one may argue that IF the avalanche had not wiped out that army in the end, humans might very well have re-conjured the world as this army seemed superior is every way…. but then what this is telling us is that ONE AVALANCHE is guilty of wiping out the human race???? War for The Plane of the Aalanche…

Much fails in the story and the story telling. I mention a little above and a few in my previous post, but what about:

• The Colonel goes himself to the Apes lair in his second attack on them, because??? (and remember their first attack was a total fail). He wanted to get Cesar son? Why? Why was he there if his real threat was a marching army only a few days away… is this good story telling?

• The Men goes back and captures all the apes in their third attack, to build a wall against helicopters…. I repeat, against HELICOPTERS . And likely against an army which is just a couple of days away. Sure Woody, that is worth the trouble and risk indeed. One answer is that it shows how crazy he was, but was this why they told it like this or was it again simply poor story telling? If the story tellers had instead made the Apes more like, let us say “human” shields or perhaps a ploy to make them all in to “Donkeys” to fight along with them… but no, the story actually want us to believe that The Men wanted to risk hunting and capturing and forcing labor out of them (remember the Aps had again and again showed to be superior in fighting), in order to build a wall against an army with Helicopters… an army only a few days away… so the men are thinking; "let us capture Apes who we know can beat us (so we probably cannot catch them) to build a wall we have no time to build and a wall we do not really need"... not good story and not good story telling.

• 100% of the winning army storms the exploding fortress of The Colonel (did we learn nothing from Batman Rises??). I mean what army employs their troops like this? Well, it worked for the plot, but not for reality.

• 100% of the wining and well-equipped army got wiped out in one avalanche… I know I mention this above but if this isn’t a “I’ll be damned” moment, than what is? I accept such moments, but damn, it was not well delivered here and not least when the story will have us believe this was the last hope for humans….

• Caesar travels with his people across a great distance to never attend his wound from the arrow and dies because of it (and no ape sees that Caesar is bloody and fatally wounded in their travels. Guessing he is no hugger).

• The virus takes humans ability to speak away…. Yes, fair enough. But come on, it should make them gradually dumber or similar. The speech effect which apparently happened within the blink of an eye (not gradual), is.... well, show us to de-evolutionize in a more credible way, just saying.

• Soldier man who was spared by the hero and who the movie shows us is conflicted through the whole story is given the perfect moment to show mercy, and is then blown away by an redeeming Ape who was a dick the whole time.

• The Ape who was a dick the whole time is having a change of heart while he stands next to a giant machine gun, and who notices a leaking gas tank that can end the bad men in one blow…. And then decides to stop one solider in his track with one grenade (next rewrite of the script should have him overpower the machine gun and go nuts until taken out…)

Many of these point is a strong signal that this is pretty far from an amazing movie. No offence.. Well done as it was, well told it was not.

The conflict is acceptable and even the base line of the story, but then do not call it a War and a final chapter kind of thing…. I get the feeling that this story was on the table to have been the second one really…. The story they should have told us is the one on the poster.

On Mat Reeves belt, I was impressed by Cloverfield and I am still impressed by the technicality of these two Ape movies. But the rest on his belt is not giving me any reassurance. I think “Let me In” is great, but it is a remake of another great (that needed no remake) and then does not quite showcase abilities…. So I surely have my doubt.

Now going back to my initial comment on Dawn. What I felt was off, was perhaps that Matt Reeves simply is not a good story teller…. And dammit, THE BATMAN deserves one.

Just going to respond to a couple of points...

They never said that the avalanche wiped out all of humanity...

Also, I think it's safe to say The Colonel was not all there. I had a Kurtz vibe from him from the get go (that I'm sure was intentional) and I think all of his men had fallen under his cult of personality - I mean they must have agreed to kill all those innocent people. I didn't get a "Military" vibe from him at all, just someone who had basically gone insane and managed to convince others that he wasn't crazy.

Cesar was pretty much bent on guiding his people out of there, had they tended to his wounds, everybody would have been slowed down. I think he was focused on getting everyone out of there.

The overnight virus thing did feel incredibly rushed and that scene with The Colonel telling Cesar basically everything was just way to full of exposition.

It wasn't all that bad. As for "The Batman"...I'm literally not sold on any director at the moment. I think the character needs a break.

@simian_ninja said:

Just going to respond to a couple of points...

They never said that the avalanche wiped out all of humanity...

No they did not and obviously they could not have been the last. Plus we have Nova and surely others like her.... however, they did more than hint that his foe was likely the last stand of organized/civilized people. It is directly said. Does this prove anything? No, of curse not. How could they know anything like this, even if it was true. But then I ask; why put it in the script? I say this is because of poor storytelling and likely the reason I mention it to an OP that just called it brilliant ;) They likely put it in for us the contemplate the idea that this was going to be the last stand.... and why not. Fast forward and see how they fell under a "random" avalanche and I again say; it then reeks of bad story telling. Listen, I am not so against the avalanche idea. It is more my reply to a post hailing it brilliant and that this was told to us as a sort final brawl... and in this light, I found it weak.

Also, I think it's safe to say The Colonel was not all there. I had a Kurtz vibe from him from the get go (that I'm sure was intentional) and I think all of his men had fallen under his cult of personality - I mean they must have agreed to kill all those innocent people. I didn't get a "Military" vibe from him at all, just someone who had basically gone insane and managed to convince others that he wasn't crazy.

He wasn't. And Caesar even says so. But crazy enough to build a wall against helicopters or to risk so much just to enslave monkeys and all that... he wasn't that crazy. Truly, it was a poor thought out concept. He was after all far from a Kurtz. Had he been, it would have been better for sure.

Cesar was pretty much bent on guiding his people out of there, had they tended to his wounds, everybody would have been slowed down. I think he was focused on getting everyone out of there.

Well sure. This is my take also. But was it done believably? Was it clever to keep even us the audience in the dark until this final moment? I do not think so. To support your version I think it would be bettet to at least show us that he is fighting to keep alive and to get to this promished lands.... it doesn't. He is shot, climbs trees like Tarzan and then leads his people to safety... and only then sits cause he is hurt too much. Hmmm. All I say is that it could hav been handled better and stronger instead of this surprise death.

It wasn't all that bad.

Agreed. But I think it makes mistakes that could easily have been fixed and mistakes that tells me the story teller is not that much of a storyteller.

As for "The Batman"...I'm literally not sold on any director at the moment. I think the character needs a break.

I think you are right.

@HAL 9010' said:

I dare say the story itself is dumb and riddled with oddities and just unbelievable scenes. Like when a guard with all the keys to the apes decides to lock himself in their clousure to shoot one of them, when he could easily have done this from the outside safety... well, his stupidity was needed for the plot but is it excellent story telling? Or when a mute Newt cries over the death of a Gorilla who she had known for one day, and who gave her one flower (as the only point of contact) and who, btw, assisted in killing her dad the previous day - whom she shed no tears over... makes sense, I do not think so??

First off, the Gorrilla had no had at all in murdering her father. That was all Caesar. Secondly, you are overlooking the fact that they traveled together many, many days. Plenty of time to bond. People are complaining that the movie is too long now. Imagine if they stuck in some Kum-ba-ya scenes to show how they had gotten all chummy since the girl's father's demise. The Idiocracy crowd would be up in arms.

But more profoundly I ask; Where is the War? Where is the epic conclusion we are led to expect? Where is the Planet of the Apes?

This kinda bugged me too but I can see how they would think it would be a good idea to show that the war wasn't what everyone expected which was a human vs. ape deal but more of a humans done did themselves in sorta deal and not the apes. Unfortunately, it did leave a sour taste in people's mouths (I included) as the end did not really seem conclusive.

@movie_nazi said:

First off, the Gorrilla had no had at all in murdering her father. That was all Caesar. Secondly, you are overlooking the fact that they traveled together many, many days. Plenty of time to bond. People are complaining that the movie is too long now. Imagine if they stuck in some Kum-ba-ya scenes to show how they had gotten all chummy since the girl's father's demise. The Idiocracy crowd would be up in arms.

First off, this is why I write; "assisted" in the killing of her dad. Had Caesar not pulled the trigger, one of the others would have. Besides, for all she knew, a gang of badass Apes had killed her dad. That would be enough to be damn stinking mad for quite a while. And even if they travled some days together, I dare say it would take a bit more to totally forgive killing your daddy - indirectly or not. The story shows no remorse from her side, not even a little. Not good story telling imo, Stockholm syndrome or not. And also I distinctly remember that Bad Ape says it was just a days ride away, plus to me it was filmed as such. However, I may mis-remember this and if they spend several days together on the road, I still say it is not believable to embrace her daddy's killers like that at that moment in the story. If the story tellers wanted the scene between Nova and the Gorilla, they should have not had her dad brutally killed a few or more days before... that is my point here.

But more profoundly I ask; Where is the War? Where is the epic conclusion we are led to expect? Where is the Planet of the Apes?

This kinda bugged me too but I can see how they would think it would be a good idea to show that the war wasn't what everyone expected which was a human vs. ape deal but more of a humans done did themselves in sorta deal and not the apes. Unfortunately, it did leave a sour taste in people's mouths (I included) as the end did not really seem conclusive.

Even the movie poster (and trailers) were eluding from what the story actually is (perhaps because the marketeers agree with us?)… One of the main posters just screams epic conflict and war between man and beast…. Two forces attack one another, may the best Ape win… the poster is sadly lying. If it would delete the apes on the Poster it is sort of true. Seriously. We have that exact scene in the movie, but without the Apes. Instead of the apes there are humans in that same spot... WTF? And this is my biggest biff. That is cheating us. The true conflict of this movie is a conflict between humans and humans and a virus. And even these conflicts we are never really told much about. The virus is pivotal to the saga and so should have been the predominant part of the story. In Dawn we already got the "war" story and this War chapter seemed in some ways to go by the same tangent and so brought us little new (if compared to Dawn, I dare say). They should instead, imo, have focused much more on the virus thing and the fall of man because of it... how? I do not know but this part of the story I would have liked more...

Generally, I was hoping to see a much stronger connection to the first original one for example, I was hoping to see the epic fall of man etc etc (what the trailers had promished me)... anyway, we all measure what we see to what we expect. And I was dishearten, and I also think that the movie could have benefited from bit of scrutiny on the script...

They actually should have called the second one "War For The Planet Of The Apes" since there was a human vs. ape war, and this one "Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes" as it is a new morning and now that they survived it is the true beginning of a planet ruled or inhabited primarily by apes.

@SWLinPHX said:

They actually should have called the second one "War For The Planet Of The Apes" since there was a human vs. ape war, and this one "Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes" as it is a new morning and now that they survived it is the true beginning of a planet ruled or inhabited primarily by apes.

:) great point. It would have fixed many of my issues...