Directed by:
Matt ReevesCinematography:
Michael SeresinComposer:
Michael GiacchinoCast:
Andy Serkis, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman, Keri Russell, Toby Kebbell, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Kirk Acevedo, Judy Greer, Nick Thurston, Terry Notary, Jon Eyez (more)VOD (4)
Plots(1)
A growing nation of genetically evolved apes led by Caesar is threatened by a band of human survivors of the devastating virus unleashed a decade earlier. They reach a fragile peace, but it proves short-lived, as both sides are brought to the brink of a war that will determine who will emerge as Earth's dominant species. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (27)
Reviews (13)
The best possible sequel that Rise of the Planet of the Apes could have gotten. I probably wouldn't have noticed the change in directors (Reeves, like Wyatt, has a lot of ideas, now and then he entertains with a longer take, and the atmosphere is perfect), but Michael Giacchino composed even better music than Patrick Doyle... And Caesar in particular has changed. He's aged, he's gotten wiser and it's all perfectly evident in the first shot. As a character, he's well fleshed out, a proper hero as he should be, and so are his family members. In short, it's clear that the writers cared as much about the monkeys as (or more than) the humans, and they succeeded. Once again I was impressed by the special effects team, and the film has momentum, an idea, it gradually builds up, and the ending is bombastic. I wonder what we'll see next. I would have preferred if the third part had taken place after ten winters, not directly following the prior events and preferably without people at all. But that's just an audacious wish.
()
A sequel that is neither grander, nor more action-packed or more spectacular than its predecessor. It continues in a very generic manner and the conflict between the two species is portrayed quite narrowly (one city versus one clan of apes in the forest). Nevertheless, it is a decently done work with a good cast and captivating visual effects, which are beautiful and not just for the sake of it – the CGI successfully manages to evoke various types of emotions in the viewers. There are plenty of tearful scenes, but the truly moving ones make up barely fifty percent. Minimal action, but dense psychology and it certainly won't offend the intelligence of the audience. However, I consider this trend as something expected from the first installment and, despite all the positives, the second installment did not move beyond that.
()
A few minutes of over-digitalized introduction suggests that the second instalment bet on a completely different horse than the first part, where digital monkeys complemented an emotionally charged and dramaturgically sensitive story about people and the place of animals in the human world (and vice versa). It was a cleanly made film in the Spielberg tradition. The second film drowns in digital effects, is action-packed and, following the current trends set by Nolan, visually dark. Which in itself might not hurt if all of its characters had a meaningful place in the story and if it didn’t provoke emotions with cheap sentiment. I really expected more from Matt Reeves than a mere flashy but empty blockbuster.
()
I’m enjoying the development that the trilogy is going through so far, both in form and content. From an emotional human blockbuster with a distinctive auteur story to a bleak post-apocalyptic vision shrouded in dark colours and an insistent sense of impending conflict. The story itself is admittedly more or less generic and, with its clearly defined ideas and roughly sketched characters, it’s accessible even to the least perceptive patient of a Polio ward, but the experience stemming from the unearthly CGI and the gradual escalation of the seemingly controllable situation is nevertheless extremely engaging and, thanks to the atmospheric charge, this time the considerably more violent action scenes are as intense (albeit in a different, cheaper sense) as in the first film. Evil and good may have been clearly defined since from the moment they enter the stage, but their motivations remain so strong, logical and fateful that they far outweigh the unsurprising consequences of their actions... The visuals are truly fantastic, there are lots over-the-top sequences, and the scene of the year.. An incredibly very strong 4*.
()
Dense, emotionally very rich, layered, fun and charming work with effects and "inhuman" protagonists, who take most of the space from their counterparts made of flesh and bones, which we simply don’t get to see that much (a slightly "sketched" Oldman, for example). Reeves has a more distinctive style than Wyatt, and it must be said that the use of long steady cam rides or a static camera in a few larger action sets is very refreshing, while giving the world of Planet of the Apes a prudence that goes beyond frenetic blockbusters. The tricks do not act as a self-serving tool for arousing astonishment, but rather as a deft means of characterizing characters with limited ability to express themselves verbally. In the same way, the action forms part of a compact and intertwined whole, which is characterized by surprisingly sensitive work with a detail of a monkey's face (not only a symbolically mirrored introduction and conclusion), but the film is brought down a bit by some partial clumsiness in the narrative. The film does not focus on simply entertaining, but truly strives to create a functioning universe, the possibilities of which deepen with each film. Also exciting is the way in which it "distributes" sympathy for "non-people" and makes them the bearers of our own historical dilemmas and failures (Caesar and Koba - sic! - as two faces of the revolution and the effort to create a functioning community). That's why Planet of the Apes is currently the most interesting "running" blockbuster series and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a film that stands out enough in this year's fierce competition to call it the best high-budget affair thus far. For me, it’s even a bit more convincing than the first film. [90%]
()
Ads