Review: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Ten years after the events of “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”, the Simian virus has seen ape dominance become so strong that the few human survivors are forced to enter ape encampment in the woods to ask leader Caesar (a motion capture performance by Andy Serkis) for access to a hydroelectric dam within ape territory that will provide power for the relatively few surviving humans. Of these humans, Malcolm (Jason Clarke) is the most peace-minded, along with his girlfriend (Keri Russell) and son (Kodi Smit-McPhee). Caesar, although deeply distrustful of humans, senses that Malcolm may be different from the rest, and reluctantly agrees to the request. After all, any kind of resistance might lead to conflict and the loss of life on both sides. However, a few bad eggs on both sides of the human-ape equation (including ape-hating militant Gary Oldman and Toby Kebbel’s treacherous militant ape Koba) threaten to put a dampener on this ceasefire situation.

 

I enjoyed the previous “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”, but at no point did I buy into the CGI/motion capture deal at all. It was clearly all a computer creation, the eyes of the apes (as usual with CGI) the dead giveaway, and no amount of motion capture emoting from Andy Serkis was going to sell me that this was real and those creatures were genuinely occupying the same physical space as everything else on screen. The Tim Burton “Planet of the Apes” with actors in makeup was much more convincing (and even that film can’t quite measure up to the 1968 original overall), so I was a bit letdown with the result in “Rise”. And yet the film was still entertaining in spite of all that, as the story itself was interesting. Hell, I haven’t outright disliked any of the “Apes” films to date actually. Now comes the 2014 sequel directed by the previously dubious Matt Reeves (the terrible “Cloverfield”, the useless remake “Let Me In”, TV’s “Felicity”), and it’s pretty much as good as the previous film in every respect except the FX. And that’s a good thing. This time, I bought the CGI/motion capture/Andy Serkis performance in a pretty big way. I’m not sure how or why there’s such an obvious improvement in just a few short years, but it’s this aspect that ultimately has this being one of the rare few sequels to be (marginally) better than their predecessor. Yes, I still prefer Rick Baker’s brilliant makeup in the Burton film (the high-point in Baker’s overrated career), not to mention the still effective makeup in the 1968 film, but here the CGI apes seem weighty enough and their faces look less computerised than last time so that they pass well-enough for real. That baby ape in particular is the cutest thing I ever done seen, and looks so real that you’d swear that at the very least it was a puppet, not a computer image. That baby ape damn nearly steals the whole film, I tell you. The facial expressions here are a massive improvement, and watching the apes communicate with one another you’d have to think the inspiration was the way the deaf communicate via sign language. A stand-off early on between humans and apes is a testament to how convincing the CGI is because it proves an extremely tense moment. That wouldn’t be nearly the case if you spotted phony apes. I did wonder about apes standing upright on horseback, but you can’t deny it makes for a cool visual. Even with an amber filter, apes charging on horseback firing automatic rifles is a helluva sight, albeit a tad silly. Some really striking imagery, undoubtedly. Weta and FX supervisor Joe Letteri deserve credit, but I think part of the success here is to do with the darker palette on show here in the production design by James Chinlund and cinematography by Michael Seresin (“World War Zed”- Yes, Zed, “Pain & Gain”). The forest in which most of the film takes place is wonderfully dank without being murky or ugly except in one or two night scenes. The sets are terrific and will remind you a bit of the Burton film with just how well-designed and thought out they are.

 

Andy Serkis definitely deserves to be singled out this time, with the FX certainly doing their part, Serkis completes the whole through an amazing physical acting performance. Eyes are the pitfall of almost any CG creation, but because WETA get it right here, they combine with Serkis to create some astoundingly real facial expressions throughout. He’s every bit a character in this film that the humans are, and frankly, much more interesting. Some of them even seem further on the evolutionary scale than some of the humans to be honest, which is frankly hilarious. Some of the human-ape interaction here is actually pretty clever and interesting. The apes were the one element that failed in the previous film, but here they’re the best thing by far, at least as a group, though Caesar is one imposing, yet multi-dimensional mofo.

 

The humans aren’t nearly as interesting, and I’ll never be accused of being a Keri Russell fan (“Felicity” herself), but amazingly the film still manages to work. That’s how terrific the apes are in this. Well, as I said, as a group. Even the apes, fascinating as they are to watch, aren’t as fleshed out and distinct as individual characters as they could be (aside from Caesar of course). There’s something potentially fascinating with Caesar’s son (who gives an incredibly expressive performance, but isn’t in the film enough) falling under the spell of a more militant ape, but it’s underdeveloped. Oddly enough, the strongest human personality comes from essentially the human villain played by Gary Oldman. He’s not a good man, but he’s surprisingly more multi-dimensional than the more heroic Jason Clarke. Go figure. One of the film’s strongest assets is undoubtedly the excellent music score by Michael Giacchino (“Up”, “Super 8”, “Star Trek”, “Star Trek Into Darkness”), who is clearly incorporating some of Jerry Goldsmith’s iconic, oddball score from the 1968 original. I know I haven’t seen every 2014 film at this point, but this music score will take a helluva lot to beat. Some will find the ape dialogue a tad corny, but those who do clearly haven’t seen the original cycle of “Apes” films and probably aren’t the right audience for this one, either. “Apes” fans take it as a given that the apes will have stilted caveman speech, and thankfully for the most part they communicate with one another in a manner that is subtitled for us non-knuckle draggers. So I’m not going to criticise screenwriters Mark Bomback (“Die Hard 4.0”, “Unstoppable”, “The Wolverine”), Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver (scribes of “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”) for that.

 

This is a strong film and superior to “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”, especially on the visual FX front. It’d be an even better film if the apes and the humans had more distinct personalities. Still, I enjoyed this more than I was expecting to and can’t wait for the next one. It’s a good yarn (a better version of the underrated “Battle for the Planet of the Apes”, really), pretty convincingly rendered on screen. Easily the best film of Reeves’ mediocre career to date, so let’s hope he keeps on this path in subsequent endeavours.

 

Rating: B-