“Planet of the Apes: Revolution”: A World Growing Darker
The “Planet” has become gloomier, relationships more strained, and conflicts bloodier. The franchise is gaining momentum but still hesitates to reach full power, preferring local problems to global ones, which doesn’t quite meet the audience’s expectations.
Ten years after the virus epidemic and Caesar’s escape, as depicted in the first film, the surroundings of San Francisco have turned into impassable thickets. While the ape colony grows and develops, the remnants of humanity huddle in the center of the crumbling metropolis, scavenging for remaining energy, food, and weapons. The imminent prospect of losing their electricity source forces people to venture into the territory ruled by apes to repair a hydroelectric station. The clash of these two new civilizations threatens to escalate into a full-scale war between humans and animals.
Gary Oldman, who plays the leader of the human colony in the film, could have been on the other side of the barricades – in 2001, Tim Burton invited the actor to play the leader of the chimpanzees in his “Planet of the Apes.”
A Franchise Reborn, But Still Holding Back
After Tim Burton’s attempt to reboot the “Planet of the Apes” franchise ended in failure, it was hard to imagine that someone would dare to take on the difficult task of bringing back to the screens this extremely complex, much deeper than it seems at first glance, image of humanity under the heel of its recently “lesser brothers.” In 2011, Rupert Wyatt, with his “Rise of the Planet of the Apes,” launched an unusually interesting new turn in the franchise, which had every chance of becoming a new cinematic phenomenon or collapsing under the weight of CGI and MotionCapture. Wyatt’s trick was that his film was largely just a prologue to the main story – the apes only took the first step, let go of the hand of their friendly human-master, broke out of their cages, and gnawed through their collars and leashes. The main focus of both new viewers and fans of the classic series was to be on the second film – enough telling us how it all began, show us the dawn of the ape empire and the sunset of humanity.
The director of the first film, Rupert Wyatt, left the project in 2012 when he felt he wouldn’t have enough time to realize all his ideas in the sequel. James Franco also declined to continue with the sequel along with the director.
In this regard, “Revolution” is both pleasing and saddening at the same time. The authors of the new franchise approach the formation of their universe too carefully and meticulously. The classic 1968 film struck from the first minutes of the meeting between humans and apes – wow! Monkeys on horseback, with spears, nets, and talking to each other – a marvel! The new films seem to be shy about shocking the viewer. Yes, horses ridden by chimpanzees, the art of wielding spears, and then automatic weapons will be in the film, but there is no wow effect from these achievements; it looks like circus acts, where, as we know, even a hare can be taught to smoke. There is a persistent feeling that the authors themselves have believed in the possibility of what is happening on the screen and therefore try to be as delicate as possible with their furry heroes.
Apes Take Center Stage
However, the apes are the central figures of the story this time (goodbye, Mr. Franco). There are many more of them, the main characters are easily distinguishable in the crowd of their relatives, the characters turned out to be prominent, recognizable, and alive, and the motives of even the negative characters are understandable and justified in the complex system of coordinates of the apes’ relationships with each other and with humans. By the way, humans were less fortunate – the human characters are noticeably more boring and faceless: Jason Clarke does not carry the leading role on himself, Keri Russell is pushed into the background, and Gary Oldman is somehow completely uninspired, which deprives his character of bright features. “Humanity” here clearly loses to Andy Serkis and his pack.
Social Commentary Wrapped in Blockbuster Action
And yet, we loved the classic “Planet of the Apes” films not only for the amazing new world opened by the authors; the creators of the films half a century ago knew how to pose important social, political, and ethical questions to the viewer. Can modern films boast of this? Wyatt’s film was more about what the boundless and thoughtless desire to change the world around us to suit the needs of humanity can lead to. Matt Reeves’ film continues this line to some extent; apes are also no strangers to interfering in the new world for them, but it also covers other issues: both the ever-relevant problem of gun ownership for America, and the theory of universal tolerance that is constantly under attack, and the ever-relevant issue of racial, national, and religious hatred. Fortunately, the director of “Cloverfield,” Reeves, does not seek to lecture the viewer; he presents his ideas gently, wrapping them in the cellophane of battle scenes and exciting duels that are mandatory for the summer blockbuster genre. The film is not tedious, although it is not simple at all.
Ready for the Ape Takeover
After all this, only one major complaint can be made after watching: even after watching the second film in the series, the impression remains that the creators are saving the main thing for later, and the viewer is being treated to proverbs mixed with pumping up interest. Enough already! We are ready for the main thing, we are ready to give the planet into the hands of the apes. Show us the new, wonderful, cruel world for the remnants of humanity. Show us, otherwise the humans will stage a revolt.