The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Did Anybody Like War for the Planet of the Apes?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Just askin’ ….

 
• Tags: Movies 
    []
  1. Which war? I, II, Cold? Clash of Civilizations? They were all for the planet of apes, right?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/did-anybody-like-war-of-the-planet-of-the-apes/#comment-1933862
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Yep:

    92% Audience liked it
    93% Reviews (8.2/10)

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/war_for_the_planet_of_the_apes

    Read More
    • Replies: @mobi

    Yep:

    92% Audience liked it
    93% Reviews (8.2/10)
     

    Haven't seen any of the Apes movies yet, but my faith in Rotten Tomatoes was severely shaken when I discovered Mad Max: Fury Road was the 4th-highest-rated-film of all time, apparently.

    'Even better than The Road Warrior', mind you.

    Bring on the apes.

    , @Johnny Smoggins
    Rotten Tomatoes is the Huffington Post of movie review sites. If it's pushing a leftist narrative, it's going to get very high ratings no matter how shitty it might be.
    , @CrunchyButRealistCon
    Gave up on these "blockbusters" many years ago. To max out the worldwide gross, they are geared for 14 year olds in Beijing. They'd probably be better to me if the cast spoke Italian, so I could bask in the subtitles with exotic accents in the background.

    Hollywood has essentially been a brain dead crater for over a decade. Nothing but remakes of remakes of films that were only C+/B- to begin with. Or the comic book & animated pablum. Even the retro material is getting predictable infusions of cultMarx Narrative poison.

    There are no silver linings either. Your $10 ticket goes to left wing activists like lead actors Woody Harrelson and Andy Serkis (nee Sarkisian). Andy is a fervent opponent of Brexit & full of all the usual anti-trad bile.
    , @Bill B.
    Correct me if I am wrong but the great flaw of Rotten Tomatoes is that a mediocre film that merely kills some time can be approved of by the majority of reviewers for 90+ percentage ratings. But it is still a mediocre movie.

    If you factor in the often bizarre tastes of jaded professional reviewers and their typical need to reward directors who pass liberal shibboleths then a swath of frankly lousy films can misleading appear to be much better than they are.

    Most novels are written for women; most films are directed at young men. If you like going to the cinema don't ever read a book about Hollywood economics; finding out how the sausage is made can be off-putting.
  3. sabril says:

    What conservative watches movies anymore? Why would anyone pay $10 to have the Leftist Narrative crammed down their throat when Liberal propaganda is available online for free?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe

    What conservative watches movies anymore? Why would anyone pay $10 to have the Leftist Narrative crammed down their throat when Liberal propaganda is available online for free?
     
    It's almost difficult to see how RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES isn't essentially an endorsement of fascism. It's about as pro-Narrative as this website.
    , @Marty
    Exactly. The last movie I paid to see was Waking Ned Devine.
    , @Massimo Heitor

    What conservative watches movies anymore? Why would anyone pay $10 to have the Leftist Narrative crammed down their throat when Liberal propaganda is available online for free?
     
    Sailer always says that conservatives tell the better stories. Most stories in movies and tv today are not overtly political. Many famous movie directors are somewhat conservative.

    Is this a leftist narrative movie? If so, I'll avoid it. But otherwise, I'd like to give this movie a shot. Other sites say that this movie is not super political, which is fine by me.
  4. LondonBob says:

    Seen the first two both twice, first was great, second painfully boring.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lex
    Jason Clarke was just terrible - black hole of charisma. And Keri Russell was doing her best to equal him in blandness. All they had to do was to switch screentime between them and Gary Oldman.
    , @midtown
    If the second one was painfully boring, why did you watch it again? To see if it had gotten any better?

    Actually, that gives me an idea: movies can release beta versions and update them along the way. Probably better than the current system in which 90% are awful.
  5. Read More
    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
    Greydanus used to be worth reading, but has of late swallowed the Pope Francis death pill ( also called papolatry) and now echoes the Modernist Vatican line at every opportunity.
    It is striking that this attack on virile, war-making Christianity (think of the Crusades, or the defence of Vienna against the Turks in 1683), as exemplified by this quote from the review: "Heightening the religious resonance, the Colonel wears a crucifix, and at one point he even makes the Sign of the Cross over his men in a mock blessing, although his rhetoric is pure Darwinian-inflected tribalism. Is this one more negative Hollywood association of patriotism and religion with villainy? It could be seen that way, but I think it is best seen as the kind of superficial co-opting of patriotic and religious symbolism appropriate to this kind of villain in this sort of situation.", comes at the same time as a vicious attack by the Vatican upon conservative American Catholics and their "evil" ecumenism with evangelical Protestants to support Trump and bring God back into the public sphere. This remarkably brutal article actually mentions both Steve Bannon and a prominent Catholic journalist, Michael Voris, by name as part of this coalition.
    The mask has been slipping for some time, but is now cast wholly off, and the Vatican of Francis, as was recently insisted upon by a prominent Italian atheist philosopher who nevertheless loves the West, is in full attack mode against Christian Europe and its very survival.
  6. Arclight says:

    You mean other than AO Scott gushing over how it should make viewers root against their own species? Then again, this is the same guy who stated that “Between the World and Me” was as essential as water or air, which I think even most lefties thought was laying it on a bit thick.

    Anyway, this is one of those movies where if you see the trailer you immediately understand what the entire plot is about and that you’ve seen snippets of all the high points, so unless you have a couple hours to waste you might as well skip it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike Zwick
    Roger Ebert referred to the trailers as the steak of the movie. If the movie had nothing beyond the trailer, then it was steak and no potatoes.
    , @TGGP
    Rotten Tomatoes has it at 93% fresh, with a 91% audience score. Metacritic gives it a metascore of 83 and user score of 9.1 (out of 10). I was much less keen on it.
  7. @Arclight
    You mean other than AO Scott gushing over how it should make viewers root against their own species? Then again, this is the same guy who stated that "Between the World and Me" was as essential as water or air, which I think even most lefties thought was laying it on a bit thick.

    Anyway, this is one of those movies where if you see the trailer you immediately understand what the entire plot is about and that you've seen snippets of all the high points, so unless you have a couple hours to waste you might as well skip it.

    Roger Ebert referred to the trailers as the steak of the movie. If the movie had nothing beyond the trailer, then it was steak and no potatoes.

    Read More
  8. APE MOVIE HAVE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS, ME SAY

    New Hampshire is being inundated with sub-Saharan African Third Worlders who could have appeared in the most recent ape movie without much of a need for makeup or prosthetic simian accoutrements. This REFUGEE OVERLOAD is going to be a political issue in the Republican primaries for the U. S. House of Representatives.

    The ruling class of the Republican Party in New Hampshire killed a bill that would have stopped REFUGEE OVERLOAD in New Hampshire. The greedy business owners like the cheap labor provided by REFUGEE OVERLOAD and greedy landlords like the federal government loot they get to house the REFUGEE OVERLOAD. Low wages and high housing costs are the result of REFUGEE OVERLOAD.

    I noticed the Wall Street Journal ran a big article on this new ape movie. The Wall Street Journal pushes REFUGEE OVERLOAD.

    Read More
  9. Glaivester says: • Website

    If I am going to watch a movie involving apes with human-level sapience, I want it to be an adaptation of The Probability Broach.

    Read More
  10. bomag says:

    Ninety three percent positive on Rotten Tomatoes; the negative reviews paste it as too slow and dreary; the positive reviews are so effusive with praise methinks they dost glorify too much.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Rotten Tomato's is a pointless site. It gives Prometheus a 73% positive rating. Prometheus was an absolutely terrible movie.
  11. No Charlton Heston and Linda Harrison? Forget it, not going to even bother watching.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    How do you think she'd do in the fur bikini nowadays?
  12. TGGP says: • Website
    @Arclight
    You mean other than AO Scott gushing over how it should make viewers root against their own species? Then again, this is the same guy who stated that "Between the World and Me" was as essential as water or air, which I think even most lefties thought was laying it on a bit thick.

    Anyway, this is one of those movies where if you see the trailer you immediately understand what the entire plot is about and that you've seen snippets of all the high points, so unless you have a couple hours to waste you might as well skip it.

    Rotten Tomatoes has it at 93% fresh, with a 91% audience score. Metacritic gives it a metascore of 83 and user score of 9.1 (out of 10). I was much less keen on it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    RT goes nuts for anything plausibly anti-(other)-white(s)/human.
  13. The original Apes movie was an obnoxious politically correct lecture with an anti-technology subtext. I can’t even imagine how much more unscientifically toxic one would be nowadays and I’ll be damned if I’m going to waste my time to find out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The original Apes movie was an obnoxious politically correct lecture with an anti-technology subtext.

    Really? But the Ape World was not idealized. It had much of the drawbacks of human society with its brutality, deceit, and etc.

    But it's funny how the most corrupt, deceitful, and decrepit orangutan was right all along.
    He had wisdom in his weasel-mind.

    He was old testament ape and didn't fall for the Magic Human myth. Forbidden Zone was the fallen eden of man. And Zaius didn't regard Taylor as some christ figure but the devil. And later Taylor agrees when he realizes the truth.

    Zaius and Taylor both have something in common: the will to power. The chimp scientists have will to truth and a sense of justice, but the problem is justice can cloud truth. They see Taylor mistreated and find it unjust. So, they are decent enough to care. But in caring, they overlook the dark side of humanity and are all too willing to dismiss Zaius' warnings.
    But Zaius fails too because he uses Fear and Ignorance to control and maintain society. He hides the truth because it would mean humans were once great and indeed superior to apes. He wants apes to feel that they are the center of the world. He is like the Shymalan VILLAGE elders who keep people ignorant to keep them in the community.
    Now, why doesn't Zaius just say the truth? Why not say that humans were indeed great but brought ruin on themselves with abuse of technology and hubris? Because even if humans were ultimately evil and destructive, it would mean they were a great people worthy of respect. And that means apes might worship the Memory of Humans. And it might mean that apes might lower their guards against barbarian humans who might evolve into superior power.
    So, Zaius used Ignorance of Religion and Official Cult to keep things in line.
    It's sort of like why whites were never honest about blacks. If whites in the South had been more honest about racial differences, things might have been more different. They could have said blacks may be, on average, less intelligent but they are stronger and tougher and pose a danger to whites. But white male pride just couldn't admit that, so they cooked up bogus reasons for keeping the negro down and away. Just like Zaius was loathe to admit humans were superior to apes in science and technology, white males were loathe to admit blacks are superior in athletics. So, they came up with reasons for keeping humans down or blacks down with bogus reasons like 'humans are devil's spawn' or 'states rights'.

    Anyway, both Zaius and Taylor are forceful personalities, and they will stop at nothing to get their way. They are more about power than the truth. In contrast, chimps favor the truth but fail to realize that truth can become clouded by sense of justice that may become sappy. The chimps fail too in that regard. They did a good thing but fail to understand how dangerous humans can be because they're clouded by compassion. Also, they knew Taylor in chains, a victim deserving of compassion. But what might a man like Taylor if he held the bullwhip?
    Also, what the chimps say is revealing. Taylor complains about how he was treated, and chimps say it was because they thought he was 'inferior'. What does that mean? Justice only belongs to the superior? So, if Taylor was dumb like all the other humans on the planet, there would have been no need for compassion? In a way, can we blame the apes for mistreating humans? All humans in the planet except for astronauts are indeed inferior. They are savage goons who steal from apes who grow crops.
    This raises a problem. People eat pigs because pigs are animals. But suppose there is one pig that can talk and has human intelligence. And suppose this Cool Ham Luke escapes from humans and when humans catch him, it squeals, 'get you stinking hands off me, you damn bacon-eater'. What would we do? We would likely spare the pig and treat it nice and it 'd become a celebrity and thinking-talking pig, and we should sorry for treating it as an inferior. But what about other pigs? Because this one is so smart and human-like, should we spare all other pigs too? And would this pig with human intelligence feel closer to humans or to other pigs?

    I can’t even imagine how much more unscientifically toxic one would be nowadays and I’ll be damned if I’m going to waste my time to find out.

    Almost all movies about technology are dystopian. It's more provocative and fun that way.
    HAL would be less interesting without the malfunction.
    Terminator would be boring if it didn't kill people.
  14. TG says:

    I’m not going to see it – I don’t want to root against my own species – so I can’t judge it as a movie.

    As science, though, there is another view. Even if apes could be given human-level intelligence, they would still lose in any protracted war with homo sapiens.

    “Amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk intelligence.” Humans do not have the static strength of an ape, but we have FAR more endurance. A human can carry a decent load some tens of kilometers across broken ground per day. Your average chimp/gorilla would be exhausted in less than a kilometer. Also humans don’t grow fur, we steal it from other animals – that gives us like a 10% energy boost, because growing whole-body fur is metabolically expensive.

    Many suspect that that’s why our species outlasted the Neanderthals, who were also stronger than humans and actually had bigger brains. Humans were more gracile and could forage further… They had brute power (and maybe even brainpower), we had logistics.

    So the human army will need less food and will have ten times the mobility, and the human industrial enterprises and farming will be vastly more productive than the ape. Apes lose. OK, the apes could use horses to partially compensate, but an army made up only of cavalry is also going to be EXPENSIVE to field and will lose to mixed cavalry/infantry. And with firearms cavalry is useless except for mobility. If every ape soldier needs a horse to get from A to B, and every human just needs a pair of boots, well, with equivalent resources, who at the end of the day has more soldiers at B?

    For apes to truly compete with humans you would have to completely re-engineer their spines and pelvises and knee joints etc. and make them less hairy etc. In that case they’d probably end up looking a lot like people.

    Never forget, according to the (admittedly incomplete) fossil record, there have been multiple branches on the hominid tree. Our line is the one that outcompeted/outlasted/exterminated all others, our closest relatives consigned to limited nature preserves. Maybe someday something better than us will come along, but for now, I would not bet against the humans.

    Read More
    • Agree: bomag, reiner Tor
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    I thought that it was logistics that professionals talk.
    , @KM32
    You're overthinking this. You could fit every non-human primate alive into a single college football stadium. How would a war play out unless you started with the premise that humans were nearly extinct, and I'm talking an order of magnitude fewer than you see after the plague devastates humanity in The Stand.
    , @guest
    The issue appears much simpler to me. Do all the Apes speak in these movies, or is it just the one guy, Caesar? That would be a fatal logistical handicap right there.

    In any case, Humans have industry and civilization. Apes are hiding out in the woods using human weapons. Humans outnumber Apes by many orders of magnitude. We could probably overwhelm them with waves of men with melee weapons if enough of us were willing to die.

    Apes could go terrorist and build an insurgency, but they stick out like sore thumbs. What kind of civilian support could they expect? I don't imagine any humans, even nutso human-haters, would much sympathize with them when it comes to a question of avoiding genocide. Definitely most humans would be on the side of humans and the Apes would have no chance to win the moral war.

    Which is why the commercials represent them as being isolated in the forest. How do they get resupplied? The Vietnamese we fought in the jungle weren't alone; they had a whole supply train and giant countries subsidizing them. Watch old Westerns and you find some Indian-killers more upset with the whites who trade with the savages than the Red Indians themselves. Apes would have no such outside support, I reckon.

    Couldn't humans just choke Forest Apes off? Or area-bomb them? If it must come down to guerilla warfare out in the bush (because there's gotta be a movie), then the physical advantages you mention apply. There would also be the fact that humans are trained for war. Apes can learn on the job, but they have no professional soldiery.

    , @International Jew
    You overlook that these movies are set in San Francisco and Marin County. There are very very few people there who have ever handled a gun, much less had military training. An "army" of web page designers, interior decorators, SJWs and baristas wouldn't stand a chance against those apes.

    Of course I'm referring to the white population. SF has a lot of tough Philipinos who would do well. But I'm working with the ethnic makeup as seen in the movie.
    , @Anon
    I’m not going to see it – I don’t want to root against my own species – so I can’t judge it as a movie.

    I think watching animals beat humans isn't so bad.

    One thing, you know its totally fantastic.

    In contrast, a movie like DJANGO UNCHAINED is more problematic because US has a lot of problems with black violence and crime. So, why encourage it?
    PULP FICTION is vile but it's sort of honest as a work of nihilism. It has no pretenses and features a gangster world where even morality is mumbo jumbo nonsense. But even though I haven't seen DJANGO, Tarantino gave interviews about how it's a screed against 'racism'.
    Now, I can accept honest nihilism and honest moralism but I've the feeling that DJANGO is just nihilism masquerading as moralism. Worst formula.

    Anyway, animals really got in the neck by us, so it's not always bad to cheer for the animals.
    If dogs attack an abusive owner, that's nice. Tear him apart!
    And I like it when bulls attack and destroy matadors. Revenge!

    Also, animals are furry, and it's good to see furry creatures whup humans once awhile.

    White God is about a dog attack human movie.

    But I still don't want to see this junk.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
    According to the original movies, the apes were bred to be laborers and servants. The humans became a leisure class with many ape slaves. So it was like a slave uprising.
    , @jb
    Also, chimpanzee hands have very long fingers and short thumbs, which makes them well suited for getting around in trees, but not for manipulating objects. Without a precision grip they'd have a difficult time even using sophisticated tools, let alone crafting them.
    , @DJohn1
    Don't worry about rooting against your own species in movies like these - just adopt the proper anithero as the role model.

    Such as the Martyr of Pandora, Colonel Miles Quaritch:

    http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Miles_Quaritch
  15. Sonny Bunch had this to say: http://freebeacon.com/culture/war-planet-apes-review/

    I saw the original when it came out but have not seen any of the sequels. I don’t spend $12 unless I really really really want to see it on a big screen. Most movies are in Redbox within 6 months.

    Read More
  16. @Glaivester
    If I am going to watch a movie involving apes with human-level sapience, I want it to be an adaptation of The Probability Broach.

    I’ll take the latest “Fast and Furious.”

    Read More
  17. Ivy says:

    Too many other viewing options that don’t insult one’s intelligence to waste time on it.

    Read More
  18. Alfa158 says:

    Nope, too predictable. Like Star Wars, you can predict the story arc two movies ahead, which is that at some point the next new movie will be pretty much the same as the previous one. Also, The special effects visuals and frenetic pace of modern movies overwhelm the story and characters. The writers should have written in some twist to refresh it. Example: there is a tiny number of humans who not only survived the virus, but it gave them the same relative boost in intelligence as the apes got. These super-humans have no need for either the apes or the surviving standard humans, and the apes and standard humans have to work out how to cooperate or be exterminated.

    Read More
    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory

    The writers should have written in some twist to refresh it. Example: there is a tiny number of humans who not only survived the virus, but it gave them the same relative boost in intelligence as the apes got. These super-humans have no need for either the apes or the surviving standard humans, and the apes and standard humans have to work out how to cooperate or be exterminated.
     
    Already been done in Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970). You had your mutant, psionic humans who worshiped a doomsday bomb.
    , @Chriscom
    That is an exceptionally good idea.
  19. I was a voracious reader of science fiction into my forties, when girly, new age crap began taking over the genre. I remember that when I was a high school student I tried to read the novel, “Planet of the Apes”, shortly after it appeared in English translation. I couldn’t stand it and after several attempts, never getting more than halfway through, I gave up. I was never interested in seeing any of the resulting and highly lucrative movie franchise releases and viewing brief snatches of some of them in television reruns has convinced me that was a wise decision.

    It’s interesting that, as the special effects have gotten better, the PC rot at the center of each new franchise addition has gotten more cloying and mindless. Perhaps the latest addition to this Hollywood franchise presages the final descent of the prog mind into a suicidal loathing not just of its own race and culture but of its entire species.

    Read More
  20. @TGGP
    Rotten Tomatoes has it at 93% fresh, with a 91% audience score. Metacritic gives it a metascore of 83 and user score of 9.1 (out of 10). I was much less keen on it.

    RT goes nuts for anything plausibly anti-(other)-white(s)/human.

    Read More
  21. TJ hooker says:

    I only saw part of the first one when it came to TV, and found it pretty boring. I didn’t believe the primate escape scene because humans just outnumber them by so much – and have guns and helicopters. But my ignorance of the new movie aside, a war for earth just has the same problem on a larger scale, there 9 billion humans – even if all “apes” turned supersmart – there just aren’t enough of them. I have a hard time investing in the premise – especially if I only get an “action hero” movie out of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vendetta
    The same virus that makes apes smart is lethal to humans in this series. Most of the human population has been killed by the virus between the first and the second one.
  22. Fight the POZ.

    Go to local library and check out the C Merriam Cooper/John Ford/John Wayne cavalry trilogy and The Searchers instead.

    Your mental health will thank you.

    While you are at it. Rent The Naked Prey and Zulu.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Zulu Men of Harlech

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSEU5zHgcTc
    , @Kevin O'Keeffe

    Go to local library and check out the C Merriam Cooper/John Ford/John Wayne cavalry trilogy and The Searchers instead.

    Your mental health will thank you.

    While you are at it. Rent The Naked Prey and Zulu.
     

    THE NAKED PREY is one of my all-time favorite films, and I like/love all the others you mentioned. You might want to consider the proposition that while most new movies are bad, some are still good. RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (the first one, from 2011), was one of those movies kinda like...the only example I can think of right now is FIGHT CLUB (as such films are so rare), that every right-winger in the cinema came out of feeling totally jazzed. Most people who say every movie today is rotten, stopped watching movies twenty or more years ago, and thus really don't know what they're talking about. I'm pretty sure it was always true, that most movies weren't particularly good. It's just that today's bad movies, are offensive for the tripe they peddle. Skip the bad ones, as always. But they're not all bad.

    The Battle of Golden Gate Bridge (from the 2011 film) is probably the single most entertaining battle scene since...I don't know...BRAVEHEART, maybe?

  23. I presume you all realise you are financing your own dispossession, those of you who pay to watch this garbage, and paying to watch an advertisement advocating it to boot.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anonym
    • Replies: @El Dato
    Is this like getting a ticket for the Auschwitz Express?

    (This reminds me that I still haven't seen Ex Machina, though I wanted to at some point.)
  24. I thought the first two were great (particularly the first one), but I won’t be seeing this until Sunday.

    Read More
  25. Truth says:

    LMFAO!

    Sailer, you’ve gone off the deep end, I don’t think you can come back now…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    Truth, apes aren't always a metaphor for black folk. Sometimes an ape is just an ape.
    , @Mr. Anon

    Sailer, you’ve gone off the deep end, I don’t think you can come back now…
     
    And this is coming from literal flat-earther, "Truth".
  26. Why the heck would i want to see a movie about “The Planet of the Apes”? I get more than enough of that from my news feed.

    Read More
  27. syonredux says:
    @anonymous-antimarxist
    Fight the POZ.

    Go to local library and check out the C Merriam Cooper/John Ford/John Wayne cavalry trilogy and The Searchers instead.

    Your mental health will thank you.

    While you are at it. Rent The Naked Prey and Zulu.

    Zulu Men of Harlech

    Read More
  28. JimB says:

    The movie would be far more interesting if the sentient apes battled Muslims, matching barbaric act for barbaric act. I’d pay a dollar to see that.

    Read More
  29. Doesn’t even seem worth pirating, let alone paying to watch. I might pirate it anyway just as an FU

    Read More
  30. MBlanc46 says:
    @TG
    I'm not going to see it - I don't want to root against my own species - so I can't judge it as a movie.

    As science, though, there is another view. Even if apes could be given human-level intelligence, they would still lose in any protracted war with homo sapiens.

    "Amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk intelligence." Humans do not have the static strength of an ape, but we have FAR more endurance. A human can carry a decent load some tens of kilometers across broken ground per day. Your average chimp/gorilla would be exhausted in less than a kilometer. Also humans don't grow fur, we steal it from other animals - that gives us like a 10% energy boost, because growing whole-body fur is metabolically expensive.

    Many suspect that that's why our species outlasted the Neanderthals, who were also stronger than humans and actually had bigger brains. Humans were more gracile and could forage further... They had brute power (and maybe even brainpower), we had logistics.

    So the human army will need less food and will have ten times the mobility, and the human industrial enterprises and farming will be vastly more productive than the ape. Apes lose. OK, the apes could use horses to partially compensate, but an army made up only of cavalry is also going to be EXPENSIVE to field and will lose to mixed cavalry/infantry. And with firearms cavalry is useless except for mobility. If every ape soldier needs a horse to get from A to B, and every human just needs a pair of boots, well, with equivalent resources, who at the end of the day has more soldiers at B?

    For apes to truly compete with humans you would have to completely re-engineer their spines and pelvises and knee joints etc. and make them less hairy etc. In that case they'd probably end up looking a lot like people.

    Never forget, according to the (admittedly incomplete) fossil record, there have been multiple branches on the hominid tree. Our line is the one that outcompeted/outlasted/exterminated all others, our closest relatives consigned to limited nature preserves. Maybe someday something better than us will come along, but for now, I would not bet against the humans.

    I thought that it was logistics that professionals talk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TG
    Oops. Not enough coffee. yes, pros talk LOGISTICS.
  31. @Alfa158
    Nope, too predictable. Like Star Wars, you can predict the story arc two movies ahead, which is that at some point the next new movie will be pretty much the same as the previous one. Also, The special effects visuals and frenetic pace of modern movies overwhelm the story and characters. The writers should have written in some twist to refresh it. Example: there is a tiny number of humans who not only survived the virus, but it gave them the same relative boost in intelligence as the apes got. These super-humans have no need for either the apes or the surviving standard humans, and the apes and standard humans have to work out how to cooperate or be exterminated.

    The writers should have written in some twist to refresh it. Example: there is a tiny number of humans who not only survived the virus, but it gave them the same relative boost in intelligence as the apes got. These super-humans have no need for either the apes or the surviving standard humans, and the apes and standard humans have to work out how to cooperate or be exterminated.

    Already been done in Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970). You had your mutant, psionic humans who worshiped a doomsday bomb.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Yessir, if this one thing modern films avoid like the plague, it is rehashing ideas that have "already been done."
  32. Vendetta says:
    @TJ hooker
    I only saw part of the first one when it came to TV, and found it pretty boring. I didn't believe the primate escape scene because humans just outnumber them by so much - and have guns and helicopters. But my ignorance of the new movie aside, a war for earth just has the same problem on a larger scale, there 9 billion humans - even if all "apes" turned supersmart - there just aren't enough of them. I have a hard time investing in the premise - especially if I only get an "action hero" movie out of it.

    The same virus that makes apes smart is lethal to humans in this series. Most of the human population has been killed by the virus between the first and the second one.

    Read More
  33. Rod1963 says:

    Didn’t watch it.

    I watched the originals when they came out and they sucked. The premise of the reboot is silly as hell and not worth it.

    The trailer for War showed what I needed to know.

    Look at the current movie, apes living in the NorthWest covered in snow. Apes having little body fat and no clothes would die within days in that sort of environment. Ape cavalry, amusing and a logistical nightmare if you have more than a hundred. They need ferriers to shoe them, a constant supply of food, saddle makers(try riding bareback for a solid day and feel how it f**ks up your bottom)etc.

    Years ago Hollywood did a reboot of the Outer Limits – except they twisted it bigtime. Lots of episodes were loaded with nihilism, bizarre feminism and anti-human nonsense. One of the few series that made me nauseous. The others being Dr. Who and the whole Star Trek franchise from TNG onward. Star Wars and Interstellar comes close. The latter was even more stupid than the Star Wars reboot.

    Most modern sci-fi is trash aimed at 15 year old males with the attention span of a gnat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEar6b4Ch5o
    , @dr kill
    I know, right? I just can't continue watching a film that can't be accurate.. My kids laugh at me for turning off Teh Deerhunter just because they use the Rockies and mule deer for the hills of PA and whitetails.
  34. TG says:
    @MBlanc46
    I thought that it was logistics that professionals talk.

    Oops. Not enough coffee. yes, pros talk LOGISTICS.

    Read More
  35. @TheArseMan
    This guy did: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/sdg-reviews-war-for-the-planet-of-the-apes

    Greydanus used to be worth reading, but has of late swallowed the Pope Francis death pill ( also called papolatry) and now echoes the Modernist Vatican line at every opportunity.
    It is striking that this attack on virile, war-making Christianity (think of the Crusades, or the defence of Vienna against the Turks in 1683), as exemplified by this quote from the review: “Heightening the religious resonance, the Colonel wears a crucifix, and at one point he even makes the Sign of the Cross over his men in a mock blessing, although his rhetoric is pure Darwinian-inflected tribalism. Is this one more negative Hollywood association of patriotism and religion with villainy? It could be seen that way, but I think it is best seen as the kind of superficial co-opting of patriotic and religious symbolism appropriate to this kind of villain in this sort of situation.”, comes at the same time as a vicious attack by the Vatican upon conservative American Catholics and their “evil” ecumenism with evangelical Protestants to support Trump and bring God back into the public sphere. This remarkably brutal article actually mentions both Steve Bannon and a prominent Catholic journalist, Michael Voris, by name as part of this coalition.
    The mask has been slipping for some time, but is now cast wholly off, and the Vatican of Francis, as was recently insisted upon by a prominent Italian atheist philosopher who nevertheless loves the West, is in full attack mode against Christian Europe and its very survival.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Percy Gryce
    I've tussled with Greydanus in his comments. He's all for diversity--until I asked him if he'd give up his movie critic job to a woman of color.

    He's not without talent, but he does lack imagination to see or think beyond the poz.
    , @Anon
    That's a shame about SDG.
  36. KM32 says:
    @TG
    I'm not going to see it - I don't want to root against my own species - so I can't judge it as a movie.

    As science, though, there is another view. Even if apes could be given human-level intelligence, they would still lose in any protracted war with homo sapiens.

    "Amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk intelligence." Humans do not have the static strength of an ape, but we have FAR more endurance. A human can carry a decent load some tens of kilometers across broken ground per day. Your average chimp/gorilla would be exhausted in less than a kilometer. Also humans don't grow fur, we steal it from other animals - that gives us like a 10% energy boost, because growing whole-body fur is metabolically expensive.

    Many suspect that that's why our species outlasted the Neanderthals, who were also stronger than humans and actually had bigger brains. Humans were more gracile and could forage further... They had brute power (and maybe even brainpower), we had logistics.

    So the human army will need less food and will have ten times the mobility, and the human industrial enterprises and farming will be vastly more productive than the ape. Apes lose. OK, the apes could use horses to partially compensate, but an army made up only of cavalry is also going to be EXPENSIVE to field and will lose to mixed cavalry/infantry. And with firearms cavalry is useless except for mobility. If every ape soldier needs a horse to get from A to B, and every human just needs a pair of boots, well, with equivalent resources, who at the end of the day has more soldiers at B?

    For apes to truly compete with humans you would have to completely re-engineer their spines and pelvises and knee joints etc. and make them less hairy etc. In that case they'd probably end up looking a lot like people.

    Never forget, according to the (admittedly incomplete) fossil record, there have been multiple branches on the hominid tree. Our line is the one that outcompeted/outlasted/exterminated all others, our closest relatives consigned to limited nature preserves. Maybe someday something better than us will come along, but for now, I would not bet against the humans.

    You’re overthinking this. You could fit every non-human primate alive into a single college football stadium. How would a war play out unless you started with the premise that humans were nearly extinct, and I’m talking an order of magnitude fewer than you see after the plague devastates humanity in The Stand.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bored identity



    "... You could fit every non-human primate alive into a single college football stadium. "

     

    Back in 1970's, well-commited humans from Chile have achieved some tremendous contribution in that area.
  37. Romanian says: • Website

    I have seen none of the movies. Too much suspension of disbelief is required, as other commenters have pointed out. By now, I don’t care much either, and I probably won’t see them by accident, since I don’t have a cable subscription.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Millennial Falcon
    Rise isn't half-bad. Basically Braveheart for apes. Well-written, well-executed.

    The second one was dull and uninspired - I only made it halfway through. The thematic tension of the first one was absent.

    And they jumped too far ahead. Post-apocalypse was already getting a little stale and they bypassed the more interesting descent into the apocalypse to get to it.

    Spielberg's War of the Worlds hasn't been imitated enough - experiencing the cataclysm can be awesome. Nowadays everyone likes to fast-forward past the point of no return.
    , @Anonymous
    I agree, the first one was good. It showed the power of genetic engineering. It showed that an intelligent leader capable of forming coalitions with others (as Caesar the ape did) is far more effective than sadistic leaders (some of the crueler apes).

    I don't even remember what the second one was about.
  38. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Seen the first two both twice, first was great, second painfully boring.

    First one was terrible. Didn’t even bother with second one.

    The whole concept is bananas.

    POTA was conceived mainly as satire, not science-fiction. We are not supposed to care HOW it came about. What really matters is that the apes represent us humans(in Animal Farm way), and issues are made highlighted by role reversal. There is a way of therapy in psychiatry where two people who are at loggerheads are made to reverse roles and play the other person. People are so used to being themselves that they don’t notice their own faults and see it only when the faults are manifested by others.
    We see something like POTA scenario in SILENCE. There, the priests are in a world where Christians are the minority. In Europe, Christians rule. Everything is for God and according to God. Those who reject God could be labeled as heretic and suffer horribly. After all, Europe used to burn witches. But in Japan, these priests are utterly powerless, and they cannot rely on the System to back their faith. Their faith is suddenly naked and persecuted like Jesus on the Cross. The all-powerful Christians who ruled Europe and gained mastery over the New World become helpless in Japan. Even though the film is very pro-Christian, it also suggests at how the deepest understanding of Christianity arrives through loss of power, prestige, and privilege.. when one is forced to rely only on God.
    Christians began without power and then gained role of the powerful… but outside Christo-sphere, they are again without power: tragic but also revitalizing.
    Ironically, this comes about in the movie by having to renounce Jesus. It’s one of those paradoxes where one has to renounce something to grow near it… even though there’s a sense that no one can really know if he did the right thing or wrong thing, if he heard the voice of Jesus or devil as jesus, as in Last Temptation of Christ.
    SILENCE isn’t satire, but it suggests at larger meanings. The story and setting are both specific — Catholic priests in Japan — and universal for all individuals confronted with crisis of faith in persecution. Surely, any Christian or conservative working in Hollywood also has to be like the priests in SILENCE. Remain crypto, say one thing, hide true feelings. Oddly enough, the film may even suggest at the fate of Japan in WWII. Just like the priest has to renounce Jesus, the holiest figure in his life, to save persecuted Japanese Christians, the Japanese Emperor had to renounce his divinity to save more Japanese from further nukings. The idea that the emperor is divine and spiritual father to his people was the most sacred concept in Japanese culture, but the demand was unconditional surrender. Unless the emperor renounced his divinity, more cities were to be nuked. SILENCE is religiously specific(very Catholic work) but politically universal in that all peoples were caught in that kind of moral trap… like with Jewish conversos who remained crypto-Jews.

    At any rate, we know that the premise if POTA is totally impossible and beyond far-fetched. We are suppose to take it on faith for the sake of satirical purposes.
    Though it loosely relies on sci-fi standards, POTA is not primarily sci-fi. We are not supposed to care HOW it came about. We are supposed to think of the satirical implications of the situations presented. Everything in POTA is familiar — religious apes, military apes, intellectual apes — , but we see them afresh because apes act them out.

    But this new series is utterly stupid. It is mainly sci-fi and tries to give us some ‘scientific’ and ‘rational’ explanation of how this ape world came about.

    This is like trying to explain why the little people and giants in Gulliver’s Travels got small or big. They are meant to be allegorical.

    This dumb new series reminds me of Dustin Hoffman in RAINMAN trying to make logical sense of ‘who’s on first’. Its logic is comedic, not literal.

    It’s strange how our culture is getting more serious and dumber at the same time. Take Nolan’s BATMAN movies. They are more ‘serious’ and elaborate. But why do we need a comicbook superhero art film?
    And the 007 movie by Sam Mendes is more serious and heavy. But why would we want Bond in LeCarre universe?

    Dumb merges with Smart.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner
    As people get dumber the ability to pick up implication and context goes down. That and Hollywood is selling to the international market as well; foreigners tend not to know American culture well enough to pick up and enjoy that sort of stuff.
    , @guest
    "Take Nolan's BATMAN movies. They are more 'serious' and elaborate. But why do we need a comicbook superhero art film?"

    I wouldn't call them art films. They're relatively serious, and perhaps a bit pretentious. But Nolan appeared to me to be aiming at the heights of techno-action-heist movies, not artsy-fartsiness. He does deal in Big Issues, like the War on Terror. But comic books do that, too. Or at least the pretentious "graphic novels" do, possibly including the ones his Batman movies were based upon. (Batman: Year One? The Killing Joke? I don't know; I'm not a comic book guy.)

    Tim Burton's Batman is superior for my taste in having the Joker create Batman by killing his parents, then Batman creating the Joker by providing an example of a crazy guy in a weird costume running around town like the rules don't apply to him. I didn't need to see Batman create the Joker like the CIA created Al Queda.

    But let's not get carried away, because they were still just action-superhero-detective-heist-kung fu movies, like Planet of the Apes was a B-movie sci-fi romp with a couple of Serious Messages on Big Issues.

  39. I was disappointed that there was no Steve Sailer review yet.

    National Review loved it: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449386/war-for-the-planet-of-the-apes-magnificent

    The trailer looks great and fun. Is this movie worth seeing? Is it one of the best movies of the year?

    Several comments here suggest the movie has political messaging? The movie reviews generally said it does not. Several say that it is much closer reference to the cult classic movie Apocalypse Now more than any real world politics.

    Read More
  40. OT

    Did you see this Chatham House report, Steve, on elite and non-elite attitudes in 10 EU countries towards the EU, immigration and Islam? Its authors include famous “expert on the far right” Matthew Goodwin, but I presume/hope they’re not fiddling the survey.

    https://reader.chathamhouse.org/future-europe-comparing-public-and-elite-attitudes#

    I quote big chunks of a review by an expat (US or Canadian?) law prof at his German Joys blog -

    http://www.germanjoys.eu/2017/06/these-views-reveal-latent-public-sympathy-for-the-core-messages-of-the-radical-right-on-these-topicsthere-are-big-soci.html

    The British think tank Chatham House just completed phase two of an interesting study. The first phase polled 10,000 Europeans on a host of public policy issues, including immigration. The top-line result — a whopping 56% of European oppose further immigration from Muslim countries — came out in February 2017. That took wind out of the sails of European press commentators, who were busy denouncing Donald Trump’s plans to…stop further immigration from Muslim countries.

    Perhaps inspired by this glaring disconnect between public opinion and published opinion, Chatham House decided to conduct a follow-up survey of European elites, which it defined as “individuals in positions of influence at local, regional, national and European levels across four key sectors (elected politicians, the media, business and civil society) – with 1,823 respondents (approximately 180 from each country) who were surveyed through a mix of telephone, face-to-face and online interviews.”

    A few days ago, the findings came out in a report called “The Future of Europe: Comparing Public and Elite Attitudes”. The result: Europeans are hugely more skeptical about immigration, especially from Muslim countries, than the elites who govern them.

    The report concludes: “These views reveal latent public sympathy for the core messages of the radical right on these topics”.

    A few observations. First, the authors of the report are using the term “radical right” in the sense of “outside the mainstream”. That’s obtuse. When only 25% of of Europeans think immigration’s been beneficial overall, and nearly twice that number think it’s harmful, these views are mainstream. The problem is not that voters have been somehow “seduced” into endorsing “radical right” views. The problem is that only the right has taken up mainstream thinking on this issue. The democratic problem is not the popularity of the “radical” right. The democratic problem is the failure of any mainstream party to reflect the views of a majority of citizens in many EU countries. In the long term, this is an unsustainable and potentially dangerous state of affairs.

    Read More
  41. mobi says:
    @Tim Howells
    Yep:

    92% Audience liked it
    93% Reviews (8.2/10)

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/war_for_the_planet_of_the_apes

    Yep:

    92% Audience liked it
    93% Reviews (8.2/10)

    Haven’t seen any of the Apes movies yet, but my faith in Rotten Tomatoes was severely shaken when I discovered Mad Max: Fury Road was the 4th-highest-rated-film of all time, apparently.

    ‘Even better than The Road Warrior’, mind you.

    Bring on the apes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    New releases have not been trustworthy on imdb for about a decade or so. You need to wait a while for reviewers without financial or fanboi bias to rate them. I think 5 years is enough. Maybe shorter than that is ok too. Same year? No.
    , @Romanian
    I thought Fury Road was an amazing movie, well executed technically and very subversive in contrasting Immortan Joe's civilization with the desert harridans. I'm not the kind that gives movies scores online, though. I went to see it twice, which is atypical for me. The feminist bullshit is the price of doing business.
    , @feral_nerd
    I second that. You would think that any movie with those kind of numbers would be a sure thing. Guess again.

    Saw Fury Road based on the ecstatic reviews of it on Rotten Tomatoes and was sorely, hugely disappointed. Excellent sets and props, lots of action, but due to the lack of a coherent story, ultimately there was no there, there. I half-seriously wondered if we had all seen the same movie.

    It shakes your world a little to realize how out of the mainstream your tastes are.
  42. @sabril
    What conservative watches movies anymore? Why would anyone pay $10 to have the Leftist Narrative crammed down their throat when Liberal propaganda is available online for free?

    What conservative watches movies anymore? Why would anyone pay $10 to have the Leftist Narrative crammed down their throat when Liberal propaganda is available online for free?

    It’s almost difficult to see how RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES isn’t essentially an endorsement of fascism. It’s about as pro-Narrative as this website.

    Read More
    • Replies: @sabril
    I haven't seen the movie, so I couldn't say. But I will say that pretty much every movie trailer I have seen in the past 10 years or so has contained the usual PC Tropes, e.g. the Brilliant Black Scientist; the Girl who Kicks Ass; etc.
  43. @Romanian
    I have seen none of the movies. Too much suspension of disbelief is required, as other commenters have pointed out. By now, I don't care much either, and I probably won't see them by accident, since I don't have a cable subscription.

    Rise isn’t half-bad. Basically Braveheart for apes. Well-written, well-executed.

    The second one was dull and uninspired – I only made it halfway through. The thematic tension of the first one was absent.

    And they jumped too far ahead. Post-apocalypse was already getting a little stale and they bypassed the more interesting descent into the apocalypse to get to it.

    Spielberg’s War of the Worlds hasn’t been imitated enough – experiencing the cataclysm can be awesome. Nowadays everyone likes to fast-forward past the point of no return.

    Read More
  44. @anonymous-antimarxist
    Fight the POZ.

    Go to local library and check out the C Merriam Cooper/John Ford/John Wayne cavalry trilogy and The Searchers instead.

    Your mental health will thank you.

    While you are at it. Rent The Naked Prey and Zulu.

    Go to local library and check out the C Merriam Cooper/John Ford/John Wayne cavalry trilogy and The Searchers instead.

    Your mental health will thank you.

    While you are at it. Rent The Naked Prey and Zulu.

    THE NAKED PREY is one of my all-time favorite films, and I like/love all the others you mentioned. You might want to consider the proposition that while most new movies are bad, some are still good. RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (the first one, from 2011), was one of those movies kinda like…the only example I can think of right now is FIGHT CLUB (as such films are so rare), that every right-winger in the cinema came out of feeling totally jazzed. Most people who say every movie today is rotten, stopped watching movies twenty or more years ago, and thus really don’t know what they’re talking about. I’m pretty sure it was always true, that most movies weren’t particularly good. It’s just that today’s bad movies, are offensive for the tripe they peddle. Skip the bad ones, as always. But they’re not all bad.

    The Battle of Golden Gate Bridge (from the 2011 film) is probably the single most entertaining battle scene since…I don’t know…BRAVEHEART, maybe?

    Read More
  45. guest says:
    @TG
    I'm not going to see it - I don't want to root against my own species - so I can't judge it as a movie.

    As science, though, there is another view. Even if apes could be given human-level intelligence, they would still lose in any protracted war with homo sapiens.

    "Amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk intelligence." Humans do not have the static strength of an ape, but we have FAR more endurance. A human can carry a decent load some tens of kilometers across broken ground per day. Your average chimp/gorilla would be exhausted in less than a kilometer. Also humans don't grow fur, we steal it from other animals - that gives us like a 10% energy boost, because growing whole-body fur is metabolically expensive.

    Many suspect that that's why our species outlasted the Neanderthals, who were also stronger than humans and actually had bigger brains. Humans were more gracile and could forage further... They had brute power (and maybe even brainpower), we had logistics.

    So the human army will need less food and will have ten times the mobility, and the human industrial enterprises and farming will be vastly more productive than the ape. Apes lose. OK, the apes could use horses to partially compensate, but an army made up only of cavalry is also going to be EXPENSIVE to field and will lose to mixed cavalry/infantry. And with firearms cavalry is useless except for mobility. If every ape soldier needs a horse to get from A to B, and every human just needs a pair of boots, well, with equivalent resources, who at the end of the day has more soldiers at B?

    For apes to truly compete with humans you would have to completely re-engineer their spines and pelvises and knee joints etc. and make them less hairy etc. In that case they'd probably end up looking a lot like people.

    Never forget, according to the (admittedly incomplete) fossil record, there have been multiple branches on the hominid tree. Our line is the one that outcompeted/outlasted/exterminated all others, our closest relatives consigned to limited nature preserves. Maybe someday something better than us will come along, but for now, I would not bet against the humans.

    The issue appears much simpler to me. Do all the Apes speak in these movies, or is it just the one guy, Caesar? That would be a fatal logistical handicap right there.

    In any case, Humans have industry and civilization. Apes are hiding out in the woods using human weapons. Humans outnumber Apes by many orders of magnitude. We could probably overwhelm them with waves of men with melee weapons if enough of us were willing to die.

    Apes could go terrorist and build an insurgency, but they stick out like sore thumbs. What kind of civilian support could they expect? I don’t imagine any humans, even nutso human-haters, would much sympathize with them when it comes to a question of avoiding genocide. Definitely most humans would be on the side of humans and the Apes would have no chance to win the moral war.

    Which is why the commercials represent them as being isolated in the forest. How do they get resupplied? The Vietnamese we fought in the jungle weren’t alone; they had a whole supply train and giant countries subsidizing them. Watch old Westerns and you find some Indian-killers more upset with the whites who trade with the savages than the Red Indians themselves. Apes would have no such outside support, I reckon.

    Couldn’t humans just choke Forest Apes off? Or area-bomb them? If it must come down to guerilla warfare out in the bush (because there’s gotta be a movie), then the physical advantages you mention apply. There would also be the fact that humans are trained for war. Apes can learn on the job, but they have no professional soldiery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth



    Couldn’t humans just choke Forest Apes off? Or area-bomb them? If it must come down to guerilla warfare out in the bush (because there’s gotta be a movie), then the physical advantages you mention apply.
     
    There's a hint in there.
    , @Expletive Deleted

    the fact that humans are trained for war. Apes can learn on the job, but they have no professional soldiery.
     
    There's an argument that men ('Men') are evolved by a crude and recent form of selection for organized warfare, rather than farming or herding. In Europe it's been going on since farming took off at least. Massive ramparted neolithic hillforts and signs of siege and sacking, corps of assault archers, spearmen, axemen and so on. It went ballistic after the introduction of bronze and the horse, and pretty much became a way of life across the region.

    European tribesmen only held land of their chief as a way of providing him with a warband of spearmen (it didn't matter how half-assed their farming was, not chiefy's problem, he's off huntin', dontchaknow : but no fighty, no wifey = tough selective sweep across the population, for millennia). An arrangement which lasted into early modern times, and probably only finally died of grapeshot and firing by ranks in the sleet of Culloden Muir.

    "Spartans! What is your profession!?!"
    "Smart apes! What is yours??"
    Somebody would have to have a whole lot of affirmative action deployed to catch up with white men.
  46. Truth says:
    @Andrei Martyanov
    No Charlton Heston and Linda Harrison? Forget it, not going to even bother watching.

    How do you think she’d do in the fur bikini nowadays?

    Read More
  47. Anon says: • Website • Disclaimer

    For apes to truly compete with humans you would have to completely re-engineer their spines and pelvises and knee joints etc. and make them less hairy etc. In that case they’d probably end up looking a lot like people.

    If we want to be sci-fi-ish about POTA and come up with some ‘plausible’ explanation as to why apes took over the earth, all we need to do is remember what Einstein said… that WWIII will be fought with nukes, WW IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
    And that is all that the original movie suggests. It’s not that that apes defeated the humans. Rather, humans blew themselves up in a nuclear holocaust. And then, apes evolved past humans and took over. Apes just inherited the earth.

    Indeed, this was one of the fears during the Cold War. Most people thought US and USSR would be superpowers for a long long time. So, how could another nation become the new superpower? How could they defeat US or USSR? Impossible.. But then, suppose US and USSR blew each other up. Suppose Moscow, Leningrad, NY, Chicago, LA, etc all turned to ashes. Then, a third world nation might become the great world power. Not be defeating US or USSR but letting US and USSR destroy themselves.
    And it is true enough that Asia rose through the cracks caused by white vs white war between US and USSR. And now, as US has new Cold War with Russia(!!), Africans and Muslims are entering into EU. The West is too busy fighting this useless cold war with Russia that it is willfully blind to the silent revolution that is happening with demographics.

    It’s like a race where the fastest competitors trip over each other, and the slower runner wins first place. I wonder if Pierre Boulle was influenced in any way by Huxley’s Ape and Essence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape_and_Essence

    So many times in history, the weaker power gained supremacy not by defeating the bigger powers but by filling the vacuum created by clash of titans.
    If Byzantines and Persians hadn’t bashed and depleted one another so badly, the Arab Muslims couldn’t have spread so far and fast.

    Bolsheviks and Nazis couldn’t have come to power if not for the mutual destruction by Great Germanic and Slavic Empires. It led to fall of royal houses and opened a way for radicals. Lenin and Hitler would have been, at most, footnotes in history, if not for WWI.
    And if Japan and KMT hadn’t bashed one another to exhaustion, Mao couldn’t have come to power by filling the vacuum. Mao was bum bandit in Yenan after the Long March with no chance of taking power. But war with Japan led to destruction of KMT and then fall of Japan, and then the commies took all of China.

    So, the powerless who want power need to look for the right opportunity. Let the big guys fight and then move in like a jackal and take the crown. Like in A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS.

    Maybe Apes can be combined with Terminator.

    Man creates super AI intelligence. And then, American AI, Russian AI, Chinese AI, EU AI, and etc all do battle. Humans can’t stop this AI battle since AI took over all the system. So, each nation has a megalomaniac Hal-like AI trying to gain mastery, and this leads to the war to end all wars, and the world goes kablooey and humans go the way of dinosaurs after asteroid strike. (Indeed, one wonders if mammals would have been the master species if not for the asteroid hit that killed off dinos.)
    But then, some gibbons, rats, turtles, and cats survive, and radiation makes them smart, and they become the new master races.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "It’s like a race where the fastest competitors trip over each other, and the slower runner wins first place."

    Foinavon, 1967 Grand National

    "Foinavon, ridden by John Buckingham, was a rank outsider at odds of 100/1 to win the 1967 Grand National, and his owner Cyril Watkins had such little belief in his chances that he was not even at the course.

    For the first circuit and a half, Foinavon played no real part in the proceedings, in which 28 of the 44 starters had safely survived past the 22nd fence (Becher's Brook). However, the most dramatic moment of the race, and perhaps of Grand National history, came when a loose horse — Popham Down, who had been hampered and unseated his rider at the first fence — veered dramatically to his right at the 23rd fence, slamming into Rutherfords and unseating his jockey Johnny Leech. A pile-up ensued. Rondetto, Norther, Kirtle Lad, Princeful, Leedsy and other horses hit the ground, then began running up and down the fence preventing others from jumping it, and bringing the race effectively to a halt. Some horses even began running in the wrong direction, back the way they had come.

    Foinavon had been lagging so far behind that Buckingham had time to steer his mount clear of the chaos and jump on the wide outside, long before any of the others could remount or attempt the fence again. At the next obstacle, the Canal Turn, Buckingham looked back in disbelief at the 30-length lead he held with just six fences remaining. "
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tls18p0AYjM
  48. Idiotic premise is too much of a barrier. How can I root for the apes? The point of being human is to avoid being an ape.

    Read More
  49. A bit OT,but it seems Rihanna is now fat,with all the attendant kerfluffle that brings.

    Read More
  50. @Old Palo Altan
    Greydanus used to be worth reading, but has of late swallowed the Pope Francis death pill ( also called papolatry) and now echoes the Modernist Vatican line at every opportunity.
    It is striking that this attack on virile, war-making Christianity (think of the Crusades, or the defence of Vienna against the Turks in 1683), as exemplified by this quote from the review: "Heightening the religious resonance, the Colonel wears a crucifix, and at one point he even makes the Sign of the Cross over his men in a mock blessing, although his rhetoric is pure Darwinian-inflected tribalism. Is this one more negative Hollywood association of patriotism and religion with villainy? It could be seen that way, but I think it is best seen as the kind of superficial co-opting of patriotic and religious symbolism appropriate to this kind of villain in this sort of situation.", comes at the same time as a vicious attack by the Vatican upon conservative American Catholics and their "evil" ecumenism with evangelical Protestants to support Trump and bring God back into the public sphere. This remarkably brutal article actually mentions both Steve Bannon and a prominent Catholic journalist, Michael Voris, by name as part of this coalition.
    The mask has been slipping for some time, but is now cast wholly off, and the Vatican of Francis, as was recently insisted upon by a prominent Italian atheist philosopher who nevertheless loves the West, is in full attack mode against Christian Europe and its very survival.

    I’ve tussled with Greydanus in his comments. He’s all for diversity–until I asked him if he’d give up his movie critic job to a woman of color.

    He’s not without talent, but he does lack imagination to see or think beyond the poz.

    Read More
  51. Lex says:
    @LondonBob
    Seen the first two both twice, first was great, second painfully boring.

    Jason Clarke was just terrible – black hole of charisma. And Keri Russell was doing her best to equal him in blandness. All they had to do was to switch screentime between them and Gary Oldman.

    Read More
  52. @Chris Mallory

    The writers should have written in some twist to refresh it. Example: there is a tiny number of humans who not only survived the virus, but it gave them the same relative boost in intelligence as the apes got. These super-humans have no need for either the apes or the surviving standard humans, and the apes and standard humans have to work out how to cooperate or be exterminated.
     
    Already been done in Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970). You had your mutant, psionic humans who worshiped a doomsday bomb.

    Yessir, if this one thing modern films avoid like the plague, it is rehashing ideas that have “already been done.”

    Read More
  53. JimB says:

    I’d go to this movie only if a Red Letter Media commentary were dubbed over it.

    Read More
  54. Chriscom says:
    @Alfa158
    Nope, too predictable. Like Star Wars, you can predict the story arc two movies ahead, which is that at some point the next new movie will be pretty much the same as the previous one. Also, The special effects visuals and frenetic pace of modern movies overwhelm the story and characters. The writers should have written in some twist to refresh it. Example: there is a tiny number of humans who not only survived the virus, but it gave them the same relative boost in intelligence as the apes got. These super-humans have no need for either the apes or the surviving standard humans, and the apes and standard humans have to work out how to cooperate or be exterminated.

    That is an exceptionally good idea.

    Read More
  55. @TG
    I'm not going to see it - I don't want to root against my own species - so I can't judge it as a movie.

    As science, though, there is another view. Even if apes could be given human-level intelligence, they would still lose in any protracted war with homo sapiens.

    "Amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk intelligence." Humans do not have the static strength of an ape, but we have FAR more endurance. A human can carry a decent load some tens of kilometers across broken ground per day. Your average chimp/gorilla would be exhausted in less than a kilometer. Also humans don't grow fur, we steal it from other animals - that gives us like a 10% energy boost, because growing whole-body fur is metabolically expensive.

    Many suspect that that's why our species outlasted the Neanderthals, who were also stronger than humans and actually had bigger brains. Humans were more gracile and could forage further... They had brute power (and maybe even brainpower), we had logistics.

    So the human army will need less food and will have ten times the mobility, and the human industrial enterprises and farming will be vastly more productive than the ape. Apes lose. OK, the apes could use horses to partially compensate, but an army made up only of cavalry is also going to be EXPENSIVE to field and will lose to mixed cavalry/infantry. And with firearms cavalry is useless except for mobility. If every ape soldier needs a horse to get from A to B, and every human just needs a pair of boots, well, with equivalent resources, who at the end of the day has more soldiers at B?

    For apes to truly compete with humans you would have to completely re-engineer their spines and pelvises and knee joints etc. and make them less hairy etc. In that case they'd probably end up looking a lot like people.

    Never forget, according to the (admittedly incomplete) fossil record, there have been multiple branches on the hominid tree. Our line is the one that outcompeted/outlasted/exterminated all others, our closest relatives consigned to limited nature preserves. Maybe someday something better than us will come along, but for now, I would not bet against the humans.

    You overlook that these movies are set in San Francisco and Marin County. There are very very few people there who have ever handled a gun, much less had military training. An “army” of web page designers, interior decorators, SJWs and baristas wouldn’t stand a chance against those apes.

    Of course I’m referring to the white population. SF has a lot of tough Philipinos who would do well. But I’m working with the ethnic makeup as seen in the movie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    You have a point. I do not exaggerate or boast (the same applies to any other reasonably sensible and fit combat veteran) when I say I could confidently and with minimal exertion vanquish a force of about two hundred of the people I interact with every day in some hypothetical scenario pitting me against a small army of them. (Hell, a pretty thuggish Mexican – much less effete than the sorts you describe – tried to car-jack me last year and he had a Very Bad Day for his trouble.)

    However, the premise of the diegesis remains stupid, due to not only the absolute numbers (I could not defeat a million of San Francisco's fairies), but also because it's not as if the thing would remain local: San Diego and Bremerton would belch forth carrier strike groups to rain Hell and death upon the apes in such a situation, notwithstanding the local humans' impotence (never mind Travis Air Force Base...).

    Mind you, I don't pay people who hate me money to mock me, so I may be missing critical premises of the diegesis which effectively answer these points made by others and me.
    , @Sideways
    Against all what, 50 apes that are kept in the region? I think 100,000 unarmed people could handle it

    But anyway, The second film took place 10 years after the present of the first film, and I assume this is more years later
  56. To really mess with the viewers’ heads (and hearts), they could have set these movies not in San Francisco but in Nairobi, and made the apes all be albino (consequence of the virus or something, doesn’t matter).

    Read More
  57. I only like the first one.

    OT, speaking of madhouses, an Orthodox Jewish girls school in the UK is being threatened with closure because they refuse to teach their 3 to 8 year old girls about homosexuality or transgender issues.

    http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/26/orthodox-jewish-girls-school-faces-closure-for-refusing-to-teach-children-about-homosexuality/

    According to Heat Street, a report by the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Schools (Ofsted) says that the Vishnitz Girls School does not teach its 212 attending children — aged three through eight — “a full understanding of fundamental British values.”

    The report explained that the girls “are not taught explicitly about issues such as sexual orientation. This restricts pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and does not promote equality of opportunity in ways that take account of differing lifestyles.”

    What kind of demented person talks to little kids about homosexuality? Apparently, that is the law in the UK.

    Read More
  58. @International Jew
    You overlook that these movies are set in San Francisco and Marin County. There are very very few people there who have ever handled a gun, much less had military training. An "army" of web page designers, interior decorators, SJWs and baristas wouldn't stand a chance against those apes.

    Of course I'm referring to the white population. SF has a lot of tough Philipinos who would do well. But I'm working with the ethnic makeup as seen in the movie.

    You have a point. I do not exaggerate or boast (the same applies to any other reasonably sensible and fit combat veteran) when I say I could confidently and with minimal exertion vanquish a force of about two hundred of the people I interact with every day in some hypothetical scenario pitting me against a small army of them. (Hell, a pretty thuggish Mexican – much less effete than the sorts you describe – tried to car-jack me last year and he had a Very Bad Day for his trouble.)

    However, the premise of the diegesis remains stupid, due to not only the absolute numbers (I could not defeat a million of San Francisco’s fairies), but also because it’s not as if the thing would remain local: San Diego and Bremerton would belch forth carrier strike groups to rain Hell and death upon the apes in such a situation, notwithstanding the local humans’ impotence (never mind Travis Air Force Base…).

    Mind you, I don’t pay people who hate me money to mock me, so I may be missing critical premises of the diegesis which effectively answer these points made by others and me.

    Read More
  59. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Rod1963
    Didn't watch it.

    I watched the originals when they came out and they sucked. The premise of the reboot is silly as hell and not worth it.

    The trailer for War showed what I needed to know.

    Look at the current movie, apes living in the NorthWest covered in snow. Apes having little body fat and no clothes would die within days in that sort of environment. Ape cavalry, amusing and a logistical nightmare if you have more than a hundred. They need ferriers to shoe them, a constant supply of food, saddle makers(try riding bareback for a solid day and feel how it f**ks up your bottom)etc.

    Years ago Hollywood did a reboot of the Outer Limits - except they twisted it bigtime. Lots of episodes were loaded with nihilism, bizarre feminism and anti-human nonsense. One of the few series that made me nauseous. The others being Dr. Who and the whole Star Trek franchise from TNG onward. Star Wars and Interstellar comes close. The latter was even more stupid than the Star Wars reboot.

    Most modern sci-fi is trash aimed at 15 year old males with the attention span of a gnat.

    Read More
  60. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I don’t mean to sound like the Simpson’s “comic book guy,” but as I recall, one of the running themes of the new Apes franchise was the Ape’s making a point that Human’s shouldn’t treat “animals” as slaves to do their bidding for them, yet in this movie, Apes riding horses into battle is taken for granted by the screenwriters… or IS it?

    Watch for the next sequel:

    Apes and humans join together to fight for their existence in…

    “Battle For the Planet of Mr. Ed: First Meeting”

    Read More
  61. Anonym says:
    @mobi

    Yep:

    92% Audience liked it
    93% Reviews (8.2/10)
     

    Haven't seen any of the Apes movies yet, but my faith in Rotten Tomatoes was severely shaken when I discovered Mad Max: Fury Road was the 4th-highest-rated-film of all time, apparently.

    'Even better than The Road Warrior', mind you.

    Bring on the apes.

    New releases have not been trustworthy on imdb for about a decade or so. You need to wait a while for reviewers without financial or fanboi bias to rate them. I think 5 years is enough. Maybe shorter than that is ok too. Same year? No.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker
    I've reviewed a few on imdb but now I just give them ratings. I always give one star or 10. Sadly most of my ratings are one star eg anything either written, directed or starring Adam Sandler.
  62. Truth says:
    @guest
    The issue appears much simpler to me. Do all the Apes speak in these movies, or is it just the one guy, Caesar? That would be a fatal logistical handicap right there.

    In any case, Humans have industry and civilization. Apes are hiding out in the woods using human weapons. Humans outnumber Apes by many orders of magnitude. We could probably overwhelm them with waves of men with melee weapons if enough of us were willing to die.

    Apes could go terrorist and build an insurgency, but they stick out like sore thumbs. What kind of civilian support could they expect? I don't imagine any humans, even nutso human-haters, would much sympathize with them when it comes to a question of avoiding genocide. Definitely most humans would be on the side of humans and the Apes would have no chance to win the moral war.

    Which is why the commercials represent them as being isolated in the forest. How do they get resupplied? The Vietnamese we fought in the jungle weren't alone; they had a whole supply train and giant countries subsidizing them. Watch old Westerns and you find some Indian-killers more upset with the whites who trade with the savages than the Red Indians themselves. Apes would have no such outside support, I reckon.

    Couldn't humans just choke Forest Apes off? Or area-bomb them? If it must come down to guerilla warfare out in the bush (because there's gotta be a movie), then the physical advantages you mention apply. There would also be the fact that humans are trained for war. Apes can learn on the job, but they have no professional soldiery.

    Couldn’t humans just choke Forest Apes off? Or area-bomb them? If it must come down to guerilla warfare out in the bush (because there’s gotta be a movie), then the physical advantages you mention apply.

    There’s a hint in there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    There’s a hint in there.
     
    Only for someone who doesn't know how to pronounce "guerilla" or understand the origin of the word.
  63. sabril says:
    @Kevin O'Keeffe

    What conservative watches movies anymore? Why would anyone pay $10 to have the Leftist Narrative crammed down their throat when Liberal propaganda is available online for free?
     
    It's almost difficult to see how RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES isn't essentially an endorsement of fascism. It's about as pro-Narrative as this website.

    I haven’t seen the movie, so I couldn’t say. But I will say that pretty much every movie trailer I have seen in the past 10 years or so has contained the usual PC Tropes, e.g. the Brilliant Black Scientist; the Girl who Kicks Ass; etc.

    Read More
  64. donut says:

    Once there was a wide range of movies , from shit to quality . Even in this century there are some few movies that will hold up as long as people watch movies . There are movies recently made that justify classifying movies as art . I know that Steve’s taste in movies is deplorable . It’s curious really . Steve is so perceptive and insightful in so many ways , hence so many disparate followers . And yet it’s not just that he has poor taste in movies it’s as if that part of his brain not only did not develop but instead never existed . Perhaps some genetic deficiency . Steve seems to respond to any movie as a dog responds to a bitch in heat . Just throw some color and movement up on the screen and there he is salivating and thrusting . Sorry fellows my brother is here and I have to go .

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    Steve seems to respond to any movie as a dog responds to a bitch in heat . Just throw some color and movement up on the screen and there he is salivating and thrusting . Sorry fellows my brother is here and I have to go .
     
    Well, at least you supported your contention of Steve's lack of cinematic taste in general, and complete ignorance of the fundamentals of story-telling related to the cinematic form in particular, by providing historical evidence, examples or citations.

    As you obviously know, to do the opposite would force the casual reader to simply write you off as a humorless, self-sanctimonious douchebag, who responds to Steve's posts as a dog responds to a bitch in heat.

    And that's not what I, for one, like to see here.

    Wishing you good luck with your brother tonight, and twice as much luck for the new popular blog on Cinema Critique you're obviously about to make live, to show everyone how it's done.
  65. I hate every ape I see, from chimpan A to chimpanzee.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    CONGO is underappreciated.

    It's pretty entertaining and pretty decent satire about Africa.

    It gives us forest apes living in balance with nature and monstrous apes who'd been altered in some way.

    The message is "black Africans living with cycles of nature" were "preferable to black Africans introduced to guns and modernity" which blacks cannot handle.

    Just like the movie shows forest apes vs monster apes, it shows nice forest negroes as opposed to ghastly Africans with guns and bombs.

  66. Zimriel says:

    “Seen the first two both twice, first was great, second painfully boring.”

    This is as far as I got in the comments because that was my feeling as well.

    The first movie had Things To Say about genetic enhancements, the people who would be most interested in them (viz. the IQ-150 African scientist, presumably lonely), and a possible aftermath after a primitive population is suddenly uplifted. These Things That Were Said cut so deep that it got an endorsement from Paul Kersey over at SBPDL.

    The second movie was a Bloomberg ad against the NRA.

    I am uninterested in any followup.

    Read More
  67. Darin says:

    To hell with dumb boring apes. If you want to cheer for someone, cheer for space aliens bringing freedom and democracy to Earthlings.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k8YpQKzl_k

    Read More
  68. Hunsdon says:
    @Truth
    LMFAO!

    Sailer, you've gone off the deep end, I don't think you can come back now...

    Truth, apes aren’t always a metaphor for black folk. Sometimes an ape is just an ape.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That metaphor is an insult to apes.
    , @Anon
    Truth, apes aren’t always a metaphor for black folk. Sometimes an ape is just an ape.

    Also, there are different apes. In CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, the Caesar chimp is more like Jewish Marxist radical and the gorillas are like the Black Panthers.

    In ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES, the apes are like persecuted Jewish scientists.

    Interesting that in the original movie, Taylor wants to talk but can't(due to injury)

    In ESCAPE, the astro-apes can talk but choose not to and play dumb... and Zera talks by accident.

    Same with zombies. They keep changing in meaning movie after movie.

    They did an ape movie with dolphins in DAY OF THE DOLPHINS by Mike Nichols.. which is an interesting failure. It is moving at the end.

    , @Truth
    Not in this context, on this site with this writer.
  69. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Haven’t seen any of the Apes movies yet, but my faith in Rotten Tomatoes was severely shaken when I discovered Mad Max: Fury Road was the 4th-highest-rated-film of all time, apparently.

    ‘Even better than The Road Warrior’, mind you.

    Bring on the apes.

    Yeah, well the whole country is on a cocktail of powerful medications to one extent or another. It’s becoming a zombie public. Discernment is waning.

    But these are powerful pharmaceuticals and they create an attitude of “Who cares about discernment?” So it’s a feedback loop of incuriousity.

    Steve’s ongoing theme of Not Noticing vs Noticing is part of the overall fog that’s descending upon the nation. Also his recurring Who Can Remember …? theme points to the widespread lack of attention span and memory recall.

    We are being dosed at a gradually increasing level. If you have a supercomputer and AI programming (steeped in the history of hostile elites), and then you ask the AI what are the methods and tactics which will result in the public being massed drugged in the future –without a violent revolt– well, the answer is going to sound familiar.

    Read More
  70. @Anon
    Seen the first two both twice, first was great, second painfully boring.

    First one was terrible. Didn't even bother with second one.

    The whole concept is bananas.

    POTA was conceived mainly as satire, not science-fiction. We are not supposed to care HOW it came about. What really matters is that the apes represent us humans(in Animal Farm way), and issues are made highlighted by role reversal. There is a way of therapy in psychiatry where two people who are at loggerheads are made to reverse roles and play the other person. People are so used to being themselves that they don't notice their own faults and see it only when the faults are manifested by others.
    We see something like POTA scenario in SILENCE. There, the priests are in a world where Christians are the minority. In Europe, Christians rule. Everything is for God and according to God. Those who reject God could be labeled as heretic and suffer horribly. After all, Europe used to burn witches. But in Japan, these priests are utterly powerless, and they cannot rely on the System to back their faith. Their faith is suddenly naked and persecuted like Jesus on the Cross. The all-powerful Christians who ruled Europe and gained mastery over the New World become helpless in Japan. Even though the film is very pro-Christian, it also suggests at how the deepest understanding of Christianity arrives through loss of power, prestige, and privilege.. when one is forced to rely only on God.
    Christians began without power and then gained role of the powerful... but outside Christo-sphere, they are again without power: tragic but also revitalizing.
    Ironically, this comes about in the movie by having to renounce Jesus. It's one of those paradoxes where one has to renounce something to grow near it... even though there's a sense that no one can really know if he did the right thing or wrong thing, if he heard the voice of Jesus or devil as jesus, as in Last Temptation of Christ.
    SILENCE isn't satire, but it suggests at larger meanings. The story and setting are both specific -- Catholic priests in Japan -- and universal for all individuals confronted with crisis of faith in persecution. Surely, any Christian or conservative working in Hollywood also has to be like the priests in SILENCE. Remain crypto, say one thing, hide true feelings. Oddly enough, the film may even suggest at the fate of Japan in WWII. Just like the priest has to renounce Jesus, the holiest figure in his life, to save persecuted Japanese Christians, the Japanese Emperor had to renounce his divinity to save more Japanese from further nukings. The idea that the emperor is divine and spiritual father to his people was the most sacred concept in Japanese culture, but the demand was unconditional surrender. Unless the emperor renounced his divinity, more cities were to be nuked. SILENCE is religiously specific(very Catholic work) but politically universal in that all peoples were caught in that kind of moral trap... like with Jewish conversos who remained crypto-Jews.

    At any rate, we know that the premise if POTA is totally impossible and beyond far-fetched. We are suppose to take it on faith for the sake of satirical purposes.
    Though it loosely relies on sci-fi standards, POTA is not primarily sci-fi. We are not supposed to care HOW it came about. We are supposed to think of the satirical implications of the situations presented. Everything in POTA is familiar -- religious apes, military apes, intellectual apes -- , but we see them afresh because apes act them out.

    But this new series is utterly stupid. It is mainly sci-fi and tries to give us some 'scientific' and 'rational' explanation of how this ape world came about.

    This is like trying to explain why the little people and giants in Gulliver's Travels got small or big. They are meant to be allegorical.

    This dumb new series reminds me of Dustin Hoffman in RAINMAN trying to make logical sense of 'who's on first'. Its logic is comedic, not literal.

    It's strange how our culture is getting more serious and dumber at the same time. Take Nolan's BATMAN movies. They are more 'serious' and elaborate. But why do we need a comicbook superhero art film?
    And the 007 movie by Sam Mendes is more serious and heavy. But why would we want Bond in LeCarre universe?

    Dumb merges with Smart.

    As people get dumber the ability to pick up implication and context goes down. That and Hollywood is selling to the international market as well; foreigners tend not to know American culture well enough to pick up and enjoy that sort of stuff.

    Read More
  71. Marty says:
    @sabril
    What conservative watches movies anymore? Why would anyone pay $10 to have the Leftist Narrative crammed down their throat when Liberal propaganda is available online for free?

    Exactly. The last movie I paid to see was Waking Ned Devine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dr kill
    Hahaha, I paid to see one of the Borat movies about 10 years ago. Hahaha. That's it for me.
  72. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @James Richard
    The original Apes movie was an obnoxious politically correct lecture with an anti-technology subtext. I can't even imagine how much more unscientifically toxic one would be nowadays and I'll be damned if I'm going to waste my time to find out.

    The original Apes movie was an obnoxious politically correct lecture with an anti-technology subtext.

    Really? But the Ape World was not idealized. It had much of the drawbacks of human society with its brutality, deceit, and etc.

    But it’s funny how the most corrupt, deceitful, and decrepit orangutan was right all along.
    He had wisdom in his weasel-mind.

    He was old testament ape and didn’t fall for the Magic Human myth. Forbidden Zone was the fallen eden of man. And Zaius didn’t regard Taylor as some christ figure but the devil. And later Taylor agrees when he realizes the truth.

    Zaius and Taylor both have something in common: the will to power. The chimp scientists have will to truth and a sense of justice, but the problem is justice can cloud truth. They see Taylor mistreated and find it unjust. So, they are decent enough to care. But in caring, they overlook the dark side of humanity and are all too willing to dismiss Zaius’ warnings.
    But Zaius fails too because he uses Fear and Ignorance to control and maintain society. He hides the truth because it would mean humans were once great and indeed superior to apes. He wants apes to feel that they are the center of the world. He is like the Shymalan VILLAGE elders who keep people ignorant to keep them in the community.
    Now, why doesn’t Zaius just say the truth? Why not say that humans were indeed great but brought ruin on themselves with abuse of technology and hubris? Because even if humans were ultimately evil and destructive, it would mean they were a great people worthy of respect. And that means apes might worship the Memory of Humans. And it might mean that apes might lower their guards against barbarian humans who might evolve into superior power.
    So, Zaius used Ignorance of Religion and Official Cult to keep things in line.
    It’s sort of like why whites were never honest about blacks. If whites in the South had been more honest about racial differences, things might have been more different. They could have said blacks may be, on average, less intelligent but they are stronger and tougher and pose a danger to whites. But white male pride just couldn’t admit that, so they cooked up bogus reasons for keeping the negro down and away. Just like Zaius was loathe to admit humans were superior to apes in science and technology, white males were loathe to admit blacks are superior in athletics. So, they came up with reasons for keeping humans down or blacks down with bogus reasons like ‘humans are devil’s spawn’ or ‘states rights’.

    Anyway, both Zaius and Taylor are forceful personalities, and they will stop at nothing to get their way. They are more about power than the truth. In contrast, chimps favor the truth but fail to realize that truth can become clouded by sense of justice that may become sappy. The chimps fail too in that regard. They did a good thing but fail to understand how dangerous humans can be because they’re clouded by compassion. Also, they knew Taylor in chains, a victim deserving of compassion. But what might a man like Taylor if he held the bullwhip?
    Also, what the chimps say is revealing. Taylor complains about how he was treated, and chimps say it was because they thought he was ‘inferior’. What does that mean? Justice only belongs to the superior? So, if Taylor was dumb like all the other humans on the planet, there would have been no need for compassion? In a way, can we blame the apes for mistreating humans? All humans in the planet except for astronauts are indeed inferior. They are savage goons who steal from apes who grow crops.
    This raises a problem. People eat pigs because pigs are animals. But suppose there is one pig that can talk and has human intelligence. And suppose this Cool Ham Luke escapes from humans and when humans catch him, it squeals, ‘get you stinking hands off me, you damn bacon-eater’. What would we do? We would likely spare the pig and treat it nice and it ‘d become a celebrity and thinking-talking pig, and we should sorry for treating it as an inferior. But what about other pigs? Because this one is so smart and human-like, should we spare all other pigs too? And would this pig with human intelligence feel closer to humans or to other pigs?

    I can’t even imagine how much more unscientifically toxic one would be nowadays and I’ll be damned if I’m going to waste my time to find out.

    Almost all movies about technology are dystopian. It’s more provocative and fun that way.
    HAL would be less interesting without the malfunction.
    Terminator would be boring if it didn’t kill people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    What would we do? We would likely spare the pig and treat it nice and it ‘d become a celebrity and thinking-talking pig, and we should sorry for treating it as an inferior.
     
    Interesting to ponder. Americans are aghast that some people eat dogs, a faithful and communicative species.

    Cannibalism exists, and doesn't seem to bother the practitioners too much.
  73. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Just saw the movie today. Was actually quite disappointed. Expected more battles and action. Also didn’t feel the Woody Harrelson character was as good as he could have been.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simon
    Thank God somebody among the commenters has actually seen the damned movie. Sailer asks a simple question and -- at least for the first 74 responders -- everyone just gives him a labored explanation about why they haven't seen it, why they don't intend to, why they don't go to movies anymore, etc. I'd hate to ask one of you guys for directions.
  74. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @TG
    I'm not going to see it - I don't want to root against my own species - so I can't judge it as a movie.

    As science, though, there is another view. Even if apes could be given human-level intelligence, they would still lose in any protracted war with homo sapiens.

    "Amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk intelligence." Humans do not have the static strength of an ape, but we have FAR more endurance. A human can carry a decent load some tens of kilometers across broken ground per day. Your average chimp/gorilla would be exhausted in less than a kilometer. Also humans don't grow fur, we steal it from other animals - that gives us like a 10% energy boost, because growing whole-body fur is metabolically expensive.

    Many suspect that that's why our species outlasted the Neanderthals, who were also stronger than humans and actually had bigger brains. Humans were more gracile and could forage further... They had brute power (and maybe even brainpower), we had logistics.

    So the human army will need less food and will have ten times the mobility, and the human industrial enterprises and farming will be vastly more productive than the ape. Apes lose. OK, the apes could use horses to partially compensate, but an army made up only of cavalry is also going to be EXPENSIVE to field and will lose to mixed cavalry/infantry. And with firearms cavalry is useless except for mobility. If every ape soldier needs a horse to get from A to B, and every human just needs a pair of boots, well, with equivalent resources, who at the end of the day has more soldiers at B?

    For apes to truly compete with humans you would have to completely re-engineer their spines and pelvises and knee joints etc. and make them less hairy etc. In that case they'd probably end up looking a lot like people.

    Never forget, according to the (admittedly incomplete) fossil record, there have been multiple branches on the hominid tree. Our line is the one that outcompeted/outlasted/exterminated all others, our closest relatives consigned to limited nature preserves. Maybe someday something better than us will come along, but for now, I would not bet against the humans.

    I’m not going to see it – I don’t want to root against my own species – so I can’t judge it as a movie.

    I think watching animals beat humans isn’t so bad.

    One thing, you know its totally fantastic.

    In contrast, a movie like DJANGO UNCHAINED is more problematic because US has a lot of problems with black violence and crime. So, why encourage it?
    PULP FICTION is vile but it’s sort of honest as a work of nihilism. It has no pretenses and features a gangster world where even morality is mumbo jumbo nonsense. But even though I haven’t seen DJANGO, Tarantino gave interviews about how it’s a screed against ‘racism’.
    Now, I can accept honest nihilism and honest moralism but I’ve the feeling that DJANGO is just nihilism masquerading as moralism. Worst formula.

    Anyway, animals really got in the neck by us, so it’s not always bad to cheer for the animals.
    If dogs attack an abusive owner, that’s nice. Tear him apart!
    And I like it when bulls attack and destroy matadors. Revenge!

    Also, animals are furry, and it’s good to see furry creatures whup humans once awhile.

    White God is about a dog attack human movie.

    But I still don’t want to see this junk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "PULP FICTION is vile but it's sort of honest as a work of nihilism. It has no pretenses and features a gangster world where even morality is mumbo jumbo nonsense"

    That's an odd interpretation, considering the main storyline is about a gangster who feels he has experienced divine intervention, has a religious conversion--without religion, strictly speaking--and changes his ways before our eyes in the climax. He could have very easily blown away the robbers in the last scene (it might have been justifiable homicide, though their guns were probably illegally possessed), and at the beginning of the movie he would've done so without a thought for anything but getting away with it. He stops being a gangster and saves two lives because morality.

    I have no idea whether we're supposed to believe in his interpretation, or believe in him in general. They talk about his conversion in terms of the t.v. show Kung Fu as much as they talk about the Bible. (It's a Tarantino movie.) That's rather nonsensical. But the character himself believes in it, the issue is at least raised, and while Sam Jackson is interpreting scripture the movie seems to be taking him seriously. The movie doesn't end on a "who cares, let's go have fun because life is meaningless" note.
  75. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Hunsdon
    Truth, apes aren't always a metaphor for black folk. Sometimes an ape is just an ape.

    That metaphor is an insult to apes.

    Read More
  76. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Bragadocious
    I hate every ape I see, from chimpan A to chimpanzee.

    CONGO is underappreciated.

    It’s pretty entertaining and pretty decent satire about Africa.

    It gives us forest apes living in balance with nature and monstrous apes who’d been altered in some way.

    The message is “black Africans living with cycles of nature” were “preferable to black Africans introduced to guns and modernity” which blacks cannot handle.

    Just like the movie shows forest apes vs monster apes, it shows nice forest negroes as opposed to ghastly Africans with guns and bombs.

    Read More
  77. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Hunsdon
    Truth, apes aren't always a metaphor for black folk. Sometimes an ape is just an ape.

    Truth, apes aren’t always a metaphor for black folk. Sometimes an ape is just an ape.

    Also, there are different apes. In CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, the Caesar chimp is more like Jewish Marxist radical and the gorillas are like the Black Panthers.

    In ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES, the apes are like persecuted Jewish scientists.

    Interesting that in the original movie, Taylor wants to talk but can’t(due to injury)

    In ESCAPE, the astro-apes can talk but choose not to and play dumb… and Zera talks by accident.

    Same with zombies. They keep changing in meaning movie after movie.

    They did an ape movie with dolphins in DAY OF THE DOLPHINS by Mike Nichols.. which is an interesting failure. It is moving at the end.

    Read More
  78. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @bomag
    Ninety three percent positive on Rotten Tomatoes; the negative reviews paste it as too slow and dreary; the positive reviews are so effusive with praise methinks they dost glorify too much.

    Rotten Tomato’s is a pointless site. It gives Prometheus a 73% positive rating. Prometheus was an absolutely terrible movie.

    Read More
  79. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @donut
    Once there was a wide range of movies , from shit to quality . Even in this century there are some few movies that will hold up as long as people watch movies . There are movies recently made that justify classifying movies as art . I know that Steve's taste in movies is deplorable . It's curious really . Steve is so perceptive and insightful in so many ways , hence so many disparate followers . And yet it's not just that he has poor taste in movies it's as if that part of his brain not only did not develop but instead never existed . Perhaps some genetic deficiency . Steve seems to respond to any movie as a dog responds to a bitch in heat . Just throw some color and movement up on the screen and there he is salivating and thrusting . Sorry fellows my brother is here and I have to go .

    Steve seems to respond to any movie as a dog responds to a bitch in heat . Just throw some color and movement up on the screen and there he is salivating and thrusting . Sorry fellows my brother is here and I have to go .

    Well, at least you supported your contention of Steve’s lack of cinematic taste in general, and complete ignorance of the fundamentals of story-telling related to the cinematic form in particular, by providing historical evidence, examples or citations.

    As you obviously know, to do the opposite would force the casual reader to simply write you off as a humorless, self-sanctimonious douchebag, who responds to Steve’s posts as a dog responds to a bitch in heat.

    And that’s not what I, for one, like to see here.

    Wishing you good luck with your brother tonight, and twice as much luck for the new popular blog on Cinema Critique you’re obviously about to make live, to show everyone how it’s done.

    Read More
    • Replies: @donut
    I can appreciate your critique of my comment because in fact I can't provide "historical evidence, examples or citations" . I couldn't put a cogent case together to save my life . I do know a good movie from a bad one . Your response to my comment is fur sure amusing but I think you should have left this out :
    "As you obviously know, to do the opposite would force the casual reader to simply write you off as a humorless, self-sanctimonious douchebag, who responds to Steve’s posts as a dog responds to a bitch in heat." You seem to have gotten carried away and given the impression that you are a humorless sanctimonious douchebag . If there is anything I am not it is "humorless" , the "self " in front of "sanctimonious" just betrays your haste . As to the charge of "douchbag" while open to many interpretations I will plead Nolo Contendere . I thank you for your wishes of good luck with my brother who I haven't seen for years and who actually volunteered at HRC's HQ in Brooklyn where he resides . Oddly enough what we do have in common is a sense of humor .
  80. @KM32
    You're overthinking this. You could fit every non-human primate alive into a single college football stadium. How would a war play out unless you started with the premise that humans were nearly extinct, and I'm talking an order of magnitude fewer than you see after the plague devastates humanity in The Stand.

    “… You could fit every non-human primate alive into a single college football stadium. ”

    Back in 1970′s, well-commited humans from Chile have achieved some tremendous contribution in that area.

    Read More
  81. Clyde says:

    Rotten Tomato’s is a pointless site. It gives Prometheus a 73% positive rating. Prometheus was an absolutely terrible movie.

    Alien Covenant was worse. What a turd with a negative ending. It got 71% at Rotten Tomatoes. Avatar got 83%. I could only take 20 minutes of that ridiculous eco-turd on TV.

    Read More
  82. @Tim Howells
    Yep:

    92% Audience liked it
    93% Reviews (8.2/10)

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/war_for_the_planet_of_the_apes

    Rotten Tomatoes is the Huffington Post of movie review sites. If it’s pushing a leftist narrative, it’s going to get very high ratings no matter how shitty it might be.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    RT is that way because it aggregates the opinions of reviewers instead of random internet people. If you want to know what the Jewish Marxist collective thinks of movies, RT is a good guide. For what I like to watch imdb is much better.
  83. anon says: • Disclaimer

    One thing about the apes riding horses. They show a big gorilla on a horse. Given how much they weigh that alone seems unlikely. Getting a horse strong enough to support Richard Kiel in Pale Rider was a problem.

    Read More
  84. dr kill says:
    @Rod1963
    Didn't watch it.

    I watched the originals when they came out and they sucked. The premise of the reboot is silly as hell and not worth it.

    The trailer for War showed what I needed to know.

    Look at the current movie, apes living in the NorthWest covered in snow. Apes having little body fat and no clothes would die within days in that sort of environment. Ape cavalry, amusing and a logistical nightmare if you have more than a hundred. They need ferriers to shoe them, a constant supply of food, saddle makers(try riding bareback for a solid day and feel how it f**ks up your bottom)etc.

    Years ago Hollywood did a reboot of the Outer Limits - except they twisted it bigtime. Lots of episodes were loaded with nihilism, bizarre feminism and anti-human nonsense. One of the few series that made me nauseous. The others being Dr. Who and the whole Star Trek franchise from TNG onward. Star Wars and Interstellar comes close. The latter was even more stupid than the Star Wars reboot.

    Most modern sci-fi is trash aimed at 15 year old males with the attention span of a gnat.

    I know, right? I just can’t continue watching a film that can’t be accurate.. My kids laugh at me for turning off Teh Deerhunter just because they use the Rockies and mule deer for the hills of PA and whitetails.

    Read More
  85. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I assume there many different versions of the PlanetApes movie poster but the one used at the local cinema is a hoot:

    The poster shows the blue-eyed teen queen human girl clinging to (her master) the malevolent ape on horseback. This female submissive juxta would not be allowed if the horseman was a white dude me thinks.

    Hilariously stupid. Like those desperate attempts to blot out reality with the show West Wing. The clunkiness of the imagery makes me think that the A.O. Scott review lede was planted and paid for: “Youre gonna root against the humans and for the apes”…

    To add insult to injury: the original author Pierre Boulle gets no mention on the poster! It says the characters are Jaffa & Silver’s! WTF. Embarrassing.

    Maybe the producers will team up with the writers on a future leftwing lunatic SJW Romeo & Juliet and 1. omit any mention of Shakespeare and 2. credit some new derivative characters to Jaffa & Silver.

    Read More
  86. Anonym says:
    @Johnny Smoggins
    Rotten Tomatoes is the Huffington Post of movie review sites. If it's pushing a leftist narrative, it's going to get very high ratings no matter how shitty it might be.

    RT is that way because it aggregates the opinions of reviewers instead of random internet people. If you want to know what the Jewish Marxist collective thinks of movies, RT is a good guide. For what I like to watch imdb is much better.

    Read More
  87. donut says:
    @anonymous

    Steve seems to respond to any movie as a dog responds to a bitch in heat . Just throw some color and movement up on the screen and there he is salivating and thrusting . Sorry fellows my brother is here and I have to go .
     
    Well, at least you supported your contention of Steve's lack of cinematic taste in general, and complete ignorance of the fundamentals of story-telling related to the cinematic form in particular, by providing historical evidence, examples or citations.

    As you obviously know, to do the opposite would force the casual reader to simply write you off as a humorless, self-sanctimonious douchebag, who responds to Steve's posts as a dog responds to a bitch in heat.

    And that's not what I, for one, like to see here.

    Wishing you good luck with your brother tonight, and twice as much luck for the new popular blog on Cinema Critique you're obviously about to make live, to show everyone how it's done.

    I can appreciate your critique of my comment because in fact I can’t provide “historical evidence, examples or citations” . I couldn’t put a cogent case together to save my life . I do know a good movie from a bad one . Your response to my comment is fur sure amusing but I think you should have left this out :
    “As you obviously know, to do the opposite would force the casual reader to simply write you off as a humorless, self-sanctimonious douchebag, who responds to Steve’s posts as a dog responds to a bitch in heat.” You seem to have gotten carried away and given the impression that you are a humorless sanctimonious douchebag . If there is anything I am not it is “humorless” , the “self ” in front of “sanctimonious” just betrays your haste . As to the charge of “douchbag” while open to many interpretations I will plead Nolo Contendere . I thank you for your wishes of good luck with my brother who I haven’t seen for years and who actually volunteered at HRC’s HQ in Brooklyn where he resides . Oddly enough what we do have in common is a sense of humor .

    Read More
  88. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Romanian
    I have seen none of the movies. Too much suspension of disbelief is required, as other commenters have pointed out. By now, I don't care much either, and I probably won't see them by accident, since I don't have a cable subscription.

    I agree, the first one was good. It showed the power of genetic engineering. It showed that an intelligent leader capable of forming coalitions with others (as Caesar the ape did) is far more effective than sadistic leaders (some of the crueler apes).

    I don’t even remember what the second one was about.

    Read More
  89. guest says:
    @Anon
    Seen the first two both twice, first was great, second painfully boring.

    First one was terrible. Didn't even bother with second one.

    The whole concept is bananas.

    POTA was conceived mainly as satire, not science-fiction. We are not supposed to care HOW it came about. What really matters is that the apes represent us humans(in Animal Farm way), and issues are made highlighted by role reversal. There is a way of therapy in psychiatry where two people who are at loggerheads are made to reverse roles and play the other person. People are so used to being themselves that they don't notice their own faults and see it only when the faults are manifested by others.
    We see something like POTA scenario in SILENCE. There, the priests are in a world where Christians are the minority. In Europe, Christians rule. Everything is for God and according to God. Those who reject God could be labeled as heretic and suffer horribly. After all, Europe used to burn witches. But in Japan, these priests are utterly powerless, and they cannot rely on the System to back their faith. Their faith is suddenly naked and persecuted like Jesus on the Cross. The all-powerful Christians who ruled Europe and gained mastery over the New World become helpless in Japan. Even though the film is very pro-Christian, it also suggests at how the deepest understanding of Christianity arrives through loss of power, prestige, and privilege.. when one is forced to rely only on God.
    Christians began without power and then gained role of the powerful... but outside Christo-sphere, they are again without power: tragic but also revitalizing.
    Ironically, this comes about in the movie by having to renounce Jesus. It's one of those paradoxes where one has to renounce something to grow near it... even though there's a sense that no one can really know if he did the right thing or wrong thing, if he heard the voice of Jesus or devil as jesus, as in Last Temptation of Christ.
    SILENCE isn't satire, but it suggests at larger meanings. The story and setting are both specific -- Catholic priests in Japan -- and universal for all individuals confronted with crisis of faith in persecution. Surely, any Christian or conservative working in Hollywood also has to be like the priests in SILENCE. Remain crypto, say one thing, hide true feelings. Oddly enough, the film may even suggest at the fate of Japan in WWII. Just like the priest has to renounce Jesus, the holiest figure in his life, to save persecuted Japanese Christians, the Japanese Emperor had to renounce his divinity to save more Japanese from further nukings. The idea that the emperor is divine and spiritual father to his people was the most sacred concept in Japanese culture, but the demand was unconditional surrender. Unless the emperor renounced his divinity, more cities were to be nuked. SILENCE is religiously specific(very Catholic work) but politically universal in that all peoples were caught in that kind of moral trap... like with Jewish conversos who remained crypto-Jews.

    At any rate, we know that the premise if POTA is totally impossible and beyond far-fetched. We are suppose to take it on faith for the sake of satirical purposes.
    Though it loosely relies on sci-fi standards, POTA is not primarily sci-fi. We are not supposed to care HOW it came about. We are supposed to think of the satirical implications of the situations presented. Everything in POTA is familiar -- religious apes, military apes, intellectual apes -- , but we see them afresh because apes act them out.

    But this new series is utterly stupid. It is mainly sci-fi and tries to give us some 'scientific' and 'rational' explanation of how this ape world came about.

    This is like trying to explain why the little people and giants in Gulliver's Travels got small or big. They are meant to be allegorical.

    This dumb new series reminds me of Dustin Hoffman in RAINMAN trying to make logical sense of 'who's on first'. Its logic is comedic, not literal.

    It's strange how our culture is getting more serious and dumber at the same time. Take Nolan's BATMAN movies. They are more 'serious' and elaborate. But why do we need a comicbook superhero art film?
    And the 007 movie by Sam Mendes is more serious and heavy. But why would we want Bond in LeCarre universe?

    Dumb merges with Smart.

    “Take Nolan’s BATMAN movies. They are more ‘serious’ and elaborate. But why do we need a comicbook superhero art film?”

    I wouldn’t call them art films. They’re relatively serious, and perhaps a bit pretentious. But Nolan appeared to me to be aiming at the heights of techno-action-heist movies, not artsy-fartsiness. He does deal in Big Issues, like the War on Terror. But comic books do that, too. Or at least the pretentious “graphic novels” do, possibly including the ones his Batman movies were based upon. (Batman: Year One? The Killing Joke? I don’t know; I’m not a comic book guy.)

    Tim Burton’s Batman is superior for my taste in having the Joker create Batman by killing his parents, then Batman creating the Joker by providing an example of a crazy guy in a weird costume running around town like the rules don’t apply to him. I didn’t need to see Batman create the Joker like the CIA created Al Queda.

    But let’s not get carried away, because they were still just action-superhero-detective-heist-kung fu movies, like Planet of the Apes was a B-movie sci-fi romp with a couple of Serious Messages on Big Issues.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I wouldn’t call them art films. They’re relatively serious, and perhaps a bit pretentious.


    There was one where the guy in bat costume fought a bald-headed guy with duck mask named Bain. Later, the bat guy presumably died by saving NY from a mini-nuke, and Michael Caine emoted and wept like he was in an Ingmar Bergman film.

    This in a movie about a guy in bat costume having a fisticuff with a baldie with duck mask.

    It was ridiculous.
    , @Autochthon
    Just as serious musicians look back at disco and shiver, years from now, in classes studying film seriously, there will be a day each semetsre when the professor utters the phrase "...and then, for a period in the twenty-first century, nothing much worth discussing was done, because everything was either a terrible bastardisation of literature or a movie about superheroes. I'd explain what a superhero was, but it's not really worth knowing...."
  90. Was anyone else bored to death by Apocalypse Now?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jim jones
    My favourite movie of all time, I find the Vietnam War fascinating
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    I’ve seen it at least 15 times, so for me, no. As to Coppola’s post-release OCD—YouTube commenter OroborusFMA knows what’s up:

    The original 1979 release is the best. To hell with the castrated end credits, to hell with all that redux bloat. Don't tinker with your old stuff. Ever.
     
    , @LondonBob
    Apocalypse Now is rather slow and hard to watch, don't buy the hype.

    The most overrated film by far is Deer Hunter. My God I have tried repeatedly to watch that film when it is on TV here, it is on a fair bit, but I just can't make it through half an hour of it.
    , @Seth Largo
    No, but assuming you were, I will now disregard every opinion you type here.
    , @BB753
    Martin Sheen got too much screen time, while Marlon Brando and Robert Duvall too little.
    , @Joe Stalin
    Not me; did you see it on 20" CRT? I saw Apocalypse Now in 1979 at the theaters; I distinctly recall after the tiger scene a white lady getting up and leaving the theater. Boring? Apparently not.

    I like the original AN compared to the various extended versions.
  91. @TG
    I'm not going to see it - I don't want to root against my own species - so I can't judge it as a movie.

    As science, though, there is another view. Even if apes could be given human-level intelligence, they would still lose in any protracted war with homo sapiens.

    "Amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk intelligence." Humans do not have the static strength of an ape, but we have FAR more endurance. A human can carry a decent load some tens of kilometers across broken ground per day. Your average chimp/gorilla would be exhausted in less than a kilometer. Also humans don't grow fur, we steal it from other animals - that gives us like a 10% energy boost, because growing whole-body fur is metabolically expensive.

    Many suspect that that's why our species outlasted the Neanderthals, who were also stronger than humans and actually had bigger brains. Humans were more gracile and could forage further... They had brute power (and maybe even brainpower), we had logistics.

    So the human army will need less food and will have ten times the mobility, and the human industrial enterprises and farming will be vastly more productive than the ape. Apes lose. OK, the apes could use horses to partially compensate, but an army made up only of cavalry is also going to be EXPENSIVE to field and will lose to mixed cavalry/infantry. And with firearms cavalry is useless except for mobility. If every ape soldier needs a horse to get from A to B, and every human just needs a pair of boots, well, with equivalent resources, who at the end of the day has more soldiers at B?

    For apes to truly compete with humans you would have to completely re-engineer their spines and pelvises and knee joints etc. and make them less hairy etc. In that case they'd probably end up looking a lot like people.

    Never forget, according to the (admittedly incomplete) fossil record, there have been multiple branches on the hominid tree. Our line is the one that outcompeted/outlasted/exterminated all others, our closest relatives consigned to limited nature preserves. Maybe someday something better than us will come along, but for now, I would not bet against the humans.

    According to the original movies, the apes were bred to be laborers and servants. The humans became a leisure class with many ape slaves. So it was like a slave uprising.

    Read More
  92. guest says:
    @Anon
    I’m not going to see it – I don’t want to root against my own species – so I can’t judge it as a movie.

    I think watching animals beat humans isn't so bad.

    One thing, you know its totally fantastic.

    In contrast, a movie like DJANGO UNCHAINED is more problematic because US has a lot of problems with black violence and crime. So, why encourage it?
    PULP FICTION is vile but it's sort of honest as a work of nihilism. It has no pretenses and features a gangster world where even morality is mumbo jumbo nonsense. But even though I haven't seen DJANGO, Tarantino gave interviews about how it's a screed against 'racism'.
    Now, I can accept honest nihilism and honest moralism but I've the feeling that DJANGO is just nihilism masquerading as moralism. Worst formula.

    Anyway, animals really got in the neck by us, so it's not always bad to cheer for the animals.
    If dogs attack an abusive owner, that's nice. Tear him apart!
    And I like it when bulls attack and destroy matadors. Revenge!

    Also, animals are furry, and it's good to see furry creatures whup humans once awhile.

    White God is about a dog attack human movie.

    But I still don't want to see this junk.

    “PULP FICTION is vile but it’s sort of honest as a work of nihilism. It has no pretenses and features a gangster world where even morality is mumbo jumbo nonsense”

    That’s an odd interpretation, considering the main storyline is about a gangster who feels he has experienced divine intervention, has a religious conversion–without religion, strictly speaking–and changes his ways before our eyes in the climax. He could have very easily blown away the robbers in the last scene (it might have been justifiable homicide, though their guns were probably illegally possessed), and at the beginning of the movie he would’ve done so without a thought for anything but getting away with it. He stops being a gangster and saves two lives because morality.

    I have no idea whether we’re supposed to believe in his interpretation, or believe in him in general. They talk about his conversion in terms of the t.v. show Kung Fu as much as they talk about the Bible. (It’s a Tarantino movie.) That’s rather nonsensical. But the character himself believes in it, the issue is at least raised, and while Sam Jackson is interpreting scripture the movie seems to be taking him seriously. The movie doesn’t end on a “who cares, let’s go have fun because life is meaningless” note.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    That’s an odd interpretation, considering the main storyline is about a gangster who feels he has experienced divine intervention, has a religious conversion–without religion, strictly speaking–and changes his ways before our eyes in the climax.

    It's salvation as style. Hipster redemption, all thunder and noise, no substance.
    And it's more superstition than religion. It's voodoo riff on turning a new leaf. It's like god as gansta cut him some slack, so he's better go easy with Good Golly Miss Molly.

    And he doesn't really change. He is still the same gangsta with the same instincts. He's just anxious not to step on the cracks in the sidewalk. He lets the robber go, but he still lets him rob everyone in the diner. It's morality as hipster existential trip. He makes even his own rules even as a 'saved' or spared man.

    In contrast, Tarantino talked up DJANGO as a moral statement on slavery. I've seen some clips, and it's a ugly disgusting movie. The last thing I need from Tarantino is a moral sermon about history.
  93. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @guest
    "Take Nolan's BATMAN movies. They are more 'serious' and elaborate. But why do we need a comicbook superhero art film?"

    I wouldn't call them art films. They're relatively serious, and perhaps a bit pretentious. But Nolan appeared to me to be aiming at the heights of techno-action-heist movies, not artsy-fartsiness. He does deal in Big Issues, like the War on Terror. But comic books do that, too. Or at least the pretentious "graphic novels" do, possibly including the ones his Batman movies were based upon. (Batman: Year One? The Killing Joke? I don't know; I'm not a comic book guy.)

    Tim Burton's Batman is superior for my taste in having the Joker create Batman by killing his parents, then Batman creating the Joker by providing an example of a crazy guy in a weird costume running around town like the rules don't apply to him. I didn't need to see Batman create the Joker like the CIA created Al Queda.

    But let's not get carried away, because they were still just action-superhero-detective-heist-kung fu movies, like Planet of the Apes was a B-movie sci-fi romp with a couple of Serious Messages on Big Issues.

    I wouldn’t call them art films. They’re relatively serious, and perhaps a bit pretentious.

    There was one where the guy in bat costume fought a bald-headed guy with duck mask named Bain. Later, the bat guy presumably died by saving NY from a mini-nuke, and Michael Caine emoted and wept like he was in an Ingmar Bergman film.

    This in a movie about a guy in bat costume having a fisticuff with a baldie with duck mask.

    It was ridiculous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    But if they only allow you to do films based on comic books you have to work round that. That said I am looking forward to seeing Dunkirk, Nolan finally had enough cred to make his dream blockbuster, and a war film without a Yank in sight too.
  94. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @guest
    "PULP FICTION is vile but it's sort of honest as a work of nihilism. It has no pretenses and features a gangster world where even morality is mumbo jumbo nonsense"

    That's an odd interpretation, considering the main storyline is about a gangster who feels he has experienced divine intervention, has a religious conversion--without religion, strictly speaking--and changes his ways before our eyes in the climax. He could have very easily blown away the robbers in the last scene (it might have been justifiable homicide, though their guns were probably illegally possessed), and at the beginning of the movie he would've done so without a thought for anything but getting away with it. He stops being a gangster and saves two lives because morality.

    I have no idea whether we're supposed to believe in his interpretation, or believe in him in general. They talk about his conversion in terms of the t.v. show Kung Fu as much as they talk about the Bible. (It's a Tarantino movie.) That's rather nonsensical. But the character himself believes in it, the issue is at least raised, and while Sam Jackson is interpreting scripture the movie seems to be taking him seriously. The movie doesn't end on a "who cares, let's go have fun because life is meaningless" note.

    That’s an odd interpretation, considering the main storyline is about a gangster who feels he has experienced divine intervention, has a religious conversion–without religion, strictly speaking–and changes his ways before our eyes in the climax.

    It’s salvation as style. Hipster redemption, all thunder and noise, no substance.
    And it’s more superstition than religion. It’s voodoo riff on turning a new leaf. It’s like god as gansta cut him some slack, so he’s better go easy with Good Golly Miss Molly.

    And he doesn’t really change. He is still the same gangsta with the same instincts. He’s just anxious not to step on the cracks in the sidewalk. He lets the robber go, but he still lets him rob everyone in the diner. It’s morality as hipster existential trip. He makes even his own rules even as a ‘saved’ or spared man.

    In contrast, Tarantino talked up DJANGO as a moral statement on slavery. I’ve seen some clips, and it’s a ugly disgusting movie. The last thing I need from Tarantino is a moral sermon about history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker
    Tarantino has become an ugly degenerate cuck and his films reflect that. Of course he probably always was.
    , @guest
    "It's salvation as style. Hipster redemption, all thunder and no noise"

    I'm inclined to agree, though, again, I was unsure how the audience was supposed to take it.

    However, the subject was Pulp Fiction as an honest work of nihilism with no pretenses. That's simply false. If it's nihilistic beneath a pbony or half-assed redemptive character art, it's not honest. That would be rather dishonest.

    "And he doesn't really change...He lets the robber go, but he still lets him rob everyone in the diner"

    The character doesn't resolve to fight evil, as I recall, after his conversion. Just to wander the earth and wait for God or whatever to show him the way. I don't see how letting the robbers get away with the loot--including his own, not counting his boss' briefcase--contradicts that.

    Simply letting them live is turning over a new leaf. John Travolta wanted to blow them away, and I assume the old Sam Jackson would have, too. (Assuming they could get away with it.) The character intends to go to his boss and quit as the movie ends, and I see no reason, except the admitted silliness of basing life decisions on tv shows, to doubt he will. That would be a change.
  95. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Old Palo Altan
    Greydanus used to be worth reading, but has of late swallowed the Pope Francis death pill ( also called papolatry) and now echoes the Modernist Vatican line at every opportunity.
    It is striking that this attack on virile, war-making Christianity (think of the Crusades, or the defence of Vienna against the Turks in 1683), as exemplified by this quote from the review: "Heightening the religious resonance, the Colonel wears a crucifix, and at one point he even makes the Sign of the Cross over his men in a mock blessing, although his rhetoric is pure Darwinian-inflected tribalism. Is this one more negative Hollywood association of patriotism and religion with villainy? It could be seen that way, but I think it is best seen as the kind of superficial co-opting of patriotic and religious symbolism appropriate to this kind of villain in this sort of situation.", comes at the same time as a vicious attack by the Vatican upon conservative American Catholics and their "evil" ecumenism with evangelical Protestants to support Trump and bring God back into the public sphere. This remarkably brutal article actually mentions both Steve Bannon and a prominent Catholic journalist, Michael Voris, by name as part of this coalition.
    The mask has been slipping for some time, but is now cast wholly off, and the Vatican of Francis, as was recently insisted upon by a prominent Italian atheist philosopher who nevertheless loves the West, is in full attack mode against Christian Europe and its very survival.

    That’s a shame about SDG.

    Read More
  96. jim jones says:
    @RobertTaylor
    Was anyone else bored to death by Apocalypse Now?

    My favourite movie of all time, I find the Vietnam War fascinating

    Read More
  97. Kaz says:

    Jeez I don’t get why many of you are taking this movie so personally.

    At their core, the Apes movies are about the classic idea of human fallibility to hubris. With a heavy sci-fi tilt.

    The whole reason for humanity’s fall in the movie is because a US scientist really wanted to save his father from a degenerative brain disease, so he threw caution to the wind.

    There is no liberal or conservative victory to be found here..

    Read More
  98. @RobertTaylor
    Was anyone else bored to death by Apocalypse Now?

    I’ve seen it at least 15 times, so for me, no. As to Coppola’s post-release OCD—YouTube commenter OroborusFMA knows what’s up:

    The original 1979 release is the best. To hell with the castrated end credits, to hell with all that redux bloat. Don’t tinker with your old stuff. Ever.

    Read More
  99. Spyder says:

    The second is still the better movie because it actually had a real compelling villain with the other ape friend.

    Read More
  100. LondonBob says:
    @RobertTaylor
    Was anyone else bored to death by Apocalypse Now?

    Apocalypse Now is rather slow and hard to watch, don’t buy the hype.

    The most overrated film by far is Deer Hunter. My God I have tried repeatedly to watch that film when it is on TV here, it is on a fair bit, but I just can’t make it through half an hour of it.

    Read More
  101. LondonBob says:
    @Anon
    I wouldn’t call them art films. They’re relatively serious, and perhaps a bit pretentious.


    There was one where the guy in bat costume fought a bald-headed guy with duck mask named Bain. Later, the bat guy presumably died by saving NY from a mini-nuke, and Michael Caine emoted and wept like he was in an Ingmar Bergman film.

    This in a movie about a guy in bat costume having a fisticuff with a baldie with duck mask.

    It was ridiculous.

    But if they only allow you to do films based on comic books you have to work round that. That said I am looking forward to seeing Dunkirk, Nolan finally had enough cred to make his dream blockbuster, and a war film without a Yank in sight too.

    Read More
  102. Romanian says: • Website
    @mobi

    Yep:

    92% Audience liked it
    93% Reviews (8.2/10)
     

    Haven't seen any of the Apes movies yet, but my faith in Rotten Tomatoes was severely shaken when I discovered Mad Max: Fury Road was the 4th-highest-rated-film of all time, apparently.

    'Even better than The Road Warrior', mind you.

    Bring on the apes.

    I thought Fury Road was an amazing movie, well executed technically and very subversive in contrasting Immortan Joe’s civilization with the desert harridans. I’m not the kind that gives movies scores online, though. I went to see it twice, which is atypical for me. The feminist bullshit is the price of doing business.

    Read More
  103. midtown says:
    @LondonBob
    Seen the first two both twice, first was great, second painfully boring.

    If the second one was painfully boring, why did you watch it again? To see if it had gotten any better?

    Actually, that gives me an idea: movies can release beta versions and update them along the way. Probably better than the current system in which 90% are awful.

    Read More
  104. dr kill says:
    @Marty
    Exactly. The last movie I paid to see was Waking Ned Devine.

    Hahaha, I paid to see one of the Borat movies about 10 years ago. Hahaha. That’s it for me.

    Read More
  105. El Dato says:
    @Autochthon
    I presume you all realise you are financing your own dispossession, those of you who pay to watch this garbage, and paying to watch an advertisement advocating it to boot.

    Is this like getting a ticket for the Auschwitz Express?

    (This reminds me that I still haven’t seen Ex Machina, though I wanted to at some point.)

    Read More
  106. bomag says:
    @Anon
    The original Apes movie was an obnoxious politically correct lecture with an anti-technology subtext.

    Really? But the Ape World was not idealized. It had much of the drawbacks of human society with its brutality, deceit, and etc.

    But it's funny how the most corrupt, deceitful, and decrepit orangutan was right all along.
    He had wisdom in his weasel-mind.

    He was old testament ape and didn't fall for the Magic Human myth. Forbidden Zone was the fallen eden of man. And Zaius didn't regard Taylor as some christ figure but the devil. And later Taylor agrees when he realizes the truth.

    Zaius and Taylor both have something in common: the will to power. The chimp scientists have will to truth and a sense of justice, but the problem is justice can cloud truth. They see Taylor mistreated and find it unjust. So, they are decent enough to care. But in caring, they overlook the dark side of humanity and are all too willing to dismiss Zaius' warnings.
    But Zaius fails too because he uses Fear and Ignorance to control and maintain society. He hides the truth because it would mean humans were once great and indeed superior to apes. He wants apes to feel that they are the center of the world. He is like the Shymalan VILLAGE elders who keep people ignorant to keep them in the community.
    Now, why doesn't Zaius just say the truth? Why not say that humans were indeed great but brought ruin on themselves with abuse of technology and hubris? Because even if humans were ultimately evil and destructive, it would mean they were a great people worthy of respect. And that means apes might worship the Memory of Humans. And it might mean that apes might lower their guards against barbarian humans who might evolve into superior power.
    So, Zaius used Ignorance of Religion and Official Cult to keep things in line.
    It's sort of like why whites were never honest about blacks. If whites in the South had been more honest about racial differences, things might have been more different. They could have said blacks may be, on average, less intelligent but they are stronger and tougher and pose a danger to whites. But white male pride just couldn't admit that, so they cooked up bogus reasons for keeping the negro down and away. Just like Zaius was loathe to admit humans were superior to apes in science and technology, white males were loathe to admit blacks are superior in athletics. So, they came up with reasons for keeping humans down or blacks down with bogus reasons like 'humans are devil's spawn' or 'states rights'.

    Anyway, both Zaius and Taylor are forceful personalities, and they will stop at nothing to get their way. They are more about power than the truth. In contrast, chimps favor the truth but fail to realize that truth can become clouded by sense of justice that may become sappy. The chimps fail too in that regard. They did a good thing but fail to understand how dangerous humans can be because they're clouded by compassion. Also, they knew Taylor in chains, a victim deserving of compassion. But what might a man like Taylor if he held the bullwhip?
    Also, what the chimps say is revealing. Taylor complains about how he was treated, and chimps say it was because they thought he was 'inferior'. What does that mean? Justice only belongs to the superior? So, if Taylor was dumb like all the other humans on the planet, there would have been no need for compassion? In a way, can we blame the apes for mistreating humans? All humans in the planet except for astronauts are indeed inferior. They are savage goons who steal from apes who grow crops.
    This raises a problem. People eat pigs because pigs are animals. But suppose there is one pig that can talk and has human intelligence. And suppose this Cool Ham Luke escapes from humans and when humans catch him, it squeals, 'get you stinking hands off me, you damn bacon-eater'. What would we do? We would likely spare the pig and treat it nice and it 'd become a celebrity and thinking-talking pig, and we should sorry for treating it as an inferior. But what about other pigs? Because this one is so smart and human-like, should we spare all other pigs too? And would this pig with human intelligence feel closer to humans or to other pigs?

    I can’t even imagine how much more unscientifically toxic one would be nowadays and I’ll be damned if I’m going to waste my time to find out.

    Almost all movies about technology are dystopian. It's more provocative and fun that way.
    HAL would be less interesting without the malfunction.
    Terminator would be boring if it didn't kill people.

    What would we do? We would likely spare the pig and treat it nice and it ‘d become a celebrity and thinking-talking pig, and we should sorry for treating it as an inferior.

    Interesting to ponder. Americans are aghast that some people eat dogs, a faithful and communicative species.

    Cannibalism exists, and doesn’t seem to bother the practitioners too much.

    Read More
  107. jb says:
    @TG
    I'm not going to see it - I don't want to root against my own species - so I can't judge it as a movie.

    As science, though, there is another view. Even if apes could be given human-level intelligence, they would still lose in any protracted war with homo sapiens.

    "Amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk intelligence." Humans do not have the static strength of an ape, but we have FAR more endurance. A human can carry a decent load some tens of kilometers across broken ground per day. Your average chimp/gorilla would be exhausted in less than a kilometer. Also humans don't grow fur, we steal it from other animals - that gives us like a 10% energy boost, because growing whole-body fur is metabolically expensive.

    Many suspect that that's why our species outlasted the Neanderthals, who were also stronger than humans and actually had bigger brains. Humans were more gracile and could forage further... They had brute power (and maybe even brainpower), we had logistics.

    So the human army will need less food and will have ten times the mobility, and the human industrial enterprises and farming will be vastly more productive than the ape. Apes lose. OK, the apes could use horses to partially compensate, but an army made up only of cavalry is also going to be EXPENSIVE to field and will lose to mixed cavalry/infantry. And with firearms cavalry is useless except for mobility. If every ape soldier needs a horse to get from A to B, and every human just needs a pair of boots, well, with equivalent resources, who at the end of the day has more soldiers at B?

    For apes to truly compete with humans you would have to completely re-engineer their spines and pelvises and knee joints etc. and make them less hairy etc. In that case they'd probably end up looking a lot like people.

    Never forget, according to the (admittedly incomplete) fossil record, there have been multiple branches on the hominid tree. Our line is the one that outcompeted/outlasted/exterminated all others, our closest relatives consigned to limited nature preserves. Maybe someday something better than us will come along, but for now, I would not bet against the humans.

    Also, chimpanzee hands have very long fingers and short thumbs, which makes them well suited for getting around in trees, but not for manipulating objects. Without a precision grip they’d have a difficult time even using sophisticated tools, let alone crafting them.

    Read More
  108. And if you had any doubts that pop culture rots the brain before you read the comments in this thread…

    Read More
  109. @Anon
    For apes to truly compete with humans you would have to completely re-engineer their spines and pelvises and knee joints etc. and make them less hairy etc. In that case they'd probably end up looking a lot like people.

    If we want to be sci-fi-ish about POTA and come up with some 'plausible' explanation as to why apes took over the earth, all we need to do is remember what Einstein said... that WWIII will be fought with nukes, WW IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
    And that is all that the original movie suggests. It's not that that apes defeated the humans. Rather, humans blew themselves up in a nuclear holocaust. And then, apes evolved past humans and took over. Apes just inherited the earth.

    Indeed, this was one of the fears during the Cold War. Most people thought US and USSR would be superpowers for a long long time. So, how could another nation become the new superpower? How could they defeat US or USSR? Impossible.. But then, suppose US and USSR blew each other up. Suppose Moscow, Leningrad, NY, Chicago, LA, etc all turned to ashes. Then, a third world nation might become the great world power. Not be defeating US or USSR but letting US and USSR destroy themselves.
    And it is true enough that Asia rose through the cracks caused by white vs white war between US and USSR. And now, as US has new Cold War with Russia(!!), Africans and Muslims are entering into EU. The West is too busy fighting this useless cold war with Russia that it is willfully blind to the silent revolution that is happening with demographics.

    It's like a race where the fastest competitors trip over each other, and the slower runner wins first place. I wonder if Pierre Boulle was influenced in any way by Huxley's Ape and Essence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape_and_Essence

    So many times in history, the weaker power gained supremacy not by defeating the bigger powers but by filling the vacuum created by clash of titans.
    If Byzantines and Persians hadn't bashed and depleted one another so badly, the Arab Muslims couldn't have spread so far and fast.

    Bolsheviks and Nazis couldn't have come to power if not for the mutual destruction by Great Germanic and Slavic Empires. It led to fall of royal houses and opened a way for radicals. Lenin and Hitler would have been, at most, footnotes in history, if not for WWI.
    And if Japan and KMT hadn't bashed one another to exhaustion, Mao couldn't have come to power by filling the vacuum. Mao was bum bandit in Yenan after the Long March with no chance of taking power. But war with Japan led to destruction of KMT and then fall of Japan, and then the commies took all of China.

    So, the powerless who want power need to look for the right opportunity. Let the big guys fight and then move in like a jackal and take the crown. Like in A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS.

    Maybe Apes can be combined with Terminator.

    Man creates super AI intelligence. And then, American AI, Russian AI, Chinese AI, EU AI, and etc all do battle. Humans can't stop this AI battle since AI took over all the system. So, each nation has a megalomaniac Hal-like AI trying to gain mastery, and this leads to the war to end all wars, and the world goes kablooey and humans go the way of dinosaurs after asteroid strike. (Indeed, one wonders if mammals would have been the master species if not for the asteroid hit that killed off dinos.)
    But then, some gibbons, rats, turtles, and cats survive, and radiation makes them smart, and they become the new master races.

    “It’s like a race where the fastest competitors trip over each other, and the slower runner wins first place.”

    Foinavon, 1967 Grand National

    “Foinavon, ridden by John Buckingham, was a rank outsider at odds of 100/1 to win the 1967 Grand National, and his owner Cyril Watkins had such little belief in his chances that he was not even at the course.

    For the first circuit and a half, Foinavon played no real part in the proceedings, in which 28 of the 44 starters had safely survived past the 22nd fence (Becher’s Brook). However, the most dramatic moment of the race, and perhaps of Grand National history, came when a loose horse — Popham Down, who had been hampered and unseated his rider at the first fence — veered dramatically to his right at the 23rd fence, slamming into Rutherfords and unseating his jockey Johnny Leech. A pile-up ensued. Rondetto, Norther, Kirtle Lad, Princeful, Leedsy and other horses hit the ground, then began running up and down the fence preventing others from jumping it, and bringing the race effectively to a halt. Some horses even began running in the wrong direction, back the way they had come.

    Foinavon had been lagging so far behind that Buckingham had time to steer his mount clear of the chaos and jump on the wide outside, long before any of the others could remount or attempt the fence again. At the next obstacle, the Canal Turn, Buckingham looked back in disbelief at the 30-length lead he held with just six fences remaining. “

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tls18p0AYjM

    Read More
  110. Mr. Anon says:
    @Truth
    LMFAO!

    Sailer, you've gone off the deep end, I don't think you can come back now...

    Sailer, you’ve gone off the deep end, I don’t think you can come back now…

    And this is coming from literal flat-earther, “Truth”.

    Read More
  111. DJohn1 says:
    @TG
    I'm not going to see it - I don't want to root against my own species - so I can't judge it as a movie.

    As science, though, there is another view. Even if apes could be given human-level intelligence, they would still lose in any protracted war with homo sapiens.

    "Amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk intelligence." Humans do not have the static strength of an ape, but we have FAR more endurance. A human can carry a decent load some tens of kilometers across broken ground per day. Your average chimp/gorilla would be exhausted in less than a kilometer. Also humans don't grow fur, we steal it from other animals - that gives us like a 10% energy boost, because growing whole-body fur is metabolically expensive.

    Many suspect that that's why our species outlasted the Neanderthals, who were also stronger than humans and actually had bigger brains. Humans were more gracile and could forage further... They had brute power (and maybe even brainpower), we had logistics.

    So the human army will need less food and will have ten times the mobility, and the human industrial enterprises and farming will be vastly more productive than the ape. Apes lose. OK, the apes could use horses to partially compensate, but an army made up only of cavalry is also going to be EXPENSIVE to field and will lose to mixed cavalry/infantry. And with firearms cavalry is useless except for mobility. If every ape soldier needs a horse to get from A to B, and every human just needs a pair of boots, well, with equivalent resources, who at the end of the day has more soldiers at B?

    For apes to truly compete with humans you would have to completely re-engineer their spines and pelvises and knee joints etc. and make them less hairy etc. In that case they'd probably end up looking a lot like people.

    Never forget, according to the (admittedly incomplete) fossil record, there have been multiple branches on the hominid tree. Our line is the one that outcompeted/outlasted/exterminated all others, our closest relatives consigned to limited nature preserves. Maybe someday something better than us will come along, but for now, I would not bet against the humans.

    Don’t worry about rooting against your own species in movies like these – just adopt the proper anithero as the role model.

    Such as the Martyr of Pandora, Colonel Miles Quaritch:

    http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Miles_Quaritch

    Read More
  112. @guest
    The issue appears much simpler to me. Do all the Apes speak in these movies, or is it just the one guy, Caesar? That would be a fatal logistical handicap right there.

    In any case, Humans have industry and civilization. Apes are hiding out in the woods using human weapons. Humans outnumber Apes by many orders of magnitude. We could probably overwhelm them with waves of men with melee weapons if enough of us were willing to die.

    Apes could go terrorist and build an insurgency, but they stick out like sore thumbs. What kind of civilian support could they expect? I don't imagine any humans, even nutso human-haters, would much sympathize with them when it comes to a question of avoiding genocide. Definitely most humans would be on the side of humans and the Apes would have no chance to win the moral war.

    Which is why the commercials represent them as being isolated in the forest. How do they get resupplied? The Vietnamese we fought in the jungle weren't alone; they had a whole supply train and giant countries subsidizing them. Watch old Westerns and you find some Indian-killers more upset with the whites who trade with the savages than the Red Indians themselves. Apes would have no such outside support, I reckon.

    Couldn't humans just choke Forest Apes off? Or area-bomb them? If it must come down to guerilla warfare out in the bush (because there's gotta be a movie), then the physical advantages you mention apply. There would also be the fact that humans are trained for war. Apes can learn on the job, but they have no professional soldiery.

    the fact that humans are trained for war. Apes can learn on the job, but they have no professional soldiery.

    There’s an argument that men (‘Men’) are evolved by a crude and recent form of selection for organized warfare, rather than farming or herding. In Europe it’s been going on since farming took off at least. Massive ramparted neolithic hillforts and signs of siege and sacking, corps of assault archers, spearmen, axemen and so on. It went ballistic after the introduction of bronze and the horse, and pretty much became a way of life across the region.

    European tribesmen only held land of their chief as a way of providing him with a warband of spearmen (it didn’t matter how half-assed their farming was, not chiefy’s problem, he’s off huntin’, dontchaknow : but no fighty, no wifey = tough selective sweep across the population, for millennia). An arrangement which lasted into early modern times, and probably only finally died of grapeshot and firing by ranks in the sleet of Culloden Muir.

    “Spartans! What is your profession!?!”
    “Smart apes! What is yours??”
    Somebody would have to have a whole lot of affirmative action deployed to catch up with white men.

    Read More
  113. @guest
    "Take Nolan's BATMAN movies. They are more 'serious' and elaborate. But why do we need a comicbook superhero art film?"

    I wouldn't call them art films. They're relatively serious, and perhaps a bit pretentious. But Nolan appeared to me to be aiming at the heights of techno-action-heist movies, not artsy-fartsiness. He does deal in Big Issues, like the War on Terror. But comic books do that, too. Or at least the pretentious "graphic novels" do, possibly including the ones his Batman movies were based upon. (Batman: Year One? The Killing Joke? I don't know; I'm not a comic book guy.)

    Tim Burton's Batman is superior for my taste in having the Joker create Batman by killing his parents, then Batman creating the Joker by providing an example of a crazy guy in a weird costume running around town like the rules don't apply to him. I didn't need to see Batman create the Joker like the CIA created Al Queda.

    But let's not get carried away, because they were still just action-superhero-detective-heist-kung fu movies, like Planet of the Apes was a B-movie sci-fi romp with a couple of Serious Messages on Big Issues.

    Just as serious musicians look back at disco and shiver, years from now, in classes studying film seriously, there will be a day each semetsre when the professor utters the phrase “…and then, for a period in the twenty-first century, nothing much worth discussing was done, because everything was either a terrible bastardisation of literature or a movie about superheroes. I’d explain what a superhero was, but it’s not really worth knowing….”

    Read More
  114. mp says:

    Planet of the Apes? I don’t know, man. I peaked after George goodified Tray… and that was free. Why would I drive to a mall and pay money to see more ape stuff in a theater? On the other hand, if you tell me that these movie apes are actually intelligent, well that might make a difference.

    Read More
  115. @mobi

    Yep:

    92% Audience liked it
    93% Reviews (8.2/10)
     

    Haven't seen any of the Apes movies yet, but my faith in Rotten Tomatoes was severely shaken when I discovered Mad Max: Fury Road was the 4th-highest-rated-film of all time, apparently.

    'Even better than The Road Warrior', mind you.

    Bring on the apes.

    I second that. You would think that any movie with those kind of numbers would be a sure thing. Guess again.

    Saw Fury Road based on the ecstatic reviews of it on Rotten Tomatoes and was sorely, hugely disappointed. Excellent sets and props, lots of action, but due to the lack of a coherent story, ultimately there was no there, there. I half-seriously wondered if we had all seen the same movie.

    It shakes your world a little to realize how out of the mainstream your tastes are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    It shakes your world a little to realize how out of the mainstream your tastes are.

    The public reaction to Fury Road was far less ecstatic than the critical reaction. It did $154 million domestically and $379 million worldwide, which are decent but nothing special.

    , @mobi
    Yes, that's it. All flash, no soul. It felt like watching a video game.

    It doesn't hold a candle to The Road Warrior. In fairness, few movies could. It never ages.

    , @Autochthon
    Your reaction suggests it's not your cuppa because you prefer conventional narrative cinema (nothing wrong with that!); Mad Max: Fury Road, like Apocalypto before it, is the perfectly executed idea of a film which is, in it's entirety, a chase scene.

    In fact, given their longstanding relationship, it's hard to guess who inspired whom more between George Miller and Mel Gibson....

  116. @feral_nerd
    I second that. You would think that any movie with those kind of numbers would be a sure thing. Guess again.

    Saw Fury Road based on the ecstatic reviews of it on Rotten Tomatoes and was sorely, hugely disappointed. Excellent sets and props, lots of action, but due to the lack of a coherent story, ultimately there was no there, there. I half-seriously wondered if we had all seen the same movie.

    It shakes your world a little to realize how out of the mainstream your tastes are.

    It shakes your world a little to realize how out of the mainstream your tastes are.

    The public reaction to Fury Road was far less ecstatic than the critical reaction. It did $154 million domestically and $379 million worldwide, which are decent but nothing special.

    Read More
  117. @RobertTaylor
    Was anyone else bored to death by Apocalypse Now?

    No, but assuming you were, I will now disregard every opinion you type here.

    Read More
  118. Sideways says:
    @International Jew
    You overlook that these movies are set in San Francisco and Marin County. There are very very few people there who have ever handled a gun, much less had military training. An "army" of web page designers, interior decorators, SJWs and baristas wouldn't stand a chance against those apes.

    Of course I'm referring to the white population. SF has a lot of tough Philipinos who would do well. But I'm working with the ethnic makeup as seen in the movie.

    Against all what, 50 apes that are kept in the region? I think 100,000 unarmed people could handle it

    But anyway, The second film took place 10 years after the present of the first film, and I assume this is more years later

    Read More
  119. BB753 says:
    @RobertTaylor
    Was anyone else bored to death by Apocalypse Now?

    Martin Sheen got too much screen time, while Marlon Brando and Robert Duvall too little.

    Read More
    • Agree: Autochthon
    • Replies: @mobi

    Martin Sheen got too much screen time, while Marlon Brando and Robert Duvall too little.
     
    I thought casting Brando in that role was one of the few mis-steps in an otherwise-masterpiece.

    The other was the very existence of the Dennis Hopper character.

    Funny how tastes can be so personal.

    Duval's character was perfect, but it's a measure of the depth of the film, and one of its many strengths, that they didn't - and didn't need to - over-rely on such characters.

  120. Lurker says:
    @Anon
    That’s an odd interpretation, considering the main storyline is about a gangster who feels he has experienced divine intervention, has a religious conversion–without religion, strictly speaking–and changes his ways before our eyes in the climax.

    It's salvation as style. Hipster redemption, all thunder and noise, no substance.
    And it's more superstition than religion. It's voodoo riff on turning a new leaf. It's like god as gansta cut him some slack, so he's better go easy with Good Golly Miss Molly.

    And he doesn't really change. He is still the same gangsta with the same instincts. He's just anxious not to step on the cracks in the sidewalk. He lets the robber go, but he still lets him rob everyone in the diner. It's morality as hipster existential trip. He makes even his own rules even as a 'saved' or spared man.

    In contrast, Tarantino talked up DJANGO as a moral statement on slavery. I've seen some clips, and it's a ugly disgusting movie. The last thing I need from Tarantino is a moral sermon about history.

    Tarantino has become an ugly degenerate cuck and his films reflect that. Of course he probably always was.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Of course he probably always was.

    Like mother like son.

    He was the mulatto son she never had... in spirit.
  121. Lurker says:
    @Anonym
    New releases have not been trustworthy on imdb for about a decade or so. You need to wait a while for reviewers without financial or fanboi bias to rate them. I think 5 years is enough. Maybe shorter than that is ok too. Same year? No.

    I’ve reviewed a few on imdb but now I just give them ratings. I always give one star or 10. Sadly most of my ratings are one star eg anything either written, directed or starring Adam Sandler.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Anderson miraculously made a film starring Sandler worthwhile by making it about a character who's trouble is his neverending mental status as a twelve-year-old doofus.

    But you can only pull that trick off once.
  122. @Tim Howells
    Yep:

    92% Audience liked it
    93% Reviews (8.2/10)

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/war_for_the_planet_of_the_apes

    Gave up on these “blockbusters” many years ago. To max out the worldwide gross, they are geared for 14 year olds in Beijing. They’d probably be better to me if the cast spoke Italian, so I could bask in the subtitles with exotic accents in the background.

    Hollywood has essentially been a brain dead crater for over a decade. Nothing but remakes of remakes of films that were only C+/B- to begin with. Or the comic book & animated pablum. Even the retro material is getting predictable infusions of cultMarx Narrative poison.

    There are no silver linings either. Your $10 ticket goes to left wing activists like lead actors Woody Harrelson and Andy Serkis (nee Sarkisian). Andy is a fervent opponent of Brexit & full of all the usual anti-trad bile.

    Read More
  123. mobi says:
    @BB753
    Martin Sheen got too much screen time, while Marlon Brando and Robert Duvall too little.

    Martin Sheen got too much screen time, while Marlon Brando and Robert Duvall too little.

    I thought casting Brando in that role was one of the few mis-steps in an otherwise-masterpiece.

    The other was the very existence of the Dennis Hopper character.

    Funny how tastes can be so personal.

    Duval’s character was perfect, but it’s a measure of the depth of the film, and one of its many strengths, that they didn’t – and didn’t need to – over-rely on such characters.

    Read More
  124. mobi says:
    @feral_nerd
    I second that. You would think that any movie with those kind of numbers would be a sure thing. Guess again.

    Saw Fury Road based on the ecstatic reviews of it on Rotten Tomatoes and was sorely, hugely disappointed. Excellent sets and props, lots of action, but due to the lack of a coherent story, ultimately there was no there, there. I half-seriously wondered if we had all seen the same movie.

    It shakes your world a little to realize how out of the mainstream your tastes are.

    Yes, that’s it. All flash, no soul. It felt like watching a video game.

    It doesn’t hold a candle to The Road Warrior. In fairness, few movies could. It never ages.

    Read More
  125. @feral_nerd
    I second that. You would think that any movie with those kind of numbers would be a sure thing. Guess again.

    Saw Fury Road based on the ecstatic reviews of it on Rotten Tomatoes and was sorely, hugely disappointed. Excellent sets and props, lots of action, but due to the lack of a coherent story, ultimately there was no there, there. I half-seriously wondered if we had all seen the same movie.

    It shakes your world a little to realize how out of the mainstream your tastes are.

    Your reaction suggests it’s not your cuppa because you prefer conventional narrative cinema (nothing wrong with that!); Mad Max: Fury Road, like Apocalypto before it, is the perfectly executed idea of a film which is, in it’s entirety, a chase scene.

    In fact, given their longstanding relationship, it’s hard to guess who inspired whom more between George Miller and Mel Gibson….

    Read More
  126. @Lurker
    I've reviewed a few on imdb but now I just give them ratings. I always give one star or 10. Sadly most of my ratings are one star eg anything either written, directed or starring Adam Sandler.

    Anderson miraculously made a film starring Sandler worthwhile by making it about a character who’s trouble is his neverending mental status as a twelve-year-old doofus.

    But you can only pull that trick off once.

    Read More
  127. @CrunchyButRealistCon
    Gave up on these "blockbusters" many years ago. To max out the worldwide gross, they are geared for 14 year olds in Beijing. They'd probably be better to me if the cast spoke Italian, so I could bask in the subtitles with exotic accents in the background.

    Hollywood has essentially been a brain dead crater for over a decade. Nothing but remakes of remakes of films that were only C+/B- to begin with. Or the comic book & animated pablum. Even the retro material is getting predictable infusions of cultMarx Narrative poison.

    There are no silver linings either. Your $10 ticket goes to left wing activists like lead actors Woody Harrelson and Andy Serkis (nee Sarkisian). Andy is a fervent opponent of Brexit & full of all the usual anti-trad bile.

    This. Exactly this.

    Read More
  128. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Lurker
    Tarantino has become an ugly degenerate cuck and his films reflect that. Of course he probably always was.

    Of course he probably always was.

    Like mother like son.

    He was the mulatto son she never had… in spirit.

    Read More
  129. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    At the warfortheplanet.com movie site you will find the emojis “collectibles” and the animated graphic is two blonde human female kids surrounded by the various apes.

    This flick must be doing huge $$$ with the black woman demo. /sarc

    Read More
  130. Truth says:
    @Hunsdon
    Truth, apes aren't always a metaphor for black folk. Sometimes an ape is just an ape.

    Not in this context, on this site with this writer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Do the apes believe the Earth is flat? You know.............like you do?
  131. Mr. Anon says:
    @Truth



    Couldn’t humans just choke Forest Apes off? Or area-bomb them? If it must come down to guerilla warfare out in the bush (because there’s gotta be a movie), then the physical advantages you mention apply.
     
    There's a hint in there.

    There’s a hint in there.

    Only for someone who doesn’t know how to pronounce “guerilla” or understand the origin of the word.

    Read More
  132. Mr. Anon says:
    @Truth
    Not in this context, on this site with this writer.

    Do the apes believe the Earth is flat? You know………….like you do?

    Read More
  133. Amasius says:

    I liked it okay. Not as epic as the trailers made it seem– it actually felt somehow smaller than the second one.

    The Colonel was an excellent character. Sober, lucid, and focused, with an excellent knowledge of history and how the world works, able to justify every action he took. Basically an Alt-Right figure.

    The movie takes casual swipes at patriotism and Christianity, but that’s to be expected. The references to THE WALL were funny. Humans slaughtering each other over moral reasons while ignoring the real problem was a nice touch, true to life. I also thought the mute sickness was rich with metaphorical significance.

    The apes were fighting for themselves and so were the right-headed humans. Good portrayal of a Darwinistic world, red-pill perhaps in spite of itself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The Colonel was an excellent character.

    Woody Harrelson was better as the Colonel in Apeocalypse Now than Brando was in Apocalypse Now. Kind of like if Robert Duvall instead of Brando had played Colonel Kurtz.

  134. @Amasius
    I liked it okay. Not as epic as the trailers made it seem-- it actually felt somehow smaller than the second one.

    The Colonel was an excellent character. Sober, lucid, and focused, with an excellent knowledge of history and how the world works, able to justify every action he took. Basically an Alt-Right figure.

    The movie takes casual swipes at patriotism and Christianity, but that's to be expected. The references to THE WALL were funny. Humans slaughtering each other over moral reasons while ignoring the real problem was a nice touch, true to life. I also thought the mute sickness was rich with metaphorical significance.

    The apes were fighting for themselves and so were the right-headed humans. Good portrayal of a Darwinistic world, red-pill perhaps in spite of itself.

    The Colonel was an excellent character.

    Woody Harrelson was better as the Colonel in Apeocalypse Now than Brando was in Apocalypse Now. Kind of like if Robert Duvall instead of Brando had played Colonel Kurtz.

    Read More
  135. David K says:

    I’m about to go to bed so apologies for not writing a longer comment, but anyone who likes these cartoon movies are foolish manchildren. The point of the original is that man is inherently warlike, not the vague environmental claptrap in these reboots.

    Read More
  136. @RobertTaylor
    Was anyone else bored to death by Apocalypse Now?

    Not me; did you see it on 20″ CRT? I saw Apocalypse Now in 1979 at the theaters; I distinctly recall after the tiger scene a white lady getting up and leaving the theater. Boring? Apparently not.

    I like the original AN compared to the various extended versions.

    Read More
  137. Svigor says:

    The only part of the second film that stands out for me is the evil ape snookering the humans with his monkeyshines, then grabbing one of their guns and killing him. That was kinda spot-on.

    Read More
  138. Svigor says:

    Spielberg’s War of the Worlds hasn’t been imitated enough – experiencing the cataclysm can be awesome. Nowadays everyone likes to fast-forward past the point of no return.

    Hollywood generally completely misses the appeal of the post-apocalyptic genre; a chance to set stories in the freedom of the wild west. Instead they take the Jewish view; oy my 401k is gone.

    Read More
  139. Svigor says:

    That’s rather nonsensical. But the character himself believes in it, the issue is at least raised, and while Sam Jackson is interpreting scripture

    When he isn’t simply making up whole chapters & verses, you mean.

    Read More
  140. Simon says:
    @anon
    Just saw the movie today. Was actually quite disappointed. Expected more battles and action. Also didn't feel the Woody Harrelson character was as good as he could have been.

    Thank God somebody among the commenters has actually seen the damned movie. Sailer asks a simple question and — at least for the first 74 responders — everyone just gives him a labored explanation about why they haven’t seen it, why they don’t intend to, why they don’t go to movies anymore, etc. I’d hate to ask one of you guys for directions.

    Read More
  141. Svigor says:

    <blockquote.I like the original AN compared to the various extended versions.

    Every extended cut I’ve seen has been made horrible by the additions.

    Read More
  142. Bill B. says:
    @Tim Howells
    Yep:

    92% Audience liked it
    93% Reviews (8.2/10)

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/war_for_the_planet_of_the_apes

    Correct me if I am wrong but the great flaw of Rotten Tomatoes is that a mediocre film that merely kills some time can be approved of by the majority of reviewers for 90+ percentage ratings. But it is still a mediocre movie.

    If you factor in the often bizarre tastes of jaded professional reviewers and their typical need to reward directors who pass liberal shibboleths then a swath of frankly lousy films can misleading appear to be much better than they are.

    Most novels are written for women; most films are directed at young men. If you like going to the cinema don’t ever read a book about Hollywood economics; finding out how the sausage is made can be off-putting.

    Read More
  143. guest says:
    @Anon
    That’s an odd interpretation, considering the main storyline is about a gangster who feels he has experienced divine intervention, has a religious conversion–without religion, strictly speaking–and changes his ways before our eyes in the climax.

    It's salvation as style. Hipster redemption, all thunder and noise, no substance.
    And it's more superstition than religion. It's voodoo riff on turning a new leaf. It's like god as gansta cut him some slack, so he's better go easy with Good Golly Miss Molly.

    And he doesn't really change. He is still the same gangsta with the same instincts. He's just anxious not to step on the cracks in the sidewalk. He lets the robber go, but he still lets him rob everyone in the diner. It's morality as hipster existential trip. He makes even his own rules even as a 'saved' or spared man.

    In contrast, Tarantino talked up DJANGO as a moral statement on slavery. I've seen some clips, and it's a ugly disgusting movie. The last thing I need from Tarantino is a moral sermon about history.

    “It’s salvation as style. Hipster redemption, all thunder and no noise”

    I’m inclined to agree, though, again, I was unsure how the audience was supposed to take it.

    However, the subject was Pulp Fiction as an honest work of nihilism with no pretenses. That’s simply false. If it’s nihilistic beneath a pbony or half-assed redemptive character art, it’s not honest. That would be rather dishonest.

    “And he doesn’t really change…He lets the robber go, but he still lets him rob everyone in the diner”

    The character doesn’t resolve to fight evil, as I recall, after his conversion. Just to wander the earth and wait for God or whatever to show him the way. I don’t see how letting the robbers get away with the loot–including his own, not counting his boss’ briefcase–contradicts that.

    Simply letting them live is turning over a new leaf. John Travolta wanted to blow them away, and I assume the old Sam Jackson would have, too. (Assuming they could get away with it.) The character intends to go to his boss and quit as the movie ends, and I see no reason, except the admitted silliness of basing life decisions on tv shows, to doubt he will. That would be a change.

    Read More
  144. @sabril
    What conservative watches movies anymore? Why would anyone pay $10 to have the Leftist Narrative crammed down their throat when Liberal propaganda is available online for free?

    What conservative watches movies anymore? Why would anyone pay $10 to have the Leftist Narrative crammed down their throat when Liberal propaganda is available online for free?

    Sailer always says that conservatives tell the better stories. Most stories in movies and tv today are not overtly political. Many famous movie directors are somewhat conservative.

    Is this a leftist narrative movie? If so, I’ll avoid it. But otherwise, I’d like to give this movie a shot. Other sites say that this movie is not super political, which is fine by me.

    Read More
  145. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Next Ape series.

    The Planet of the Gaypes. The Gay Apes take over and do funny things with bananas.

    The leader: Chimtrannee.

    Second in command: Gayrilla.

    Third in commond. Whorangutan.

    Read More
  146. Just saw the movie. This was not a political movie at all. I was worried about offensive left wing messaging, that really wasn’t an issue.

    The downside is it was a superficial action and FX movie. It was very well done, gorgeous effects, cool action, beautiful to watch, but the story and characters just weren’t interesting.

    So that is why Sailer didn’t do a review of this: it just relevant enough to anything in the Sailer world view to justify writing a review.

    Read More
  147. I did see this on Sunday (with my son), and we both enjoyed it (him especially). I didn’t think it was quite as good as the first one, but a bit better than the second one.

    Read More
  148. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    A more interesting idea would be Rise of the Planet of the Pigs.

    Pigs are smart animals. Suppose some sympathetic scientist felt sorry for pigs. So, he creates a mutant, half pig and half man. And he becomes lord of pigs.

    He has pig sows with mutant genes that lead to birth of half-man/half-pig mutant babies. They have head and skin of pigs, but body dimensions of man. Imagine millions of sows giving birth to these pig mutants with strength of pigs and very high IQ.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpC1bFOA4ps

    It will lead to the ultimate in food politics.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc2j7nbZcto

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored