Go back, sit through thirty seconds of credits.

Really, why would they do a post credits scene for a 104 minute film.

I mean, I could guess that because Caesar was born from one that had taken the drugs, they can probably mass produce many more apes like Caesar, if they stayed silent for a while I'm sure they could take over a little more.

Because it'd be hard to jam in the third act of the film and keep up narrative momentum. It's not even post-credits. It's after the first few seconds. Did you just bolt out of the theater immediately?

Thegun must have missed the subplot about an airborne plague and the hints about apes having high disease tolerance.

There was plenty of references to the looming die-off as well without even having to see that scene. Franco's lab partner getting sick, him mentioned it was a "viral" infection, then sneezing on the neighbor, someone mentioned it only affects humans not apes.

I wouldn't call it a real airborne plague. All we really saw was that he sneezed on a guy, and he died from a viral infection, but it wasn't touched on at all that the movie turned into Outbreak. But that's cool, I wish I did stick around, had to get to work. Gives Lithgow's character the biggest role, his being sick is a direct result of that so called rise.

And it not affecting Apes seemed more to the effect that it wasn't permanent like with Lithgow then that it would kill the whole world.

*See dude who obviously missed key plot points and mid-credits scene scramble.*

I would reverse it and say that the rise was a result of his alzheimers.

Really enjoyed it - - this is the way to do a reboot!

I'm happy to finally see a sci-fi with a logical story and where the humans don't win unconvincingly in the end.


53 out of 5.




(I can't wait for the first sequel!)

Come on now, Tom Felton was not awful. His role was cliche and poorly written. That's not his fault. But his character did have a purpose, and the reaction to what happens is part of what is great about this film.

Wow! Not one C, D, or F so far. Pretty amazing that even the trolls are leaving this movie alone.

I thought it was wonderful. Definitely expected it to be more action oriented, but when the action started I found myself wanting more Caesar/apes development. Loved the Orangutan and the Gorilla more than any of the human characters. Although John Lithgow was very entertaining as always. Ended very abruptly, but that is why we have sequels.

Guess I'll be the first one to say that the film was just alright. Great F/X work and some cool action pieces but that's about it. Totally had zero emotional involvement with all the characters (including the apes). And while the action pieces were nice, there weren't that many. Though the shot of Ceaser riding the horse is pretty fucking awesome and worth the admission price alone.

Not as good as I expected. It had wicked special effects but the story was mediocre. Nevertheless, it was entertaining. 7.5/10 (B)

A-

It was so emotional. I was close to tears a number of times throughout this movie and I hardly ever cry in movies. The action sequences were brilliant. Andy Serkis' performance as Caesar proves he is the motion capture king. He seriously deserves some kind of award for the work he does. The film is let down a little by some stereotypical villains, but overall, it's everything I was looking for in a night's entertainment and more. It was a big surprise for me, and better, I think, than the original Planet of the Apes film.

7/10 -> B-

Competent movie. But hardly anything more than that. I actually felt a little underwhelmed by the end as the rise was anything but spectacular. It's more of a character movie. And while the portrayal of Caesar which is integral to the movie does work most of the time, there are times when that hard work falls flat.

Very good. The dialogue-less scenes were excellent, IMO.

I'm fine with Felton, he's a classic heel

Rise of the Planet of the Apes was one of the better blockbusters to come out of this past summer. The story is very involved and keeps your attention throughout the entire runtime. The fact that this one didn't rely much on action and still is leagues better than Tim Burton's version speaks wonders to how bad that film was. Andy Serkis does an amazing job even if we never see the man behind the motion capture. James Franco also does a very good job and does not exaggerate. Frieda Pinto really didn't have to be in this film but at least her character was thrown at us or was the romance centered on so much. John Lithgow also is great to see on screen. The visual effects are astounding and it seems clear that it is a frontrunner for an Oscar in that category. Even though the overall arc was predictable, it was still very very enjoyable to watch. Also, Tom Felton's such an asshole here. ***1/2

Finally saw this last night. Very good. Caesar was awesome, and most of the acting was spot on. Some unintentional laughs from my audience, but overall VERY good.

A-!

Its surprisingly good. And like most of the reviews here - its all about Caeser. Serkis is brilliant at bringing this character to life.

Yeah, not sure why or how, but it's pretty good. One suspects this Rupert Wyatt guy may be a very strong filmmaker going forward.

There were a bunch of factors but what helped is that it told a story, something many blockbuster type movies don't bother to do these days. They just kind of sketch out the rough outline of a story instead of really tell one.

Which was nice to see get rewarded by audiences after this: http://tinyurl.com/3wodh6u

I thought it was a great popcorn movie. I loved the character of Caesar. Bring on the sequel!

A-

Voilà: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063442/.