Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Charles Darwin told us that life is a "descent with modification." Bernard Haubold of the Max Planck Institute of Chemical Ecology simplified the expression by comparing biological evolution to a family tree. Even though humans and chimpanzees share about ninety percent of the same genes, the last common ancestor between the two lived five million years ago. Since then, it can be argued that mankind has enjoyed its hegemony over apes and other animals. There is a sense of calm, perhaps guilt, but mostly content with this situation.

The horror of "Planet of the Apes" series is that this situation is reversed.

"Planet of the Apes" was released in 1968 and remains one of the best science fiction films ever. It was followed by four sequels, and remade ten years ago by Tim Burton. After mixed reviews from critics, 20th Century Fox decided not to make a sequel to Burton's film but instead joined the common Hollywood practice of rebooting franchises. That probably was the correct choice, because while I don't think the Burton version was as bad as other critics said it was, I was underwhelmed by it (particularly by that controversial ending). I found myself being more interested in the set designs and Rick Baker's makeup effects than I did the story or the characters. Not so with Rupert Wyatt's prequel "Rise of the Planet of the Apes," a smart, emotional, thrilling film not quite as good as the original but still worthy of attention.

James Franco (forgiven for his Oscar 2011 sins) plays Will Rodman, a scientist developing a cure for Alzheimer's disease. His father (John Lithgow) is suffering from the disease, and so Will is deeply invested in discovering a cure. An incident involving a protective test-ape destroys any chance of Will securing funding for his research, but he brings home the offspring of the ape, and he and his father, once bound to watch the terrible decline due to the disease, now have something important in their lives. But Will soon learns that the ape, named Caesar (Andy Serkis), has inherited the advanced intelligence of his mother from the experiments. Caesar is even more advanced than his human same-aged counterparts. But Caesar also is an ape, and when things go wrong, he is forced into an animal shelter for apes (run by a character played by Brian Cox and his son, played by Tom Felton, who's character here is even nastier than Draco Malfoy). Unsure of what he is and where he fits into, perhaps the human side takes over, for if we are pricked, do we not bleed, and if we are wronged, shall we not revenge?

Freida Pinto from "Slumdog Millionaire" appears in the film and has talked about in interviews the amount of research she has done on apes while basing her character on real-life primatologists like Jane Goodall. Among the things she discovered are that bonobos, for example, are conflict-managers, and resolve conflict through sex (I do recall from my university class on human evolution that bonobos are very, very promiscuous), and that apes emote, with one of the prime emotions being that of betrayal. That is what I think is central to this installment. Betrayal, a bit of revenge, and resolution.

But is Serkis not tired of this performance capture acting yet? He is fascinating to watch, and he has done this in "The Lord of the Rings" films, "King Kong," and will do so again in Steven Spielberg's "The Adventure of Rintin: Secret of the Unicorn" later this year. Does the performance-capture look convincing? Well, it looks just as impressive as the films mentioned and "Avatar," but it still looks fake. The other two options, however, are to have actors in makeup (as was the case with the previous "Planet of the Apes" films) or to use actual animals, so the conclusion can be that a fine choice was taken. (To be clear my personal favorite is make-up; it almost always impresses me more than computer-generated effects.)

The first third focuses on the wonders of science--the exciting potentials that science can cure what damages us the most. The second third centers on the horrors of science--what temporary excitement gives us is quickly diminished by the side-effects. The final third is (as expected) a series of action-packed sequences as the apes take control. I wouldn't expect the trajectory to be any different, but the third act is less engaging than the previous parts. There are also some silly parts to the film, like when some of the apes use sign language ("Congo"?), and the film has numerous cliches, like a well-intended Dr. Frankenstein, a cruel bully toward animals, and a money-hungry CEO willing to put lives at risk for the sake of his success. (There's also a neighbor who keeps running into bad luck.) Still, there is far more emotion than most other "Planet of the Apes" films, and more thought, with themes of contagious viruses, animal testing, revolution, and at times more science than fiction.