Beneath the Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Back when there was such thing as a Late Show – the free TV Friday night after-hours movie – one of my favorites was the original “Planet of the Apes.”  I was literally the first kid in my class to see it, and I often talked about the movie in enthusiastic hyperbole.  Since the year was 1981 and I was in First Grade, not everyone in the world knew the infamous ending and very few kids believed my fantastic tale.

Flash forward to 2014 and after several new versions and remakes, the movie is such an iconic franchise that a new “Apes” flick is as common as a new “Star Wars” or “Batman.”  Which is to say not so exotic anymore.  I really liked 2011’s “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” as it told the very early stages of how earth became “The Planet.”  So I approached this summer’s “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” with enthusiasm to see the next chapter.

When we left off, the Human Race had just been infected with a killer flu virus, and the new breed of genetically advanced apes were striking out on their own.  When “Dawn” begins, humans have been almost entirely wiped out, while the apes are thriving.  They have built their own city in California’s Muir Woods while developing greater language skills including reading and writing.  At first I was disappointed that we jumped ten years, skipping over the epic demise of humans and the proliferation of the apes.  But that would be a different movie, and I can’t judge a movie that wasn’t made.

What was made is a CGI extravaganza with yet another spectacular motion-capture performance by Andy Serkis (Gollum from “Lord of the Rings”).  As the apes swing, fight, think and speak, we see the latest animation technology at work.  It’s pretty, it’s modern cinema, and it’s impressive.  I have no doubt this was an incredibly hard movie to make.  But I found myself thinking more about the filmmaking and less about the story.

And there’s the big problem with “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” – the lack of a central plot.  The story kicks into gear when a group of humans (led by Jason Clarke and Keri Russell) enter the Apes’ woods looking for a hydroelectric dam to power up their refugee city in San Francisco.  One side doesn’t trust the other, but they set aside their differences and agree to work together.  Until. . .a little deception and betrayal leads to an all out war as the apes fight the humans for survival . . .for one scene.  The dam subplot goes nowhere and then it really becomes about man on ape action.  It’s not very epic, and nothing we haven’t seen before.  The human characters are underdeveloped and one-dimensional, which emphasizes the role of these apes - they are the protagonists here.  It's their coming of age story.  I get it, which is certainly a different and bold move by the filmmakers.  But that doesn't make it good and enjoyable for the audience.  

Without giving away the (weak) climax, the movie ends on a more optimistic note than a “Planet of the Apes” movie should.  I mean, these are supposed to be bleak, cautionary tales of human fallibility, right?  At the end of the original, Charlton Heston famously screams “You maniacs!” referring to the humans who destroyed the Earth.  But are these humans the same maniacs?  Am I wrong for wanting more?  I miss the Late Show.