I had been really looking forward to Dawn but it was a wasted opportunity in my opinion.
I liked how in the original that you felt for Caesar and the apes and their plight was a simple one in just wanting to get to the forest. Okay an origin story always offers more meat but it had me a lot more involved than Dawn which was ultimately a leadership struggle film.
I felt this film was weaker because it descended into the rather clichéd dad trying to connect with his son, 2nd in command wants to take over, they have a big bust up at the end. If the main protagonists were humans and not superbly rendered apes, I think some more might think the story a little predictable, almost like the Lion King.
It's like how I thought the first was clever for showing the monkey strengths and ingenuity in outsmarting the humans. However in this film the monkeys wouldn't actually have been any good at aiming the guns or reloading. So although cool seeing them fire guns, the humans would still have had a tactical advantage.
I'm not saying this to be a spoil sport for the action scenes but it was lazy film making that the makers didn't then think of a clever way to use the monkey strengths to get round this tactical weakness.
Fox bundled the original director out of the way for daring to want to make something of equal calibre and switched in Reeves to create an inferior sequel that hit all of the generic blockbuster marks but had no real heart. Maybe this is proof that recreating the 'lightening in a bottle' of Rise does require a little more time and effort than simply throwing money at special effects.
For me it was one step forward in the technology and CGI but two steps back in the story telling. In Rise, the effects aided the story. In Dawn, they were the story.
I liked how in the original that you felt for Caesar and the apes and their plight was a simple one in just wanting to get to the forest. Okay an origin story always offers more meat but it had me a lot more involved than Dawn which was ultimately a leadership struggle film.
I felt this film was weaker because it descended into the rather clichéd dad trying to connect with his son, 2nd in command wants to take over, they have a big bust up at the end. If the main protagonists were humans and not superbly rendered apes, I think some more might think the story a little predictable, almost like the Lion King.
It's like how I thought the first was clever for showing the monkey strengths and ingenuity in outsmarting the humans. However in this film the monkeys wouldn't actually have been any good at aiming the guns or reloading. So although cool seeing them fire guns, the humans would still have had a tactical advantage.
I'm not saying this to be a spoil sport for the action scenes but it was lazy film making that the makers didn't then think of a clever way to use the monkey strengths to get round this tactical weakness.
Fox bundled the original director out of the way for daring to want to make something of equal calibre and switched in Reeves to create an inferior sequel that hit all of the generic blockbuster marks but had no real heart. Maybe this is proof that recreating the 'lightening in a bottle' of Rise does require a little more time and effort than simply throwing money at special effects.
For me it was one step forward in the technology and CGI but two steps back in the story telling. In Rise, the effects aided the story. In Dawn, they were the story.