This is topic Dawn of the Planet of the Apes in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=002058

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 07-13-2014, 02:53 PM:
 
Denver Harkins Northfield Cine Capri (2D Atmos)

Good fun. Great "shades of grey" storytelling. A couple of "beats" at the end did not have the emotional heft they should have, but still a great movie all around.

Bummed it was 1:85. I believe I read somewhere that the 3D work necessitated that, at least in the filmmakers' minds. Bah. Another reason to hate 3D.

Atmos mix was good. Felt like I was in a rainstorm at times.

Picture seemed a bit dim. I don't know if it was 2k or 4k, but it didn't seem all that sharp, so I assume 2k.
 

---

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 07-13-2014, 03:51 PM:
 
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm guessing the decision to use flat had to do with all the motion capture which happened out in the real world. I'm guessing the extra width would have significantly increased costs and rendering time by adding more elements to each frame.
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 07-13-2014, 06:25 PM:
 
CINEMA: 13th Avenue Warren, Wichita, KS
AUDITORIUM: 14
PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital Cinema/THX (2D)
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None
RATING: Three and one half stars (out of four)

THE PLOT: Uh-oh! The hydro plant's down! Wackiness ensues.

Last week, I re-watched the original "Planet of the Apes" for the first time in years, and re-watched "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" for the first time since its theatrical run. The thing that never occurred to me about the original before is that it would have fit right in as a script for the original "Star Trek" TV series. The sets, script, and costumes were right about the same quality. Replace Charlton Heston and his partners with William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and DeForrest Kelley, and come up with an end resolution where they all live and leave on the Enterprise, and it would totally work.

The thing I noticed about "Rise"? I liked it better than I remember.

I'll probably like it even better now paired with "Dawn". I was COMPLETELY into this. Every time I thought the plot was going astray, it didn't. It just worked. It looked amazing. Not once did I check the time.

Best "Apes" movie ever.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 07-13-2014, 06:52 PM:
 
This is what I read:

quote:

---

Reeves: So I wanted to shoot the film in anamorphic 2.35:1. But we couldn’t do that, because of 3D. Because in 3D the lenses have to match perfectly and they are only now coming up with 3D matched lenses that will allow you to shoot 2.35:1. And the reason I wanted to shoot anamorphic, 2.35:1 was the aspect ratio but also because the depth of field is more shallow, and I think makes for a more intimate and realistic visual approach. And when it turned out that I could not shoot anamorphic, the only way to shoot with the kind of depth of field that I wanted was to shoot in 1.85:1. Because (and this is so technical) but in order to shoot super 35, which is NON-anamorphic, I would have had to have used wider lenses, which would have made for a different kind of depth of field than I wanted. So I shot 1.85:1 so I could get the kind of depth of field that I wanted.

And it would have cost more money, probably, to shoot the film in anamorphic and render the ape effects – it would have been more expensive. And actually no, because they rebuilt everything from the ground up for Ceasar to make it better. WETA sort of makes an overall deal, and tries to give you the best value they can give you, but there were 1,000 artists working on the film, and the overhead for that is basically a small village, so it works out to roughly around somewhere to $50-60,000 per 5 seconds of a shot of apes. Broadly, broadly.

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Heard some crazy buzz that we're gonna see a lot of 1.85:1 releases since the practice of open masking screens is now common, and doing scope features to get a 'letterboxed' presentation on these screens is a very tacky way to present a widescreen feature.

---

quote: Mike Croaro

---

The 1:85 image doesn't bother me. I've mentioned in the past that I actually prefer it.

---

quote:

---

This is what I read:

quote:Reeves: So I wanted to shoot the film in anamorphic 2.35:1. But we couldn’t do that, because of 3D. Because in 3D the lenses have to match perfectly and they are only now coming up with 3D matched lenses that will allow you to shoot 2.35:1. And the reason I wanted to shoot anamorphic, 2.35:1 was the aspect ratio but also because the depth of field is more shallow, and I think makes for a more intimate and realistic visual approach. And when it turned out that I could not shoot anamorphic, the only way to shoot with the kind of depth of field that I wanted was to shoot in 1.85:1. Because (and this is so technical) but in order to shoot super 35, which is NON-anamorphic, I would have had to have used wider lenses, which would have made for a different kind of depth of field than I wanted. So I shot 1.85:1 so I could get the kind of depth of field that I wanted.

And it would have cost more money, probably, to shoot the film in anamorphic and render the ape effects – it would have been more expensive. And actually no, because they rebuilt everything from the ground up for Ceasar to make it better. WETA sort of makes an overall deal, and tries to give you the best value they can give you, but there were 1,000 artists working on the film, and the overhead for that is basically a small village, so it works out to roughly around somewhere to $50-60,000 per 5 seconds of a shot of apes. Broadly, broadly.

http://www.slashfilm.com/matt-reeves-michael-giacchino-reddit-ama/

---

Or perhaps Matt Reeves thought he was going to get an IMAX release and then Fox bailed on the idea

But seriously, Reeves should not have to justify why it was 1.85 and not 2.35.1, it just is and there should be some wonder on our part "the audience" as to why he chose that format. The wonder and awe of going to the movies is diminished when we hear every reason why something was done or when see all the behind the scenes footage. Going to the movies in the 70s, 80s, and most of the 90s was so much better than it is today.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-15-2014, 12:22 AM:
 

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens

---

Reeves should not have to justify why it was 1.85 and not 2.35.1, it just is and there should be some wonder on our part "the audience" as to why he chose that format. The wonder and awe of going to the movies is diminished when we hear every reason why something was done

---

Then why did you read that article and THEN post it here to ruin it for the rest of us?

I do agree that seeing/hearing all the behind-the-scenes stuff (and the constant stream of weekly grosses) has taken a lot of the magic out of the movies. But nobody's forcing anyone to pay attention to that stuff. People are just curious and want to know details; it's human nature, and the media has a lot of hours/pages to fill.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 07-15-2014, 05:46 AM:
 

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Heard some crazy buzz that we're gonna see a lot of 1.85:1 releases since the practice of open masking screens is now common, and doing scope features to get a 'letterboxed' presentation on these screens is a very tacky way to present a widescreen feature.

It's like, "you forgot to close the maskings", or "why am I getting a feature that only fills a portion of the screen? Am I being cheated out of my admit ticket?"

Thus, we might be heading back to full circle - going one lens format only so the screens can be filled. (and it will benefit the DMD chips in the projectors since they'll be filled as well and get 1080 HD on the screen).

---

I haven't seen this film yet but I wanted to throw in my hatred of non masked screens. Especially for common width, scope looks horrible. We saw Edge of Tomorrow recently on one of these screens and my wife (who is the opposite of a videophile) even commented that the screen looks terrible and is distracting and is the reason "people don't like things not to fill the screen at home."

Also, one little technical item. 1:85 doesn't fill the entire DMD chip. The chips are 2048 pixels wide and only use 1998 for flat. I assume in these common width, non masked setups, they are chopping off those 50 pixels in scope. I guess it's not quite as bad as the 80s/90s common width 35mm small screens where there would be masking at least but they'd make 'scope something in the 2.2:1 range or taller by masking the sides.
 

---

Posted by Kerry Fleming (Member # 1657) on 07-15-2014, 09:38 AM:
 
If you think it looks bad on digital. You should see the 35mm Foto Kem print! And the print only has optical & Dolby Digital sound tracks. For those of you fortunate enough to be totally digital. 35mm print quality now is at an all time low! Quad track has become a thing of the past. Lucky to get one with DTS now & then. Everything, including the limited 35mm trailers, is being done by Foto Kem. Need I say more?
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 07-16-2014, 06:09 PM:
 
while this may sound like favortism towards the ETX screen (or any fixed 1.85 screen for that matter) the image taking up the whole screen looked tremendous. Also I thought the Atmos mix was excellent compared to Fox's other tent pole film 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' which sounded like mushy front heavy shite.

Great 'dark' film which finally dispels that utterly crappy Tim Burton's walking abortion adaptation.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-17-2014, 06:20 PM:
 
Without going into the discussion of what aspect ratio is the best for what purpose, but personally, I hate this mid-franchise aspect-ratio switch.

The aspect ratio has a lot to do with how you perceive a movie and has also a large impact on how it has been shot. The impact is also far more perceivable than, for example a switch from film to digital acquisition. And in my humble opinion, consistency is important for any franchise.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-18-2014, 12:55 AM:
 
The result of the choice of the aspect of the ratio of the image of the movie of the Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was not good.
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 07-18-2014, 05:38 PM:
 
Let's all bow before our new grammar overlord: Simple Joe.
 

---

Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 07-18-2014, 08:43 PM:
 
Up with that I will not put
 

---

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 07-19-2014, 09:22 PM:
 
Directly picking up where the previous film left off, the end credit sequence for Rise of the Planet of the Apes becomes the title sequence for Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. The plague created by Will Rodman's Alzheimer's "cure" has spread throughout the globe and decimated the human population and, presumably, empowered ape populations worldwide. Caesar's simian refugees build a growing community in the redwood forest while a splinter group of human survivors eke out an existence within the ruins of San Francisco. The humans' diminishing fuel supplies required for electricity generation inevitably bring them into contact with Caesar's community who presides over a derelict hydroelectric facility.

This loose remake of Battle for the Planet of the Apes (the final film in the original franchise) betters it's already excellent predecessor in most respects with more frequent action, intriguing plot and admirably balanced political themes. It's a grown up film which accepts the complicated reality that good guys and bad guys are not divided along social, racial or indeed special lines; that, despite the best intentions of our heroes for peace, there is an inevitability of conflict in the world and an, albeit reluctant, place for violence within it.

We all know this, of course, but in movieland we like to believe that all issues are in simple black and white. At least that's what the money men behind the movies tend to think. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is here to show us that audiences are indeed capable of, and will happily digest, complicated real world issues as forms of high end entertainment and that it can be done to a high degree of quality.

Quality films require quality performances and the key roles deliver here. It's nice to see Jason Clarke in a hero role and be effective in it. Andy Serkis is, as always, amazing with the physicality of his performance as Caesar and, as usual, you would never know it were him were his name not in the credits. Gary Oldman is sleep walking through this but even a slumberous Oldman is rarely worth complaining about. No mention of the performances would be complete without commenting on the apes in the film which are amazingly realistic. Whether they be real, make-up or CGI (likely a mixture of all three, I suspect), the effect is phenomenally convincing.

The film does fall down a tad in it's overblown climactic battle which is incommensurate with the intelligent plotting and action within the film thus far. But despite this tendency towards Transformers in the final act, the film remains, on the whole, a highly entertaining blockbuster with an intelligent social commentary.

9.5 out of 10

P.S. If I may weigh in on the aspect ratio debate, I actually thought a couple of times throughout this movie that it should have been in scope and that the cinema may have been presenting it in an incorrect ratio. There were one or two shots in there where I thought the picture was cropped a little aggressively. One of the shots was when Caesar was atop his horse and the top of his head was cropped.
 

---

Posted by Mike Frese (Member # 4361) on 07-21-2014, 09:21 PM:
 
AMC Desert Star 15, Baraboo, WI (near Wisconsin Dells), 2d

Presentation was very good, sound was the perfect volume, very comfortable seats

$5 tickets! weekday matinee price, pretty good attendance for a 4 pm show, wish this my local theater (8+ hours away from me), could pricing be a factor for the good attendance? I know I would go see a lot more movies at the theater with $5 tickets.

Liked the movie a lot. Well paced. Never looked at my watch for the time.

The bad, a little kid kicking the seat next to me. And his dad having to read the subtitles to the kid because the kid could not read.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-21-2014, 10:23 PM:
 
So wouldn't Dawn come before Rise? You have to dawn before you can rise. Screw these movies they clearly suck.
 

---

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 07-21-2014, 10:39 PM:
 
I usually rise before dawn.......
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-22-2014, 02:05 AM:
 

quote: Lyle Romer

---

The chips are 2048 pixels wide and only use 1998 for flat. I assume in these common width, non masked setups, they are chopping off those 50 pixels in scope.

---