Reviews

SPOILER

Some reviewers seem to think the movie makes no sense becuase of the relationship between the young boy and Willis's character. If the boy knew Willis was a ghost, then why did he not show the same concern as when he saw other ghosts. If he did not know, then why did he never mention to his mother that he was receiving some sort of ad hoc therapy.

The answer is of course that the boy CAME TO KNOW that Willis was a ghost. The first meeting between the two was in a church - the one place where the boy thought he was safe. If he thought Willis was a ghost, then we would have freaked out to buggery in the church - and he did not.

By the end of the film, the boy is giving Willis advice on how to be happy - ie, talk to your wife while she's asleep. This always seemed like odd advice, and would only make sense if Wilis was ghost. This leads me to believe that the boy came to be aware slowly that Wilis was as ghost.

In the latter part of the film, Wilis advises the boy that the ghosts want help, and the boy tries to help them. The boy becomes aware that Willis has some unresolved issues with his widow, and tries to help him resolve these issues - ie talk to your wife while she's asleep.

Willis and the boy help each other to come to terms with their issues. It's a real, albeit unusual, partnership. Willis really wanted to be able to make up for not solving the problems of the character who killed him very early in the film. In helping the boy, he made up for this short coming, and least in his own mind. Clearly, the boy was able to come to terms with his 6th sense.

Any way, it was a good film, marred only by the fact that alot of people seem to have been able to guess Willis's ghosthood early. But if you're gunna tell a tale like this, and make it have any consistency and honesty at all, then this was always gunna happen. The makers of the movie were quite clever. If you did not guess Willis's ghosthood early in the film, then you've really got to see the film at least twice - or at least that's how I felt.

The original planet of the apes movie (and arguably three of the four sequels) were much loved by folk around the world - and quite rightly so. As Hollywood is always on the look out for a safe film based on an old movie/TV show that was much loved (when are they gunna remake Land Of The Giants?) and that is guaranteed to be a hit, it's a wonder it took this long to do a POTA re-make. Bearing in mind the sort of churlish, mind numbing, spirit crushing gruel that Hollywood has become so good at delivering the citizens of the world, POTA (2001) was not all bad.

SPOILER AHEAD In a plot sense, there were holes all over the place.

1. The Oberon only seemed to have humans and chimps - so where the devil did all the gorillas and orang-otans come from?

2. In the year 2029, can it really be easier to train a Chimp to control a pod than automate it some how? I betcha HAL could've controlled it remotely, and that's using late 20th Century technology.

3. Why did Attar turn on Thade at the end? He said Thade lied to him, but about what? Also, we are expected to belive that Attar will gruesomely kill his old master, and then suddenly start sprouting Gandhi like dogma about apes and humans living together in harmony. I THINK NOT. General Urko would not have dropped his bundle like this.

4. Where did the gorillas develop this fear of water from - current day gorillas are prepared to wade through water.

The ending is like something out of a 50's masterpiece. However, a 50's masterpiece would leave the ending alone. I'll be surprised if we don't see a new Planet Of The Apes franchise developing. The sequel will explain how the apes took over earth. It should not be explained, any more than the ending of any Twilight Zone story need to be explained.

POTA 2001 is worth a look - you may even enjoy it 6.5/10