Summer 2011 will go down in history as one of the more disappointing seasons in many years when it comes to movies. This is the time of year that people rush out in masses to see the latest action extravaganza, and to be fair, some films have delivered on that promise -- "Harry Potter," "Captain America" (though I have yet to see either of them and am simply relying on general reactions) -- but there's been a whole lot of disappointments, too, and the worst part is that people still seem to be flocking to them, almost out of necessity than wont ("Transformers 3" and "Pirates 4" both made over $1 bil worldwide, which is amazing, because they both sucked).

I think the last film anyone expected to reverse the trend this summer was a prequel to a franchise that has been consistently poor over the years since its original incarnation in 1968. Indeed, the first trailer for "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" focused on ape carnage and mayhem, and although a subsequent one highlighted the dramatic underpinning of the film, it seemed like Fox was just trying to turn around its marketing and fool people into thinking there was more than meets the eye.

Alas, the second trailer turned out to be a far more accurate reflection of the movie than anyone would have expected. "Rise of the Apes" is most likely the best film of the blockbuster season, full of heart, carefully crafted and professionally delivered on every level.

Sure, the story has its fair share of clichés -- the "evil caretakers" played by Brian Cox and Tom Felton seem bad just because the film requires them to be, and Felton's performance in particular is so over-the-top that it's almost a caricature -- but because of how the film is packaged, and because it spends so much time focusing on the character of Caesar (played magnificently by Andy Serkis),you are willing to overlook many of the flaws. You care about the characters and the story, even when you kinda know where it's headed and feel like it's a variation of a prison break-out movie with apes in place of humans.

The human cast, as has been noted by many critics, is nothing to write home about. James Franco doesn't exactly phone in his performance but it's not the sort of role that is going to be lining him up for any awards. Toby Maguire was originally lined up for the project before he was dropped (he reportedly came to Fox with script notes, and they promptly cut off discussions with him),but Franco does seem a more natural fit, and does well enough in a role destined to be sidelined by the apes.

And the apes are awesome. No, we haven't quite mastered fully realistic CGI yet -- especially when it's mixed with live actors. (WETA claims that the technology here is superior to "Avatar," but it's not as convincing, perhaps because the CGI so rarely interacted with human actors in "Avatar," and thus we were able to accept the fantasy world more willingly.) However, this is some of the best seen to date. Serkis (who previously played King Kong in Peter Jackson's remake) translates a brilliant performance, for which the film owes a great deal; Caesar is really the crux of the whole thing, and a poor or less realistic performance would have undermined the whole thing. It's the subtle stuff here that makes a difference -- the emotions captured in Caesar's facial expressions, or the glint of sympathy in his eyes when John Lithgow's character begins to suffer from Alzheimer's. There's a moment of genius in that particular scene where Caesar exchanges a sad, knowing glance with Franco's character, and it's eerily touching.

Director Rupert Wyatt follows blockbuster blueprints from beginning to end, but by enriching the first three-quarters of his film with character development and an actual *story* (something so many blockbusters these days seem to be sorely lacking),when the big action sequence arrives at the end, you're invested in what's happening -- and you actually care.

I confess to never having watched many of the "Apes" films. I do recall seeing the Tim Burton remake in theaters a decade ago, and even as a 12-year-old kid, I thought, Wow, this sucks. "Rise" is infinitely better, more creative and more emotionally stirring -- as aforementioned, it's nothing completely unique or novel from a storytelling standpoint, but it's well-crafted in an old-fashioned, refreshingly familiar way, and the addition of groundbreaking CGI makes it a "must-see" rather than something to catch on television. Fox isn't known for pleasing fans with their remakes and sequels (whether it be Die Hard or Wolverine),but Summer 2011 sees two of their biggest properties successfully reinvigorated: first "X-Men First Class," and now this. For my money, "Apes" is better -- perhaps the best blockbuster of the season -- which I never in a million years expected to say.

Without spoiling anything, the film sets itself up for a sequel. Considering it's on track to smash expectations and take in $55 mil this weekend alone, it's pretty much a sure-thing that it will happen. Hopefully the follow-up takes heed of this film's strengths and doesn't abandon the character development in favor of boisterous action sequences. The fact that audiences are reacting strongly to this movie is an indication of what's been lacking all summer: stories with characters we care about. Go see this if you want to end a disappointing summer on a positive note.

I loved the original film, the sequels that followed were a mixed bag and I disliked Tim Burton's remake especially for the ending. I wasn't sure at first whether I would like Rise of the Planet of the Apes, but guess what? I did, very much so.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes mayn't be perfect, but it is for me one of the better movies to do with Planet of the Apes since the original and one of the better movies this year.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes for a start looks mind-blowing. Beautiful photography, striking settings and scenery and brilliant effects are plenty of reasons to like this movie, as well as the breathtaking action sequences especially the battle on the Golden Gate Bridge and emotionally powerful score.

The story is thrilling and well paced with not too much excess to interrupt the flow. Dialogue is mostly very good and thoughtful, if sometimes clunky particularly in the scenes with Franco and Pinto and one or two of the morals about Man Playing God. Rupert Wyatt's direction is excellent.

The characters are mostly engaging, though it is true that the apes are more interesting than the human characters. But Franco's character especially is given enough empathy and depth to make us care for him. Best character? Easily Caesar, not only the most interesting characters but the one I felt the most sympathy for.

Acting is very good. It is occasionally a little hammy, with John Lithgow and Brian Cox, however James Franco gives a very credible lead performance, Frieda Pinto is decent, Tom Felton is surprisingly good and Andy Serkis is just phenomenal.

Overall, a very good movie. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

then I think I'll stick to watching older or foreign films. Despite a prevalence of positive reviews in the press, RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (who thought of THAT title?) turns out to be one of the most disappointing films I've seen all year. It's nothing more than a CGI-laden special effects extravaganza which, like much other recent fare, forgets to tell a story along the way.

The film is conceived as a kind-of prequel to the classic PLANET OF THE APES films, but it doesn't really work out that way. The long-winded narrative, about a drug that increases intelligence and the eventual way it finds itself into chimpanzees, could have been dusted over in the first ten minutes of the movie. I seem to recall Danny Boyle's 28 DAYS LATER treading similar ground in the first two or three minutes, but here the entire film is devoted to entirely predictable – and overly familiar – events. It all builds to a CGI set-piece which is yawn-inducing rather than technically impressive, and then the film just ends without any kind of attempted closure. The bridge scene that ends the movie is pure over the top trash, something I'd expect from a TRANSFORMERS movie, which is on the same level as this film.

I'm pretty sure that end-of-the-world thrillers like this are supposed to be frightening and suspenseful, and yet RISE forgets to bring either of those things to the table. It's also crushingly tame, going for a PG-13 rating when it should have been restricted. I mean, if you wanted to make the film believable AT ALL, you should have shown these chimps ripping off arms and faces; after all, that's the real behaviour when they go feral. You only have to follow the news to realise that. But RISE presents them as a sanitised and noble species. It's pure fantasy.

The actors sleepwalk through their roles, with only the old dependable John Lithgow giving anything approaching a good performance. Brian Cox literally shows up to pick up his paycheque, and as for Tom Felton trying to act after Malfoy…oh dear. Freida Pinto shows up for one of those pretty-girlfriend-hanging-on-the-hero's-arm type roles, and as for James Franco, well to say he's slumming it would be to over-praise him. Even worse, he has no reason to be in the film at all, his character is totally extraneous to the plot other than at the outset.

My real venom, though, is directed towards the apes themselves, which for the first time are completely CGI generated. Please, bring back the men in suits! These CGI effects are dated already, just a year after the film came out, and they're never believable or indeed realistic. Not one bit. And when I hear Andy Serkis, a guy who's made an entire career out of playing Gollum, waffling on about how motion capture brings an emotional core to these creations, I feel a little bit sick inside. No, Andy, it doesn't bring ANY emotion whatsoever. These things are one-dimensional cartoons and you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. You're there to provide motion and that's it. Don't keep bigging yourself up.