Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes

Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes

Scientist Will Rodman is determined to find a cure for Alzheimer's, the disease which has slowly consumed his father. Will feels certain he is close to a breakthrough and tests his latest serum on apes, noticing dramatic increases in intelligence and brain activity in the primate subjects – especially Caesar, his pet chimpanzee.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes started from the story of Dr. Will Rodman living in San Francisco. Rodman was managing to develop drugs to treat Alzheimer for human. A virus that was capable of transporting genetic material into the DNA of chimpanzees. "First dose" brought intelligence of the human level to lower grade animals. Also from here,the peace world was threatened by the vengeance of evolved monkeys. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes torrent reviews

Amete G F (au) wrote: film incantevole. troppo lento per chi ama film usa.

Kyle S (es) wrote: Not as refined as Stiller's later efforts, but nonetheless brilliantly pokes fun at the surfacing superficiality of the modeling industry.

Tommy K (jp) wrote: The story is a complete rehash of both of its predecessors as expected, the acting is pretty bad, and the humor is just childish and stale for the very most part. Not the worst sequel of all-time, but I'd still skip it.

Chris L (gb) wrote: this film is so baaaad its unbelievable watch it at your peril it was very corny and every silly thing you expect to happen does it is just a bunch of kiwis doing what they do best sorry if that sounds bad but it was such a bad film it was even worse than jackie brown


Morpheus O (ca) wrote: Wow! ...his movie just hasn't aged well since I first saw it on cable when I was about 13 - 15. When I first saw this movie it was at the time one of the more interesting scary movies that I ever saw. I must've been a retard back then...The fact that there was so little back-story on the Malfeitor character might be the most disappointing thing about this movie. There is a certain possibility that this movie would have been pretty cool if they had set that up & done it right. Then there are the little things that bug me... 1. Besides the fact that they couldn't have known where the kid was buried & they could be looking for his grave all night long & then some, a little over an hour into the movie when Brandon is jumping the wall into the cemetery he puts the flashlight down on the top of the wall, picks it up when he's up there & then after jumping down from the wall picks it up again... 2. When Jim & Brandon are in the cemetery & Jim scares the shit out of Brandon the look on Brandon's face, just before Jim comes up behind him, is classic moron! The acting for the whole movie is pretty bad but, probably nowhere else in the entire movie is it this bad!3. During the Ouija board scene near the end when Brandon asks David "And you didn't kill Sarabeth?" the correct answer is yes, meaning "Yes, I didn't kill Sarabeth!" But, instead the answer is "No." meaning "No, I did kill Sarabeth!" Was the budget for this movie so puny that they couldn't afford to reshoot that scene or at least edit this minor scene to not make it look stupid?? Was the budget so puny that they couldn't afford to perform a few script readings for the cast?! Ultimately, this movie falls short bc they didn't really try at all to follow the storyline in a manner that makes sense and just went haphazardly blundering through it. If anyone with a minimum number of properly working braincells actually works/ed on such movies then they should know that since they don't have big budgets then they should stay away from the things that you basically need big budgets to have, to take proper advantage of, etc. Independently made, small budget films, by their very nature and description, don't have big budgets so while they can use, for example, some special effects they are better off barely using them at all bc all to often they look like fake shit. This means that smaller budget films, instead of relying on things that they can't, or can hardly, afford, since to rely on things like special effects/computer graphics, the best/nearly the best actors, expensive soundstages, etc., is just going to blow up in their face, ...they need to rely on intelligently written scripts, well written dialogue, better acting, real places for settings, ...things that they can actually afford!Granted, they didn't try very hard to control the things that they didn't have much control over, except for perhaps the dream sequence where Linda gets her head chopped off by Malfeitor...(It would have looked better if they hadn't of shown her head being chopped off with the axe; if she had woken up just before this happened in the dream that would have made more sense!) but, they really didn't try very hard at all to control the things that they did have control over, such as the script, the dialogue, a decent director! In a way, I sort of liked this movie but, it was just made by stupid ppl.Stephen Nichols, who played Brandon, did go on to a lucrative soap opera career.... so, that explains a certain amount of the stupidity right there.

Kenneth G (us) wrote: okay movie killer sountrack

Matt H (gb) wrote: Really soapy, and kind of loses me with the ending, but solid up until then.

jay n (gb) wrote: Well appointed but lumbering, miscast drama. Bette is fine, all spit and fire but John Garfield, who was embarrassed by his forced casting, is completely out of place as Porfirio Diaz with his New York accent still firmly in place. Paul Muni, a very fine actor in modern dress roles, does what he always does when heavily made up he lets the makeup do the acting for him. A good try but stodgy.

Briain d (es) wrote: Mall Cop is exactly what I expected. A screwball, brainless, but funny comedy. There is no deep, dark theme or message in this film and that's fine. I wasn't expecting one. What's disappointing, however, is that the comedy is unoriginal and boring, despite the interesting premise of a supermarket security man. Particularly with the talent of Kevin James (well known from the show, King of Queens), Mall Cop could have been an excellent film. Unfortunately, it's only average and thus quite forgettable.However, James himself gives a committed and exciting performance. He does his best to squeeze whatever entertainment value he can out of the materials given to him and he thus a relatively good job for most of the film. Kevin James is one of those actors one can't help but like, regardless of what role he's in. Paul Blart certainly isn't the most interesting or fulfilling role he could have taken, but James makes this film a watchable, if not groundbreaking, picture.

Kenneth E (ru) wrote: Like most sequels, "Game of Shadows" is a noticeable step down from the original. The action is a bit more clumsy this second time around, and there is clearly less care taken on fight choreography and story. The plot is harder to follow as character zip from Point A to Point B with very little time to breath in between. On the positive side, the duo of Downey Jr and Jude Law as Holmes and Watson continues to impress, and their bromance-like relationship is just as fresh as it was in the original 2009 film. Another strong factor is Jared Harris' Professor Morriarty who shows real brilliance and menace on screen. Though the movie as a whole failed to "wow" me, I am thankful for that chess game sequence towards the end of the film; up till now, there has been surprisingly few films that show both the evil mastermind engaged in an intellectual duel with the famed detective of 221 Baker Street. The chess sequence shows both masterminds at their pinnacles, demonstrating not only their their talents at chess, but how their brains are wired for the game even when neither are looking at the board. Thus, the film's theme is wonderfully illustrated here: life is a well-played, well-timed chess game, replete with intricacy and good/bad moves. This sequence in itself is worth the price of admission. However... I may not watch this movie again anytime soon because of one huge blunder: Noomi Rapace as the gypsy. I was downright offended how the script-writers conveniently killed off Kelly Reilly's Irene Adler (one of the highlight characters from the first film, a strong female character to boot,) and replaced her with the exact definition of "baggage." That gypsy had exactly one important scene early on, and then her role afterwards became reduced to, literally, looking scared while chewing food, leaving the fighting (and fun) to all the men. Booooo. I shall say it again: Booooo.

John D (es) wrote: An exceedingly average film which goes nowhere. John Cusack plays an overly sympathetic character named Max Rothman, a former artist who lost his arm in WWI, fighting for Germany. He then becomes an art dealer and meets a young Adolf Hitler who is striving to become an artist. Max befriends the blustery Hitler even amid his anti-semetic leanings because he believes that he could be a successful artist. Max's character is bland and boring helped by Cusack's uninteresting portrayal, but the actor who plays the young Hitler, Noah Taylor, is very good. That said, this fictional account, is simplistic and barely scratches at the surface of anything remotely curious. Not a bad film, yet nothing remarkable by any measure.