While the movie does seem to offer almost everything, I feel like it is missing a more profound lesson like that found in “Animal Farm”. My personal take is that the film lacks the sharp edges of awe-inspiring commentary on society and animal rights, blurring the lines of identity with men dressed as gorillas, igniting debates over the definition of bestiality.

It could have exceeded everyone’s expectations, but the film lacks confidence and depth, earning every bit of its PG-13 rating. The end result? A stripped-down version of science fiction made for middle school teenagers.

I expected more. Given Burton’s track record, I thought he would take some risks. He plays it too safe. It's almost as if he defuses his momentum with gentle nudges of reminding you it’s a movie. The 1968 “Planet of the Apes,” is a lot different from an era where irony is an insurance policy. It did take itself seriously, yet made jokes. Burton’s “Planet” does contain the implausible (his hero endures two bumpy crash-landings that look about as credible as the effects in his “Mars Attacks!”). Not too surprisingly, it avoids exploring anything deeper in the form of relationships.

The key couple consists of Leo (Mark Wahlberg), who is the human hero, and Ari (Helena Bonham Carter), who is the Eleanor Roosevelt of the apes. They are somewhat attracted, but the context isn’t too helpful and doesn't get too far. The screenplay does not assist them either. Romantically linked to Leo, eventually in an abstract manner, captures the essence of the relationship: a curvy blond human called Daena (Estella Warren). Given how brief her role is, to capture the essence of the character, all she does is follow watching. Granted, the character’s glance could be on either side, significant or wince, depending on the situation. The audience does not get to see an adequate farewell scene.

Leo, for instance, cannot be categorized as someone prone to extreme displays of emotions. Played by Wahlberg, the character is shallow and overly simple, having little to no creativity and imagination. He does not seem too shocked by most occurrences, including, let us randomly suggest, ‘crash landing onto a planet where humans are enslaved by apes’. He fits the description of a space jockey, trained in hyper-masculine self sacrifice. He most likely has amazing skills during a crisis but does not appear to be much of a talker. His main driving force in life is most likely to get off the planet, which he shows no positive feelings towards, and he couldn’t care less about what happens to the friends left behind. At times, his surliness stands out as he guides his group through an unrelenting landscape.

In reality, the most ‘human’ character in the movie is Ari, the chimpanzee, who claims that all species are created equal unlike most modern day people. She allies with the perceived inferior group known as humans and declares to Leo, ‘you are sensitive. That is quite the rare trait to find in a man.” This character demonstrates warmth, personality and distinctive body language thanks to Helena Bonham Carter. She surely has a way of moving that children adore.

In addition, juice can be extracted from a character named Limbo (Paul Giamatti), a con man who has a deal for everyone, and a ton of funny one-liners. His voice does not hit the mark because he sounds like a carnival pitch-man.

The major ape characters are the frightening Gen. Thade (Tim Roth) who plays the ‘fearsome’ ape alongside his occasionally thoughtful gorilla lieutenant, Attar (Michael Clarke Duncan) who is both strong and stern, and Sen. Sandar (David Warner) who serves as a parliamentary leader and Ari’s dad. Charlton Heston appears in the film as a wise old ape who predictably brings a gun into the storyline and has a curmudgeonly exit line. Fun comes from the screen while the apes are performing in the movie, while humans don't appeal much. The effort goes towards the apes trying to animate the characters and the storyline, whereas does not work on the humans, sadly underestimates the need to provide focus on the rest of the characters and let them manage on their own.

I find it curious that multiple types of simians coexist in the planet of the apes society. Perhaps I shouldn't elaborate further given the reasoning of the movie, but this might be a bit difficult to justify. Unlike the previous film, a key difference in this movie is that everyone, including the apes, humans and, of course, speak English. The film justifies how the apes came to speak English, but is very vague about how they acquired the ability to speak in the first place.

The movie certainly has an appealing visual aesthetic. Even in the harshest close up shots, Rick Baker's makeup is appropriate and his apes dazzle with character and charm. The settings and places used capture a proper feeling of foreign wonder and there is one great wide angle view of the ape city-mountain which appears (upon squinting a little) to resemble Xanadu from Citizen Kane. There are lines that encourage laughter such as “Extremism in the defence of apes is no vice” and some that unwisely encourage groans such as “If you show me the way out of here - I promise I’ll show you something that will change your life forever. ” And also that moment where Leo squabbles among his fugitive group of men and apes and bellows “Shut up! That goes for all species!” “Planet of the Apes,” is the type of film that is appreciated, admired, or even greatly liked, but question if it was really needed. Considering the prominence and recognition of Franklin J. Schaffner's 1968 film, Tim Burton was somewhat obliged to either surpass it or dodge it. Instead, he pays tribute. He refers to this version as a “reimaging,” and indeed it is. Yet a reinvention could have been better.

While Burton’s artwork exhibits a wildly insane imagination, here he seems restrained. His film is respectful to the original and is respectable in its own right, but that is not enough. People will likely still be renting the 1968 version ten years from now.