Multi-part review of the Classic "Planet of the Apes" films (1968-1973) on Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[The Drifter]

Mods, I couldn't find a thread discussing all 5 of the Classic POTA films, so decided to create one. I hope this is OK.

I recently re-watched the 5 Classic POTA films on Blu-ray. This is the first time I've binge-watched these back to back. I got the set about 4 years ago @ Big Lots for an amazing price. This worked out well, since I doubt I would have bought the later films individually.

The PQ & audio for all five films was stellar. Definitely the best presentation I've seen for all 5 films (up to this point).

Note that there are SPOILERS below, but given that these films are all 50+ years old - I don't see the need for SPOILER tags. Some comments:

Planet of the Apes (1968): Superb film, from beginning to end. The confidence that the astronauts initially have when they discover the savage/mute humans was interesting. I.e., the first thought(s) that they will be able to "rule the planet in six months" are almost immediately transformed to horror/fear/shock as the talking Apes on horseback kill/capture them. Not showing the Apes right away (but just being able to hear them, etc.) was extremely effective in building up the suspense.

Interesting late 1960's social commentary re: Taylor telling young Lucius to "not trust anyone over 30" - which was an obvious reference to the popular hippie/youth movement ATT. The film also obviously referenced the civil rights movement ATT, etc.

And, IMHO the iconic "twist" ending re: the Statue of Liberty doesn't really lose any of it's shock value on repeated viewings. This is given that you're experiencing this via Taylor's reaction(s), and his horrified realization that the planet he landed on was Earth in the far future - after an all-out war. I.e., earlier in the film he & the other astronauts thought they had landed in another solar system, far from Earth.

 

[The Drifter]

Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970): Not as good as POTA - but IMHO still an extremely well-done sequel to the first film. In fact, I actually consider Beneath & Planet one long film, since Beneath starts off with scenes from the end of Planet, and then immediately picks up right after Planet ended.

It's evident that the astronaut Brent (James Franciscus) was a de-facto "stand-in" for Taylor (Chuck Heston), given that they looked very similar - though Taylor was somewhat older. This is given that Brent was the "main" character in the film, though Taylor did play a very important role as the film progressed.

The mutants were grotesque & horrific, especially the "reveal" where they pulled off their masks. Their ability to make others commit horrible violence through "mind control" was initially a good defense - but still didn't help them much after the Apes infiltrated their underground sanctuary/living quarters.

At it's heart, the film was an obvious anti-war movie re: the mutants worshipping the "doomsday" bomb & the complete destruction of the Earth at the very end.

I'm on the fence as to whether I wanted Beneath to be longer, given that it only clocked in at about 1 1/2 hours. I would have wanted to see more of the mutants & their lives underground, etc. However, sometimes less is more and the movie was very well-edited.

 

[The Drifter]

Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971): The initial scene when the Astronauts who landed in Taylor's shuttle in 1973 took off their helmets & were revealed to be Apes (in front of a group of stunned humans) was obviously similar to the 'shock-value' of the astronauts first seeing the talking Apes in the original film. It was also interesting to actually see Dr. Hasslein in person - who postulated the time travel "theory" that was mentioned by the astronauts in the first two films....which actually proved to be correct.

The scenes where Cornelius/Zira (under "hypnosis") admit that in the far future, they had uncovered some ancient scrolls/texts which went over the downfall of humankind & the rise of Apes re: Apes becoming servants; eventually revolting and being led by "Aldo" who was the first Ape to say "No", etc. were all obviously prophetic & were foreshadowing what we actually see in Conquest - to some extent.

I also appreciated the way that the tables were turned in this film: I.e., in the first two most of the Apes are the "villains" and the humans are the weak/subjugated "animals". Conversely, in this third film many/most of the humans (notably Hasslein & some others) are the bad guys, and the Apes are the victims. Though, in Escape you do understand why Hasslein felt he had to eliminate the chimps - given that he was justifiably concerned that these intelligent Apes/their descendants would eventually rise up & take over Earth, etc.

The obvious extreme 'suspension of disbelief' element(s) here was: In Escape, we are led to believe that sometime during the events of Beneath, the scientist Apes (Zira/Cornelius/Milo) were able to recover Taylor's damaged ship from underwater, figure out how it worked, and somehow get it operational again so that it would be in space when the Earth was destroyed, thereby propelling them back in time. Obviously, re: the first two films we have already bought into the time-travel aspect (since it had already been established that Taylor's & Brent's crew went forward in time), but it is extremely implausible/impossible that the Apes - whose knowledge of technology was limited to the equivalent of pre-Industrial Revolution Earth (and that's being generous) - would be able to do this: Even if they knew where Taylor's ship/shuttle was, there is no way they could get it out of the water, fix this, find fuel (where?! how?!), etc. - and launch it into space.....whether they had 2-3 days or 50 years. This whole idea is laughable.

Going along with this, note that Brent's ship was destroyed/seemingly damaged beyond repair in Beneath - as seen in the early scene(s) when Brent is tending to his skipper (who was injured in the crash & later passes).

 

[The Drifter]

Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972): An OK film. It was interesting that in the 20-or so years since Caesar (Zira & Cornelius' son) was born and was hidden in Armando's (Ricardo Montalban's) circus - all dogs & cats died due to a "virus" unintentionally brought to Earth as a result of space travel, thereby resulting in humans training & using Apes as servants, etc. This led to Caesar leading the Apes into revolt, etc. - which was somewhat prophesized by the "ancient texts" mentioned by Cornelius/Zira in "Escape". Though, the specifics/details are obviously different - possibly because Cornelius/Zira going back in time altered the time-line?!

At some point after the events seen in "Conquest" a devastating war between humans occurs, etc. And, we see the aftermath of this in Battle:

Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973): Below average. This was a poorly made film, and the attempts to tie this into "Beneath" re: the humans living in the ruins of the NYC subway were weak, at best. I.e., since the mutants in "Beneath" had skin affected by radiation poisoning and this was thousands of years after the war - why were the humans in "Battle" not similarly afflicted - given that this film took place not long after the actual war?! The humans in "Battle" didn't seem to be wearing similar latex?! masks to the ones seen in "Beneath". Of course, the "real-life" explanation is that the movie didn't have the budget for something like this, etc.

The battle scenes were OK, but nothing special.

Honestly, Conquest & Battle especially had the vibe/feel of cheap TV "movie of the week" tele-films & not big-budget theatrical Hollywood productions.

 

[The Drifter]

While the first two films form a cohesive whole, it's evident that in the last three films they were somewhat "making it up as they went along". Sloppy writing & contradictions were prevalent. These final films were obvious money-grabs, and it showed.

One of the many examples of this is that at the end of POTA, when Taylor sees the remains of the Statue of Liberty & realizes he is on Earth thousands of years after a nuclear war - the presumption here is probably that the Apes "evolved" over the course of thousands?! of years of evolution to become more intelligent/larger/walk more upright, etc. - possibly because of radiation, which resulted in these "mutations". However, as the films continue - between "Escape" & "Conquest", this so-called "evolution" happened relatively quickly (in 20 or so years) & without any kind of explanation whatsoever. Odd.

Trivia:

On this recent viewing, I noticed that actress Natalie Trundy played three roles in four POTA films: In Beneath, she was Albina - one of the mutants; in Escape, she played the human Dr. Stephanie Branton - a friend of the Apes; and in Conquest & Battle, she played Lisa - Caesar's mate/wife.

I also noticed that the Ape scientist Milo (from Escape) was played by the late Sal Mineo (Rebel without a Cause). Hadn't noticed this in the credits on previous viewings for some reason - and it's obviously sometimes tough to tell who's playing these Ape roles due to the prosthetics/make-up.

 

[BionicJim]

Great write-up. I also purchased this set and viewed them for the first time, expecting some dated SF, but was surprised how good the first one was. I ended up reading the excellent book, too. Like you, I found the last two almost unwatchable.

 

[Sam Favate]

I keep wondering when we’re getting these movies on 4k disc.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Nice take on this series of films. I don’t know that I agree that 1 and 2 are as cohesive as you do, but I think it’s a completely valid perspective. I like how each of the films share a certain commonality, but explore different aspects of society and ultimately offer thoughtful - and fun - explorations of what it means to be human, and what our obligations to each other in society and family are. I find something to enjoy in each of the films. They’re in a similar category for me as the James Bond movies, in the sense that I like the “bad” ones more than I like most other regular movies. Even when the budgets were exhausted and they had been relegated to something hovering below b-movie status, they’re still earnest and enjoyable.

 

[Michael1]

I agree that the ending of the original POTA remains shocking. Unfortunately, if you think about it for a moment or two, it makes absolutely no sense, because why and how would the astronauts on this spaceship in the midst of an exploratory mission far from earth -- as in millions of miles -- have ended up back on earth? To think this is possible, you'd have to believe that, while all of the astronauts were in suspended animation, the ship somehow reversed course and headed back to its planet of origin. Thoughts? Am I being too literal, or is this a HUGE plot hole in the movie?

 

[BobO'Link]

I agree that the ending of the original POTA remains shocking. Unfortunately, if you think about it for a moment or two, it makes absolutely no sense, because why and how would the astronauts on this spaceship in the midst of an exploratory mission far from earth -- as in millions of miles -- have ended up back on earth? To think this is possible, you'd have to believe that, while all of the astronauts were in suspended animation, the ship somehow reversed course and headed back to its planet of origin. Thoughts? Am I being too literal, or is this a HUGE plot hole in the movie?

That's pretty much what happened. They were on a long distance mission which involved deep sleep/suspended animation due to the distance involved. Taylor even mentions this in the opening sequence talking about how everyone they know will be dead when they get back. He then set the course back to earth and got into a suspended animation chamber himself for the return journey. Then time jumps to their arrival and crash landing back on Earth of the future. Only the viewer doesn't know that - just that they crashed on some planet somewhere on the return journey. And they don't know either until the ending.

I prefer the wrap around of the novel over what was done for the movie. It's almost as shocking and is far more satisfying though doesn't leave much room for a sequel ("Beneath...") which, IMHO, wasn't very good and barely worth a repeat viewing. I felt that way when I saw it in the theater and still do. I didn't bother with any of the others, waiting for them to show up on TV and felt those viewings were pretty much wastes of time (especially "Battle..."). In spite of that I own copies of all of them (DVD and BR) with the only one receiving regular repeat viewings being the 1968 original.

Heston wasn't fond of sequels (as a rule did not do them at all) and finally agreed to appear in "Beneath..." as long as his part was shot in 2 weeks and the character killed off (in the movie's documentary, he claims he personally suggested the ending, saying, "Why don't I just set off this bomb and destroy the world. That's the end of the sequels."). That's why James Franciscus was cast as the lead with "Taylor" disappearing early in the film only to reappear at the end.

 

[BobO'Link]

FWIW - Tim Burton's "reimaging" wasn't all that good either but did have an interesting conclusion which never saw resolution.

 

[The Drifter]

Heston wasn't fond of sequels (as a rule did not do them at all) and finally agreed to appear in "Beneath..." as long as his part was shot in 2 weeks and the character killed off (in the movie's documentary, he claims he personally suggested the ending, saying, "Why don't I just set off this bomb and destroy the world. That's the end of the sequels."). That's why James Franciscus was cast as the lead with "Taylor" disappearing early in the film only to reappear at the end.

Yes. This is quoted verbatim from the BTPOTA Wikipedia page:

Although Charlton Heston showed little interest in reprising his role as Taylor, studio head Richard D. Zanuck thought the actor was essential to the sequel. After some disagreement with the actor's agents, Heston agreed to briefly appear with the provision that his character be killed and that his pay go to charity. The writers decided to have Taylor disappear at the story's start and only return by the film's ending, and have a new protagonist for the major part of the story.[7] James Franciscus accepted the role of Brent as a break from his usual TV fare.[5]

It's significant that Brent (Franciscus) looked very similar to Taylor (before he shaved off his beard at the end of Planet) - to the point that Zira/Cornelius initially mistook him for Taylor when he first showed up @ their home in Ape City.

Here's the site, for reference:

Beneath the Planet of the Apes - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mark27b]

I know they are only on DVD and not Blu-ray however you can't ignore the tv series - later episodes were cut into movies - as being part of the same franchise and continuity though some allowances for tv eg talking humans.

 

[dpippel]

I've always felt that the first two movies make a great, very entertaining double feature. The first film is undoubtedly the best by far for me and a certified classic, but Beneath has its moments. After that? Each of the subsequent movies were plagued by rapidly decreasing budgets (the budget on Beneath was just a little more than half of the first film, which itself was only $5.8 million) and I found the resulting claustrophobic, low-rent feel a real put-off. They really don't interest me much. The Reeves trilogy was excellent IMO.

 

[Alan Tully]

I can just about remember seeing the original Planet Of The Apes at the cinema (my all time favourite cinema, The Odeon, Westborne Grove, West London - which won't mean anything to anyone here, but I like to give it a shout-out, it was knocked down about 40 years ago, just like all my other favourite cinemas), anyway, the end came as a total shock & surprise, well no internet then & no spoilers. That first film is a classic, but I don't rate any of the sequels (not bothered about seeing any of them again).

 

[ponset]

Love the 1st movie. Instant classic.

My introduction to the Planet of the Apes was the Power Records book.

 

[Desdinova]

Huge POTA fanatic here who loves the original quintology, warts and all. I was especially grateful to have the original cut of Conquest to watch; I think the grimmer ending better served the evolution of the series and the attitudes the apes had towards humans in Battle.
And since the Burton version was previously mentioned, I always felt that it was a bit too subtle in establishing how Leo's timeline had already been disrupted. Most folks hated the twist ending feeling that it was simply tacked on for shock's sake but I thought it a brilliant closure to the film.

Why? All through the film there were subtle clues that the ape overlords knew and used older, advanced technology that they weren't sharing: one of the apes has a set of dentures by his bed that's clearly made from a polymer (though polymers are nowhere else in evidence); another has a drink with ice cubes in it (ice? in a tropical zone?); and of course the gun hidden in the vase at the end.

The last time we see Thade, he's crouched inside the working spaceship. The arrival of Pericles arriving after Leo established that folks would come out of the time vortex at different times, suggesting that Thade was able to launch the ship and arrive back in the past prior to Leo and disrupt the previous timeline.

IF these clues were an intentional set-up for the end doesn't excuse the other issues the film had, but when viewed with these little details in mind, I think the film is a bit stronger and logically supports the ending.

 

[Dave Moritz]

I have been thinking about the original movies lately and am trying to decide if I should wait for these films to all get a 4K transfer to 4K blu-ray or just get them on HD blu-rays.

 

[Ethan Riley]

I have been thinking about the original movies lately and am trying to decide if I should wait for these films to all get a 4K transfer to 4K blu-ray or just get them on HD blu-rays.

I have the big blu-ray set from ages ago. Personally I would love to see the first movie on 4k. It's a time-honored classic and deserves the royal treatment. But the rest are just...sequels. And don't have a lot of replay-ability for me, and sounds like a lot of other forum members.

We'll see what happens. The movies are from Fox, therefore Disney, therefore...Sony?

 

[Desslar]

I've seen the first three films. The first is pretty good. I just wish it had a bigger budget to more convincingly carry out its ambitions. The second is like a slightly less competent retread of the first, but does have an exciting climax. I didn't care much for the third - feels less scifi and more like a fish out of water comedy like Star Trek IV or Crocodile Dundee.

I'm disheartened to read the negative assessment of Conquest, because the chance to watch the start of the ape revolt and the crumbling of human civilization sounds really interesting.