Reviews written by registered user
|36 reviews in total|
The original 1968 PLANET OF THE APES is my all-time favorite movie. I
first saw it when I was almost nine years old back when it came out. My
several IMDb reviews of it often appear on its page.
But, I've not bothered commenting on the rebooted APES franchise until now. The reason I'm doing so is because of the amount of hate and negative reviews this movie is getting on this site, which I think is way over the top and quite addle-brained.
First off, I for one do accept this "Ceasar Trilogy" of movies as prequels to the classic 1968 original. They don't match with the continuity of the original, now almost fifty years old, but there's nothing that says they have to. Forgetting some of the absurdities of the Charlton Heston movie, such as his nearly fast-as-light-speed interstellar flight having taken off in 1972(?) on a mission to supposedly colonize another Earth-like world with only one female crew member(???), these so-called "reboots" have offered a much more clever and plausible -- though still highly improbable -- explanation of how the planet of the apes could come into being than either the original five-film series of old did, or even Pierre Boulle's 1963 novel. RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES as pure Science Fiction is better than the 1968 film, though that's not to say that RISE is a better overall movie than the '68 now classic film.
So, how do these rebooted films fit as prequels to the '68 original? I think of them as the very beginning of the original, or origin, time-line that leads to the world of 3978 AD Earth that Charlton Heston's spaceship crash-lands on. A lot of viewers don't seem to realize that the events of the three reboot APES movies only get us around thirty years into the future. That still leaves nearly two thousand years before the events of the original film, and a hell of a lot of time for Fox to fill up with future APES movies if they choose to. (They only thing I'm still puzzled by is when is the nuclear holocaust supposed to happen, or have the makers of these reboots abandoned that scenario and will offer a different explanation for that desert planet of 3978 came into being? I think we're supposed to accept now that the sequels to the '68 original never happened, and that Heston's Taylor character was wrong when he assumed a nuclear war destroyed mankind at the famous conclusion to the original.)
Still, I have found these rebooted APES films to be an exercise in frustration mostly because they're really not what the Planet of the Apes concept is about, what its purpose is, or what makes it important. Yes, they are allegorical, have social commentary, and a certain satirical content, but it's nowhere near as pointed and relevant as it was in the original (as heavy-handed as it often is), and that's where these new APES movies fail for me -- there's just not enough to them. The makers have either forgotten or are simply ignoring the fact that the original movie wasn't about a planet of apes, it was about what happens to one misanthropic astronaut on a planet of apes. It was a black comedy and a biting commentary on the arrogance and stupidity of humanity either believing or just assuming that it is the "apex" of animals. These new films do deal with that, but it's all secondary to what I see as just "simian soap opera," and it often comes across as more than a little silly. Still, I find them to be better than average for what passes these days as summer blockbusters.
However, the level and character of attack WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES has been getting in reviews here is making poop-flinging monkeys out of those writing them. WAR and the entire trilogy is not about current liberal vs. conservative politics in the U.S., nor the situation in Europe and problems with refugees, or a commentary on Black Lives Matter. Sure, there's some kind of subtext going on, but for me, it's far too buried and muddy to get excited about. It's just adventures among the monkeys, folks.
Ironically, though, I think it's being hated because it's not a dumber movie, that being a movie that's little more than what its title says it's supposed to be about -- War. So, it turns out not to be just another summer "action" movie, wall-to-wall action, that is, like the Fast and Furious franchise and other models of cinema greatness. Well, that's too bad, but to complain about at the level that's been expressed here is to come across as cinema brats. You were bored. Oh, what an artistic crime this movie committed! You guys need to just go back to waiting for the next Mad Max movie.
Created for the June, 2007 Fox "Cinema Classics Collection" 2-disc DVD, "The Making of The Sand Pebbles" features video clips of surviving cast and crew, including the former Mrs. Steve McQueen, Neile Adams, during the program's 65 min. running time, which is divided into six 'featurettes' of various lengths and covers in fine detail nearly every aspect of the film's production, release and lasting legacy. Since liberal use of the late Jerry Goldsmith's emotional score is made throughout, parts of it can be quite emotionally affecting and I can't imagine fans of the film having anything but praise for this effort. It has been included on the Blu-ray DVD too.
This is a good film to watch if you like British films from the era and especially ones with Dirk Bogarde. It's made with some style but the script is a problem. Though it starts out intriguingly, in the end this espionage film is rather much ado about nothing. The main point of interest in this rarely seen movie now is the equally rarely heard Jerry Goldsmith score, which I rather like. I believe it got an LP release back in 1968, but has never been issued on CD. Perhaps one of the reasons for that, as I've recently read, is that Goldsmith didn't have a good experience doing the score and never had much to say about it or simply didn't want to discuss it at all. Unfortunate, because the score, though minor Goldsmith, does have merit. I hope someday to read just what Goldsmith's problems were with it.
Turner Classic Movies channel just showed this (10/10/06). I'd never heard of it before. I suspect it was barely released in 1959. It's a very low-budget film that's supposed to take place in Florida, but I'm not sure it was entirely shot there. Some of it looks like Southern Cal. Steven Hill, Elaine Stritch, Andrew Prine and a nineteen-year-old Sharon Farrell are professional and do the best they can with a weak script and in what looks like an amateur production. I see it's the director's only credit. The film is not bad, somewhat interesting, but never rises above its limits. A minor curio. It certainly kept me watching, but in the end it didn't amount to much.
I barely remember this show. It wasn't on very long and was the last of the type of TV shows that Irwin Allen produced at 20th Century-Fox Television, starting with "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea." I don't know why Allen did this show, but it seems from the result that his heart wasn't it it anymore. Maybe it was because concept shows like this had just become to expensive to make. One thing I do remember well was that although the music was credited to Richard La Salle, much of it was lifted from Jerry Goldsmith's score to the original "Planet of the Apes" movie. Allen's "Lost in Space" TV show did the same thing with its music, much of it actually coming from Bernard Herrmann's scores to "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and "Journey to the Center of the Earth." Since all these shows and movies were produced at Fox I guess they could do these things in those days.
I love the old Johnny Weissmuller/MGM "Tarzan" movies of the 1930s and 40s. I have them all six of them on laserdisc from the 1990s, but I have to wonder in what form they will arrive on DVD -- if ever? Watching "Tarzan's Secret Treasure" (1941) today I was amazed to hear for the first time, after many viewings, Barry Fitzgerald's O'Doul character refer to a little black native boy as a "pickaninny." In the earlier Tarzan movies the blacks are constantly called "boy" and other derogatory terms and often casually shot by white men for disobeying orders. I'm not sure, but I think there may be a problem with this being released on DVD today, but my point is that I DON'T want to see these films edited in any way. They're time capsules of entertainment from an earlier era, and they should be preserved.
On February 3, 2004, just five days shy of this classic's 36th anniversary, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment will release on DVD the 35th Anniversary Edition of "Planet of the Apes" (1968). This edition will FINALLY present the film in 16x9 anamorphic widescreen, and hopefully with an improved stereo mix. It will also include a lot of extras, though many have been available on DVD elsewhere for some time, but what is really pleasing is that a Jerry Goldsmith commentary on his score will also be included. Goldsmith's score is a motion picture landmark and has never been out of print on LP, cassette, and CD. It's a dream come true to finally get some Goldsmith commentary on it. The DVD will also feature some twenty minutes of behind-the-scenes footage that the late actor Roddy McDowall, also an avid photographer, shot with a 16mm movie camera during production. All too brief snippets of it were used in the 1998 AMC documentary "Behind the Planet of the Apes." This should be fascinating to APES fans, but of course the enduring elements of a movie that has proved to be a timeless motion picture SF masterpiece will be the main attraction.
OK "Journey to the Center of the Earth" fans, 20th Century Fox has just announced the the movie will be released on DVD in March of 2003. The transfer will be letterboxed and should feature a Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtrack. I have a 1999 laserdisc version that is just fantastic, so this DVD should be better than that. Fox has said there will be no extras, which is a damn shame since I'd very much like to hear what Pat Boone remembers of the making of this movie.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
"The Omega Man" is really a bad movie. I saw it when it originally came out and I don't think I've ever really liked it. Done on a low budget, it has the feel of a made-for-TV movie, with direction that seems phoned in and a script that should have been thrown out! Charlton Heston pretty much just plays...well...Charlton Heston, only he's often not very good at it. This must have only been an easy pay check for him. The one redeeming factor about this movie is the Ron Grainer score. It at least has energy, everything else seems tired and cliched. The movie tries to present a nightmare world where only a handful of "normal" human beings battle scarred, photophobic and insane survivors of a biochemical world war. But looking back at it over thirty years later the only thing that's frightening about it is the vision it gives of having to spend the rest of your life listening to 8-track tapes and jive-talking angry black people call you honkey! At least Heston gets to mercifully die at the end.
It's true that this is more a sequel to "The Wolf Man" (in fact I like the
first twenty-five minutes of this movie more that "The Wolf Man.") than
"Ghost of Frankenstein," but it's a better Frankenstein film than "House of
Frankenstein" or "House of Dracula" because the Monster has more to do here,
and it's better than "Ghost of Frankenstein" just because it's more fun.
Poor Bela Lugosi gets ripped all the time for what a terrible job he did as
the Monster in this one, but in fairness his role was severely edited. The
monster originally could talk and was blind, but the producers felt Lugosi's
voice coming from the Monster was more funny than frightening, and his
dialogue wasn't all that great anyway, so out it all went. It's for this
reason that the monster acts so strangely in the final cut, and the Monster
was supposed to be sick anyway. It was a mistake to cast the too old Lugosi
as the Monster, but don't blame Bela -- he probably did the best he could,
but we'll never know. I also think it was a mistake to cast Lon Chaney, Jr.
as the Monster in "Ghost." Both he and Lugosi were too round-faced to take
over from Karloff. And the ending of "Ghost" was one of the biggest blunders
in the entire series. But this film manages to survive all the mistakes and
still be very entertaining. I've probably seen it fifty times in my life,
and I can always watch it again. It has good direction, by Roy William
Neil, quick pacing and great atmosphere (especially in the first half).
Sure, it's just a '40s Universal B-movie, but it's stood the test of time.
This movie should have had a special edition DVD all its own, with a
digitally restored print and extras that included stills of the cut scenes
with the monster and script excerpts. Oh well! It's still good to have it
|Page 1 of 4:||   |