haristas

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.