Uberhamster

The short-lived Planet of the Apes series strongly reminded me of the original Star Trek. They compare roughly like this: Visually, they have the same looks, simply because they weren't that far apart. Same camera & production technology & standards. More importantly, both series would constantly feature new strange sitautions of the future. And both were cancelled relatively quickly.

Now, the first two "PotA" episodes are a bit weak, but I am thinking of later episodes where some thought has gone into society, how it's organised, and whether that's fair - things typically also found in the original star trek series. Random example: Poorer apes in one episode are a stand-in for low income white Americans whose poverty might make them more susceptible for racism.

On top of that, most episodes have a little surprise up their sleeve to give the plot an extra little twist. It's entertaining adventure stuff but also intelligently done.

And finally, how it was no star trek: the central PotA characters aren't very good. A timid chimpanzee who runs away with two generic American males - and it's good thing that one was blond, and the other had dark hair. This really is the weak spot of the series.

The late Heinz was perhaps almost someone from another century. The vocabulary of at least two normal persons put together. Astute, but not haughty. Witty, but not arrogant. Dark humour, but never offensive.

Well, almost never.

The one thing that distracts is the strange shape on the chin of Michél de Jong. Just below the lower lip - what IS that? A collapsing mole? His very first facial hair? A coffee stain?

Okay, it's probably just a soul patch, but that's only through a proces of elimination. It doesn't go particularly well with his rosy cheeks. (You SEE how distracting it is?)

Kingdom of the Gladiators... Sooner or later in everyone's life, there comes a time when you watch some crap. Either sorely disappointing A-listers; or B-movies that you watched on purpose. And usually they have some isolated talent in it that ended up there by mistake. An actor or a song or one plot idea.

It's very rare to find a film that really has no redeeming points at all whatsoever. This is that movie.

If I try really hard then I'd have to say that the sentences are gramatically correct. Just not making any sense at all when heard in sequence; and spoken with exagerated diction (king) or a super american accent (villainess). I wasn't expecting an intricate plot, but almost nothing is explained and what is, does not make any sense. Immediately from the start it's unclear why this king wants a deal to avoid bloodshed so that he can continue fighting, and how it's binding if he hasn't vowed to accept. Well, I say king, but it's some feeble elder man, wrapped in a curtain, left alone in some old rooms, with nothing that bears any resemblance to a royal court. Everyone is miscast - and that includes also a 19th century fortress which just can't double for a medieval castle. I might have overlooked that if that one fortress hadn't been their only location used for everything (and failing to convince at every turn). Of the two twin brothers mentioned, we see only one, i.e. twin brothers each from a different race yet from the same father.

Most amazingly of all, the DVD contains a deleted scene. Think about it - that means that it's possible for a scene to be so bad, as to be rejected from this movie. I would have thought that impossible. But on closer inspection, there's an explanation: It was an extended scene where an extra actually showed acting skill. So that obviously had to go.

Other pros scraped with difficulty from the barrel: I liked the woodcut that you see for 1 second. And at least it's not one of those predictable movies. It doesn't make enough sense to be that.