The bizarre world you met in "Planet of the Apes' was only the beginning... What lies beneath may be the end!
I just finished watching the sequel and all I can say is that my memory was wrong, or maybe it was just my naivety of youth that steered me wrong. While not a bad film, Beneath the Planet of the Apes is no where near as strong a film as its predecessor. It's still a fun film though and continues the story brought forth from the first film.
Beneath starts at the end of the original film. From there a new ship is discovered to have crash landed in the desert. The sole survivor Brent, runs into Nova (the female lead from the original) and together they discover a war is about to begin between the apes and a race of mutant humans who live beneath the planet surface.
Most of the first films cast reappears in this film. Kim Hunter, Linda Harrison, Maurice Evans and Charlton Heston are all present here. Missing is Roddy McDowall (who appears in the opening scene but is then replaced by David Watson). Brent is played by James Franciscus who comes off as a great leading man and replacement for Heston. The acting by all involved is, while not award worthy, spot on and convincing and carries the picture well. Like the first film though, but to a lesser extent, the side characters tend to be wooden and bland and detract from the picture at times. But Heston, Franciscus, Hunter and Evans are great enough to forgive the wooden side characters and Harrison is absolutely stunning (even more so than the first film).
The special effects for this film are no where close to those in the first film. Sure the apes look just as good for the most part (there are a few apes in the background that look less than convincing) but the underground sets and special effects are straight out of Star Trek. When I say Star Trek, I mean the original low budget television show. This film was made in 1970 and I suppose the effects (lightning, fire, blood) are good for the time but the original had better effects and stronger make-up. There is one scene where a few apes are in a sauna. The naked bodies look like men in gorilla costumes and comes off as unintentionally funny. The faces of the apes are so convincing so it really is terrible to see shoddy body make-up in that scene. I guess what I am trying to say here is: Don't ever undress the apes again!!!
So the acting is just as good, and the effects are slightly subpar to the original so I am sure you are all wondering how this film scored such a lesser rating than the first film. The answer lies in a combination of editing, directing and story. First I'll discuss the story. The first hour of the film is really fantastic and is just as good as the original. Brent discovering the ape city, the underground ruins and the urge to get home is enthralling and thrilling to watch. But when the underground human mutants come in things go a little awry. I never used to have a problem with this but now I found it brings a level of fantasy to something that seemed almost plausible before. (A planet ruled by apes is plausible? Sure why not.) The underground human mutants then end up taking to much screen time and the apes seem left in the dust which is a shame as the sole purpose of this movie and all the movies in the series is to focus on the apes.
Which leads me to the directing and editing. Ted Post directs the first hour well and it feels like a continuation of the first film. It is edited well too and like the first film not a scene or moment is is wasted. But then when we get underground both the editing and direction falter. The effects become shoddier, the pacing slows down and the story seems to crumble under it's own weight. These in conjunction with each other are the responsibility and therefore the fault of the director.
The editing is really what drags the film down once it goes underground. I can forgive the story and the effects but not the editing. As I mentioned both the first film and the first hour of this one are perfect: perfectly paced with no scene unneeded or unwarranted Once underground, things start to drag. There is over exposition and scenes go on way to long. The mutant church scene is a prime example of an overlong scene that could of been cut by at least half. Once underground, Beneath the Planet of the Apes starts to feel like a different (and worse of a movie).
The end of the film too, has a voice over narration that sums up the nihilistic ending. This voice over is useless, the ending while great and depressing and original is rushed and could of used a special effect rather than voice over and fade outs, but with that said it is still a solid ending that will live on in the minds of the viewer as it did me.
The music in this movie is great and just as good as the first film. Scored by Leonard Rosenman it plays well with the film and sounds just like the music from the first film, which was composed by Jerry Goldsmith. The music is so strikingly similar that it feels like they just reused the music (or that Goldsmith really scored this film too).
So there you have it. Great music, great casting, great masks, great apes. With a fantastic first hour and a weaker but still enjoyable final forty minutes, Beneath the Planet of the Apes is a great edition to the franchise. It continues the story set out from the first film, it keeps the same cast, its got action and spectacle and guns and death. It's darker than the original with another depressing and even darker ending. As a stand alone film it's not particularly worthwhile but as a sequel to Planet of the Apes it is a decent and recommended film. If you come into this film expecting greatness you will be disappointed; if you come in with low or no expectations you will be come out more than satisfied.
Film Rating: 69%
Breakdown (How Beneath the Planet of the Apes scored 69%):
Production Design: 7 out of 10
Cinematography: 7 out of 10
Re-playability: 7 out of 10
Originality: 6 out of 10
Costumes: 8 out of 10
Directing: 7 out of 10
Editing: 6 out of 10
Acting: 7 out of 10
Music: 8 out of 10
No comments:
Post a Comment