Very Cool!!!

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

The acting in this movie is really good.

A sequel to the 1968 masterwork was wholly unnecessary--much less four of them. On the bright side, the sequels eventually became the basis for perhaps the most intelligent blockbuster franchise of the 2010s (and likely beyond). Upon reviewing it with a more critical perspective, the decline in quality here is far more apparent. It does however find redeeming qualities in its allegories surrounding the Vietnam War, even if a little less subtle than its already blunt predecessor. But at least it was short!Beneath the Planet of the Apes was directed by Ted Post, and is rather unabashedly a studio movie (made by studio executives for profit as opposed to being made by genuinely inspired filmmakers). The film begins by recycling the last few minutes of the first installment, which partially justifies itself through an extended sequence intended to establish continuity, but for the most part is just lazy. This film doesn't have the directorial flair of the first. There is little to no buildup for the reveal or journey to Ape City, and we are thrust into the world again without much craft or care. The cinematography is often shaky or awkward, and the action sequences feel uninspired and obligatory. Even the shots of Ape city don't show the scope that the original achieved, I suspect because they didn't rebuild the whole set for budgetary reasons. That being said, the sets in much of the rest of the film are very strong: especially the gorilla training grounds and the subterranean environments--in which the cinematography becomes better, if still not great. Thankfully, it won't beat you over the head excessively with its pitfalls thanks to its quick pacing.The screenplay for this film saw the departure of Rod Serling and Michael Wilson, now written by producer Mort Abrahams and receiving treatment by Paul Dehn (who would fill the writer's role for the remainder of the original series). It's never a good sign when producers or studio executives start to write your films, but Dehn did a serviceable job considering. While the screenplay has substantial flaws, it also contains the most redeeming qualities of the film. The most noticeable disparities in screenplay quality were the story and characters. For example, here's a short quote that sums up the role of James Franciscus' Brent: "We loved Taylor." Charlton Heston made it clear he didn't want to return, and though he has cameos that bookend the film, Brent was basically a "discount Taylor". Franciscus however plays a more sympathizable character, which is relayed to us by showing him nursing the other astronaut after the crash. Though less interesting and layered than Taylor (who was a study on existentialism and ego), Brent is more likable (albeit generic), and hence easier to follow.There's a very notable and very questionable plot decision as well. The mutants could easily have had just made an illusion that covered up the entrance to their hiding place, and the apes would've never found them. Instead, they're daft enough to intentionally create a provocative image, which not only angers the apes, but confirms and gives away their existence. Hence endangering them. Hence destroying the world. I do however like the guts the movie has at the end. It's ambitions didn't always pan out, but at least it didn't shy away from tragedy, which is a tradition that has stuck (thankfully) for much the rest of the franchise.There's a nice portrayal of hypocrisy in the film, which becomes a theme in the Vietnam War allegory. An instance of this is Zaius telling Cornelius "Let us have no violence", as he prepares to march out with an army equipped to fight the unknown. As dumb as the mutants are, they serve a role in an excellent satire of religion and violence--specifically pertaining to the Vietnam War. There is a noticeable emulation of Vietnam War protest rallies as the troops are marching out, as those in power ignore the civilians' outcry of a pointless war. It is clear that the apes do not really know who the enemy is, and though they won't admit it to themselves, what they are even out there for. The mutants manipulate and use their "weapons of peace" at a distance while others get hurt, yet are spared much of the blame, just like the American government. A quote from Cornelius sums up the theme of powerlessness: "How can we take initiative when they (the Ape Council) hold(s) all the power?" There is also a juxtaposition between the worship of the Apes' Lawgiver and the mutants' Alpha- Omega Bomb, expressing thoughts of religious intolerance and more.The performances in this installment aren't at their strongest. Linda Harrison is shaky, and the part where she speaks at the end is dumb and breaks basic continuity. Roddy's replacement as Cornelius (now played by David Watson) is noticeably different, and easily the lesser portrayal. There is a degree of quirkiness and charm missing from Watson's version. James Franciscus is inoffensive in his role, and Heston is still playing Heston. Kim Hunter and Maurice Evans are easily the highlights of the film, and maintain their characters' depth.Notice the pullover masks they used in the film due to budgetary restraints, and how obnoxiously noticeable and laughably bad they were. The mutant makeup is OK, though not as impressive as Chamber's ape prosthetics. Finally, the score by Leonard Rosenman emulates Goldsmith's rather well, and manages to be competent and serviceable to the film even if it lacks a degree of Goldsmith's charm and memorability. Though this is one of the weakest points in the franchise, this feature is not completely irredeemable, and thankfully still isn't the franchise at its worst. The social commentary maintains a base level of intelligence that makes it worth viewing for fans of the series. Unlike its predecessor however, this is not essential viewing.Score: 6.5/10

Movie that continues at the exact spot the original left off. At the and of The Planet of the Apes more than anything I wanted to see more. And when that more came, after promising start, it suddenly turned to lousy movie with crappy ending. I can't recall last time I was this much disappointed. Really sad.6/10

Despite widespread condemnation on release and a dearth of originality I quite enjoyed this first follow up to the sci-fi classic. It's not a brilliant film by any means, but it has some fun, if dated effects and a second half that covers new ground in an interesting way. The film begins with a good recap reminding us of the ending of the first film before turning into a virtual retread of that movie, with Charlton Heston lookalike James Franciscus playing a new crash-landed astronaut captured and humiliated by the war-like apes. He even hooks up with the same cute mute girl from the first film, Nova.Then the plot moves underground and we're into new territory involving super bombs, a psychic society and outright warfare. Things lead up to an excellent, extended fight scene when Franciscus finally meets up with Heston for some seriously old-fashioned fisticuffs, and then there's time for a twist ending which brings new meaning to the word 'downbeat'. I really liked this bloody way of finalising the series once and for all, ensuring that there would be no sequels (except, of course, there were). The cinematography is the best thing this film has to offer: searing desert scenes that wouldn't be amiss in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and giant underground cities that were cutting edge in the late '60s. I've always liked Franciscus and he plays the action man hero pretty well; Heston steals his (few) scenes and Linda Harrison blows away memories of Raquel Welch as the sexy love interest. Not a great film by any means, but not a bad one either, this suffers from paling in comparison with the original.

The typical sequel formula goes as follows: more of the exact same, only not as good. Unfortunately Beneath the Planet of the Apes falls to that trap as well, trying to tell the exact same story as the first one, but with the added problem that it has to take into account the events of that first film as well. Thus it comes across as pale imitation instead of something new or innovative.What makes this doubly baffling is the fact that they had a very good hook for a sequel at the end of the first film. Taylor (Charles Heston) had escaped from the apes, had found the truth about the planet he had crashed on and was all set to find a new place to live with Nova (Linda Harrison). And we do get some of that storyline, for about five minutes, after which everything seems to reset as a new astronaut (James Franciscus) crashes on to the planet, taking the place of Taylor, who promptly disappears for much of the runtime. Apparently Heston was reluctant to reprise his role, which limited his role to that of an extended cameo, which kind of explain the decision to go with the new astronaut, but it's still annoying that they have to go through the exact same scenes we already saw in the first film.The film manages to cover a lot of new ground in the second half of the film, but unfortunately that new ground just doesn't seem to fit in with the existing setting at all. It's like if you took two completely different scifi films and smashed them together to create something utterly new and bizarre. It's creative, sure, but there's little to no logic behind it, and what's even worse, the allegories kept getting more forced and farcical. And they weren't exactly subtle in the first film either, but at least they were poignant.And yet, I can honestly say that I liked the film. It is very much its own creation, unlike anything I have ever seen before, and while it lacks the depth of the original, it is very followable and entertaining. Not a good film by any objective standard, but a decent film to check out if you like older scifi films and want to see more of the original Apes universe.