Change Your Image
Thomas Dunson
Now, when I talk to God I know he understands / He said: "Stick by me, and I'll be your guiding hand / But don't ask me what I think of you / I might not give the answer that you want me to" (Peter Green, �Oh Well�, 1969)
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970)
A painful, long and hard fall from grace...
... not just for humanity in the context of the story but for the makers of this sorry excuse for a motion picture.
This "continuation" of Franklin J. Schaffner's «Planet of the Apes (1968)» (an eight of out ten, in my book) is remarkable only in one regard: Seldomly did a big-budget sequel with key people from the first outing still attached ever achieve such a dramatic distance in quality from its predecessor.
Instead of a gripping drama, developed from smart philosophical speculation and posing some pretty big questions about the human condition (without making the mistake of biting off more than it could chew) – yes, that's what Schaffner's film was for me –, all we get here is a stupendously stupid parade of bad ideas¹.
Recycle most of the plot points from the original, put in some cheap, forced Vietnam War allegories, add a bunch of funny, nuke-worshipping mutant-psychics (or whatever you wanna call those radioactively contaminated, amazingly unevolved clowns), throw in some hints of Wells' «The Time Machine» for "good" measure², make sure the overall story is ludicrous and no decent line is allowed into the script, execute everything in the most inane way imaginable, and Bob's your uncle!
incompetent, crude, illogical, absurd, unimaginative, silly (no, strike that, that's too kind a word), boring, bland, void and plain dumb – those are just some of the attributes that come to mind when shudderingly thinking about that atrocity of a movie.
It's no wonder Charlton Heston insisted on his character being killed off...
You can see how little thought went into it all by the fact that it was here where an element was established that was to become a major part in the ongoing series and that seems to run counter to much of what parts 2 to 5 supposedly (and clumsily) were about, namely "speciesism" and "racism". It is here where the singling out and defining of gorillas as an inherently, a temperamentally / "racially" / genetically bad subset, prone to aggression, violence, war, begins.
James Franciscus does a decent job, in my opinion, making the best out of what he had to work with. His character, Brent, is a quasi-mirror image of George Taylor (Heston), protagonist from the previous tale who is mercifully relegated to a very minor rôle (just short of a cameo) this time. Fittingly, even Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter) mistakes the two when first encountering Brent.
A straight remake it is not, if only just. And it is those rehashed parts that actually work best. So, would I have preferred more of that, then? NO! One, "work best" doesn't say much in the context of this mess, as those scenes still are excruciatingly bad, just not AS bad as the rest. And, two, while conceivably a slightly "better" result might have been achieved, I probably would've loathed it even more, since by evoking additional comparisons, it just would've become even more palpitantly obvious how utterly unnecessary this shameful undertaking has always been to begin with.
As is, they didn't meddle with everything from the original, but – and that's way worse – with the things they should have left alone most, for example by retroactively ruining the openness and mysteriousness of its ending by spelling it out – and with the tritest of explanations at that³.
Had this turd been a stand-alone project or at least not associated itself with the fascinating adventure from two years earlier in key aspects, I couldn't have cared less, but as things are now, it really tarnishes that which it props itself up on.
So, I guess the main purpose of this rant (I'm afraid what initially was planned as a review has degenerated badly – just like the above mentioned merry band of men-turned-mutants), would be to both warn every sentient being under the open sky of this abomination (meaning, if you love the bugger, don't even place your chimp in front of the TV when it is on) and at the same time to urge those of you who've already had the misfortune of watching this garbage or the follow-up follies, thereby losing all inclination to ever again go near anything with the words "planet of the apes" in the title, not to let that undoubtedly horrific trip deter you from seeking out the classic that was there first, as you'd be missing out on a great piece of cinéma that is – despite all the copying going on here – nothing like the exercises in the insufferable that came after it.
1/10
TD
¹: No, that's not redundant: By that I mean a better execution of the abysmal plot could've at least made for a marginal better experience – although, honestly, I'm glad nobody with any talent (save for the actors) got sucked into this project: it's much more appropriate this way, as form and function are in perfect harmony, so to speak.
²: As the concept of the two societies (although, technically, it's at least three: human-like apes, ape-like humans and mind-manipulating "super"-humans) clearly borrows elements from that story with its struggle between the Eloi and the Morlocks.
³: Kind of reminded me of Lucas out of his free will tragically destroying much of the skillful narrative he himself had created with the original three chapters in the «Star Wars» saga. I still remember vividly that sense of wonderment when Luke first meets and finds out about Yoda in «Empire»: "How could this quirky, cranky gnome have ever been a great warrior?", I mumbled to myself – well, turns out, he's just a hyperactive Muppet, that looks and acts in his younger years exactly the way your average dinosaur-and-action-figure-wielding four-year-old would've imagined it...
An American Werewolf in London (1981)
a lovely stroll on the moors
THE GOOD
terrifying and laugh-out-loud moments alternate and occasionally even coexist (not the most easiest things to blend, as illustrated by the fact that there are very few successful results out there; this is one of them)
never over-the-top funny and thus manages to keep up the masterfully established eerie atmosphere
terrific soundtrack, full of beautiful and cleverly employed songs (among them various interpretations of «Blue Moon» as well as CCR's «Bad Moon Rising»)
references classic Universal monster horror films – whereas nowadays any kind of nods are confined to what was in theaters the previous year – I'm looking at you, «Scary Movie» (not that there's a particular reason for me to pounce specifically on that stinker, it's just used in a synechdochic way, if you will, to represent all that other revue-style garbage that there truly is no shortage of, where parody – which is arguably the kind of humor those flicks aim for – degenerates into an incoherent series of poorly written and executed sketches that cater to an illiterate teen or teen-minded audience)
Mark Twain is referenced – hooray for the days when culture was cool and one wasn't frowned upon for being able to speak at least one language reasonably well!
all the references feel natural, make sense within the story and often help to further it
the short but effective nightmare (and nightmare within a nightmare) sequences
the metamorphosis: classic and painful to watch
the hilarious dialogue where the undead suggest ways to David of how to best kill himself (and the way it's staged – in a porno theater, all the undead covered in blood – doesn't hurt, either...)
the "ghost zombies" (or "zombie ghosts"?) concept: walking the earth, yet invisible to the non-cursed, immaterial, yet with gruesome wounds and decomposing (becomes a running gag with Jack) – original and unique
loving attention to detail throughout and filled with nice little touches: keep an eye out for the disclaimer at the end of the closing credits
THE BAD
not enough of the moors and «The Slaughtered Lamb»: those were easily the best, for most atmospheric and creepy sequences in the whole movie; I want more! Do you hear me, Mr. Landis: more! Why not give us a whole film set in that village / hamlet / whatever and its surroundings? (a prequel, sequel, whatever)
while not downright bad, the ending certainly is controversial: some consider it radical, fresh and consequential, others find it cheap, unimaginative and random, and I tend to at least lean towards the latter group (what the former describe, in my opinion more applies to, for example, the ending – or the turn of events near it – of «To Live and Die in L.A.» – it's just much more convincing and fitting there, since that film is more "existentialist" in subject and tone in the first place)
in fact, the whole film has an uneven feel to it, like they rushed into production with an unfinished script (yeah, sure, many times that's a deliberate creative choice, but whatever the reasons, it's just not fully working here); it's still much better than the bulk of its genre relatives, but its ever so slight imperfections go beyond almost expected things like continuity errors or revealing mistakes and are instead structurally; one example: Doc Hirsch is a great character, fabulously played, but despite considerable screen time he goes nowhere, and a similar fate befalls the cop duo; what is there is good to great in itself, it's just that not all the parts integrate themselves into a larger whole, so that the result is not an integral whole but an accumulation of all kinds of different pieces – kind of like a patchwork rug instead of a unified whole
THE UGLY
rated "R" for a reason; and while it certainly can't compete with the gruesomeness, disgustingness and sadism indulged in by the legion of representatives of the so-called (for misnamed) "torture porn" sub-genre that's all the rave currently (and why should it?), it's still not for the squeamish
OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE NATURE OF MAN
"These dumb-ass kids. They never appreciate anything you do for them."
HOW THIS MOVIE WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE – OR NOT
does it for lonely night strolls on the moors (or in some metro tunnels, for that matter) what «Jaws» did for swimming in the ocean? – nah, but I'd still like to see your face in the unlikely event of hearing a howling in such a situation...
THINGS NOT TO BRING UP DURING A CONVERSATION
"Excuse me. What's that star on the wall for?"
QUESTIONS THIS MOVIE EVOKES
how came the first werewolf to be anyway? (bestiality?)
what would you do if you were in David's shoes?
could David be held accountable for the murders?
how will Jack look in the afterlife?
who slaughtered the lamb?
WHAT I LEARNED FROM WATCHING THIS MOVIE
"Have you ever talked to a corpse? It's boring!"
undead people have feelings (and eat!), too
"Queen Elizabeth is a man! Prince Charles is a f*ggot! Winston Churchill was full of sh*t! Shakespeare is French!"
British cops are exceptionally forbearing
now, not even the porno theater is safe anymore
sometimes, love is not strong enough
WATCH...
if you like your movies with guts in more than one way
AVOID...
if you consider yourself easily offended
IF YOU LIKED THIS ONE, DON'T WATCH...
«An American Werewolf in Paris»: lame, lame, lame
THE BOTTOM LINE
Worthy of not only watching but owning. So, go out and get it! Now! But remember:
"Stay on the road. Keep clear of the moors." "Beware the moon, lads."
(Agree? Disagree? In parts or whole? Have something to correct or add? Let me know!)