Somewhat dated and dumb. The sets,costumes, and make up aren't even state of the art for 1968. In the same year, Kubrick's "2001" had actors playing apes more convincingly, and "Barbarella" had more interesting sets. Some of the exterior sets in "Planet of the Apes" looked like they were influenced by the "Flinstones".
A clever premise has not been developed with interesting or convincing details. The script is uneven ,contains inconsistencies, and lacks a strong conflict and point of view. And except for Kim Hunter, you don't necessarily care about the characters. Heston seems a bit long in the tooth to be an astronaut. And these astronauts of the future are none too bright. Wouldn't Heston and crew have looked at the sun, the atmosphere, and the topography, and realized that they were back on earth? Can you say Utah? And wouldn't they have guarded their only possessions (clothes and backpacks) more carefully? I'm assuming their backpakcks contained something necessary and useful for their survival and protection.
And it's never made clear what the apes plan to do with the humans. Why don't they lobotomize Heston as they did "Landon"? Why shoot Heston, and then nurse him back to health? Especially since he represents a truth the elders want to suppress. And in this ape society, who's in charge? The apes seem brutal at first, and then benign, like Disney characters. And is there a munitions factory somewhere on this planet? Where do they get their guns and amunition? And could the Statue of Liberty remain intact after the destruction of the world?
Franklin Schaffner uses space and geography imaginatively. Some of the situations are interesting, and the dialogue is sometimes clever and witty. The film begins slowly, and too much time is wasted on scenes of the apes refusing to acknowledge or deal with the obvious;that Taylor is an intelligent being. Overall, it's reasonably entertaining and worth a look. Not a film that can stand repeated viewings or scrutiny. If you like "Planet of the Apes", try John Boorman's "Zardoz"(1974) which is weirder, more imaginative, and intense.
A clever premise has not been developed with interesting or convincing details. The script is uneven ,contains inconsistencies, and lacks a strong conflict and point of view. And except for Kim Hunter, you don't necessarily care about the characters. Heston seems a bit long in the tooth to be an astronaut. And these astronauts of the future are none too bright. Wouldn't Heston and crew have looked at the sun, the atmosphere, and the topography, and realized that they were back on earth? Can you say Utah? And wouldn't they have guarded their only possessions (clothes and backpacks) more carefully? I'm assuming their backpakcks contained something necessary and useful for their survival and protection.
And it's never made clear what the apes plan to do with the humans. Why don't they lobotomize Heston as they did "Landon"? Why shoot Heston, and then nurse him back to health? Especially since he represents a truth the elders want to suppress. And in this ape society, who's in charge? The apes seem brutal at first, and then benign, like Disney characters. And is there a munitions factory somewhere on this planet? Where do they get their guns and amunition? And could the Statue of Liberty remain intact after the destruction of the world?
Franklin Schaffner uses space and geography imaginatively. Some of the situations are interesting, and the dialogue is sometimes clever and witty. The film begins slowly, and too much time is wasted on scenes of the apes refusing to acknowledge or deal with the obvious;that Taylor is an intelligent being. Overall, it's reasonably entertaining and worth a look. Not a film that can stand repeated viewings or scrutiny. If you like "Planet of the Apes", try John Boorman's "Zardoz"(1974) which is weirder, more imaginative, and intense.