'Planet of the Apes' Film Series Overview

As a general rule science fiction doesn't age very well. Special effects that were once cutting edge become laughable. Increased scientific knowledge results in leaps in logic that are harder to make. So it's a true sign of something remarkable if a science fiction film is still considered great after more than 40 years. "Planet of the Apes" was released in 1968 and hasn't left the popular imagination yet. The film has four sequels, a remake and now a fresh take entering theaters just this year. This is a look back at the ups and downs of this remarkable film series and its continuing legacy. Fair warning, this article will contain spoilers for all films discussed.

" Planet of the Apes "
The original is a classic for a reason. Taking a somewhat goofy premise and executing it masterfully and with intelligence yielded this enduring piece of cinema. Astronaut Taylor is returning to Earth after what for him has been 18 months and 2000 years for his home world, due to the effects of near light speed travel. However he crash lands on a strange planet where apes hold dominion over man. Charleton Heston's performance as Taylor has become the stuff of parody, but it is a powerhouse performance that, while not naturalistic, is perfectly suited for the film. The make-up for the apes may be outdated but it still works, largely due to the fact that extremely talented actors were put to use in the roles. Kim Hunter as Zira, Roddy McDowall as Cornelius and Maurice Evans as Dr. Zaius all give emotive and memorable performances. The impressionistic score by Jerry Goldsmith also goes a long way in elevating the film even further. The twist at the end that it's been Earth all along is well known by now but it still holds its power regardless.

" Beneath the Planet of the Apes "
The phenomenal success of the first one made Fox eager for a sequel. The results however lost almost all the magic of the original. The story was severely hampered by the fact that Heston only agreed to return for a few days of filming. There's no way the film could just ignore Taylor but a new hero was needed; enter the wholly redundant Brent, played by James Fransiscus. Brent feels like Taylor-lite, he has virtually all the same experiences but now they have no impact. It doesn't help that the character's existence makes no sense. Why would a rescue mission be sent for a ship that wasn't expected back for almost 2,000 years? The mutants are the final nail in the coffin, as they drag the film down to the level of B grade heavy handed sci-fi which the original had managed to rise above. All subtly was gone as the mutants were shown to worship an atomic bomb and there were even ape peace protests (remember this was released during the Vietnam era.) Adding a nihilistic ending where the Earth is destroyed, while somewhat gutsy, did nothing to improve the film.

" Escape from the Planet of the Apes "
How do you keep a series going after you've ended the world? Go back in time of course! While it fails some logic tests (though not as badly as the previous film) it's a rather ingenious way to keep the franchise going. Even setting aside the destruction of the Earth the future setting had pretty much been played out by now. Flipping the situation and putting familiar ape characters through similar experiences to what Taylor went through is a fun switch and it plays well. The fish out of water humor does get a tad on the goofy side at times but the social commentary has thankfully been dialed back to something more in line with the first film. The surprisingly brutal ending to the film, in which Zira and Cornelius are gunned down and only their infant survives undetected, keeps the film in line with the bleak outlook the series tends to have overall.

" Conquest of the Planet of the Apes "
Picking up some time after "Escape," this film follows Caesar, the now grown child of Zira and Cornelius who is portrayed by Roddy McDowall. There is a half hearted explanation as to why apes are now being used as a slave labor force, but the reason isn't really what's important. What's important here is the intelligent Caesar seeing the cruel treatment of his kind and bringing about revolution. It's an extremely gutsy move, and rather unflinching when it comes to justifying Caesar's sometimes vicious tactics. Sadly the reaction of the audience a preview screening lead to the inclusion of a rather out of place "now let there be peace" coda to Caesar's revolutionary speech. While it undercuts what came before it the film still stands as the best in the series behind the original.

" Battle for the Planet of the Apes "
Between the time of the previous film and this mankind has fulfilled the promise of the first film and more or less wiped itself out with nuclear war. Caesar leads a small group of survivors in building a new society, hoping to maintain the shaky alliance between man and ape. However another group of more violent survivors, the precursors to the mutants from "Beneath," threaten the society and fighting from within might be the end of everything. Following the darker story of the previous film the producer made the conscious choice to make this a more family friendly adventure. The unfortunately result just feels rather generic and bland, especially compared to "Conquest." This sent ended the original series on a bit of a whimper. The highlight is the brilliant choice of legendary actor/director John Huston, who lent his presence and unmistakable voice to the character of the Lawgiver who bookends the film.

" Planet of the Apes "
Tim Burton's puzzling "re-imagining" of the original film was big on production value but low on impact. The make-up is undoubtedly leaps and bounds ahead of the original series; however that's the only area in which this could be said to be an improvement. The performances for the apes were largely one dimensional, lacking in the nuance of the original film. The makers were smart enough to not have it take place on Earth (that twist was too well known) and the replacement explanation works well enough. However it was decided that some sort of twist ending was needed. What they actually came up with made absolutely no logical sense whatsoever, with the hero returning to a modern day Earth that somehow had Apes in place of humans but otherwise was the same (down to an ape version of the Lincoln memorial featuring the ape villain in place of the famous president.)

" Rise of the Planet of the Apes "
At its heart this is a remake of "Conquest," just removed from the time traveling continuity of the original series. However the premise is basically unchanged: a super intelligent chimpanzee named Caesar leads his fellow apes in a revolution against mankind after being mistreated for too long. The actors in suits and masks have been abandoned in favor of motion capture and computer graphics. Using actor Andy Serkis, a veteran of this special effects technique who also played the titular ape in the most recent " King Kong ," Caesar and the other apes come to life on the screen in a whole new way. Critics are already praising the bravery of the film for its faith in the apes to be the heart of the film rather than the humans. A worthy successor to the ground breaking original and perhaps the start of a whole new series of films.