stew100

This film has only two problems: a low-budget that makes the production look cheesy, and a nothing of a script that also pretty damn silly. Really this final Apes film was only made to entertain kids and squeeze out a few more bucks from the fans. The original 1968 classic is my favorite movie, yet I despise this one because I can't view it without getting depressed. The series deserved a much better conclusion than this. >

This, the third in the series that wasn't intended to be, is the best of the sequels. It's not as hokey and unpleasant as the second, and not as cheap, trite and silly as the last two. In fact, "Escape" is a fairly entertaining, witty and thought-provoking film. The only real gripe I have against it is that Roddy McDowall's and Kim Hunter's make-up is a cheaper version of the ones they wore in the original -- it shows and that makes their characters less convincing. However, the dialogue and McDowall's and Hunter's performances are so good that the movie overcomes its low-budget production. I would recommend this movie without reservations, except for the fact that the original is just so damn much better and the only one you should see. But if you have to view one of the sequels, this is the most satisfying of the lot, and the ending made me cry as a kid, and may make you cry, too.

I first saw this film in 1968 when I was eight years old. No other film I'd seen up to that point so sustained suspension of disbelief as this one did. The actors in ape make-up seemed utterly real, and after the conclusion I left the theatre speechless. The movie gripped my imagination and has never let go. I'm now almost forty-one and it's still my favorite movie. That's not to say I think it's perfect. The story has plot holes and the make-up, once so convincing, now looks somewhat primative. Still the movie holds up. It is extremely well-directed (this film put Franklin J. Schaffner on the map), the Panavision photography of Leon Shamroy is excellent, the performances of the actors in ape make-up is great (I don't think Roddy McDowall ever gave a better performance as an adult), the costumes deserved their Oscar nomination as did Jerry Goldsmith's landmark score. (In fact, Goldsmith's score is now probably the film's best element. Few other scores fit a film as well as this one does. The music soundtrack album has never not been in release on records, tape and now CD.) Even Charlton Heston is better than average here. Some claim he overacts, but I think he's just about perfect, esp. since his being the star is one of the movie's biggest jokes. If you can, rent this film in its THX transfer, and letterboxed since this is one of the best examples of what a Panavision film should look like, and Goldsmith's score is in stereo surround. I can't wait for it to come to DVD. I just wish 20th Century Fox didn't put the image of the 'surprise' ending on the box. And finally a word of warning, don't bother with the sequels -- none are as good as the first and at least two, esp. the last, are down right terrible. But if you must, "Escape From The Planet of the Apes" is the best. "Planet of the Apes" is such a great piece of Sci-Fi political and social allegory that a remake is on the way for 2001. I just hope they don't monkey around with it too much.

I just watched this movie again last night. I've seen it I don't know how many times, but every time I do I still laugh and laugh a lot. I remember seeing it for the first time back in the seventies on late night TV, and I was enchanted by it. It's lost a little of its charm since, but I was glad to see so many others here share my view that this is a very good comedy. I just wish I could see it again for the first time.

It's true that this is a better sequel to "The Wolf Man" (in fact I like the first twenty-five minutes of this movie more that "The Wolf Man."), but it's a better Frankenstein film than "House of Frankenstein" or "House of Dracula" because the Monster has more to do here, and it's better than "Ghost of Frankenstein" just because it's more fun. Poor Bela Lugosi gets ripped all the time for what a terrible job he did as the Monster in this one, but in fairness his role was severely edited. The monster originally could talk and was blind, but the producers felt Lugosi's voice coming from the Monster was more funny than frightening, and his dialogue wasn't all that great anyway, so out it all went. It's for this reason that the monster acts so strangely in the final cut, and the Monster was supposed to be sick anyway. It was a mistake to cast the too old Lugosi as the Monster, but don't blame Bela -- he probably did the best he could, but we'll never know. I also think it was a mistake to cast Lon Chaney Jr. as the Monster in "Ghost." Both he and Lugosi were too round-faced to take over from Karloff. And the ending of "Ghost" was one of the biggest blunders in the entire series. But this film manages to survive all the mistakes and still be very entertaining. I've probably seen it fifty times in my life, and I can always watch it again.

This is the first Universal Frankenstein film without Karloff as the Monster, and the first one that's a "B" film. It's well-done, fast-paced, and fun most of the way, despite Lon Chaney Jr. being all wrong as the Monster. Chaney was too heavy and round-faced to replace the more gaunt Karloff, and he underplays the Monster to such an extent that he seems made of stone (maybe this movie should have been called "Ghost of Golem"). All the pathos of the Karloff Monster are gone, and with it much of what made the Monster compelling is gone too. But worse is the ending, which I won't spoil for you except to say that it was a huge blunder that the Universal Frankenstein series never recovered from. From this point on the Monster was just a lumbering, souless killing machine -- when he wasn't just laying around on some slab someplace. So, while I enjoy this film, I despise its ending.

This film's low budget really does it in. The make-up that had worked so well in the first film looks cheap and phony here. The script is half-baked and if you think about it, kind of tasteless. They should have been more subtle with that equating blacks with apes thing. The film is well-directed and its fast pace helps, but it really needed to be better mounted and given a longer running time to develop its story. As it is it's just not very convincing and even more than a little silly. And when I look at a good actor like Roddy McDowall all hunched-over in that make-up, I have to wonder, "Did he really need the gig that much?"

This is one of the all-time worst sequels. It totally misunderstands what made the first film work, and even at its own level is a mess of a movie. It's overly melodramatic hokum, that only works at that old-time serial, cliffhanger level. It has an appeal almost completely at a comic book level, and the the fact that the original was able to transcend that shows how much better the first one was. This is a film they never should have made, and it's amazing that they could make another APES film afterward. That film, ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES (1971) is much better, and really the only sequel to bother seeing.

This film is one of the best that the Hollywood studio system ever produced. Most today might not agree with that because the craft of making movies has developed so much since this film was made nearly seventy years ago. But in its day this film was stylishly directed and very effective -- it scared the hell out of people. Director James Whale's style may seem quaint now, but he knew what he wanted to do to an audience and he succeeded. Many people also credit Whale's fortunate choice of Boris Karloff to play the monster, and he's very good, but credit should equally go to Jack Pierce's make-up design. The monster is one of the most recognizable images of the 20th century, and has lost none of its fascination. However, the film is now a very old one, and it does creak quite a lot. It may have been the "Jaws" of its day, but that day passed away long ago. Now, its dialogue seems very stilted and the acting has more in common with silent pictures than modern ones (which is kind of ironic considering that the most impressive performance, Karloff's, is a largely silent pantomime). And, how much better this film would play now if it had a score! Still, it has great gothic atmosphere, was the blue print for all horror films to come, and is talked about today at a surprising level. It also has one of the best damn sequels ever made. This film remains a must-see even into the 21st century. And oh yeah, it's not the Mary Shelley novel, but then that book is even more of an antique.

I don't think time has been kind to this landmark science fiction film. Though it was a hit in 1966 and paved the way for other big-budget S.F. films such as "Planet of the Apes," its story is silly, the dialogue stilted, and the special effects now seem primitive. The interior of the human body is created by a series of large sets that look like... large sets. The acting is often unconvincing, and Raquel Welch is especially stiff. As far as the science of it goes, the story is ludicrous, but as fantasy it's compelling because there's a one hour time limit for the "micronauts" to complete their task before they grow back to normal size. So, in that respect the film is exciting. Leonard Rosenman's music score helps, and though she can't act, Raquel Welch is probably the film's best special effect. If you're a fan of S.F. films and haven't seen this one, it's a must-see.

I think this adaptation of Jules Verne's 1864 French novel is a prime example of 1950's wide-screen motion picture family entertainment -- it's wholesome and has a little something for everyone. This is the best film version of this story, the most recent of which was done for the USA Channel on cable in 1999 and was very campy. They couldn't match the 1959 production values of this 20th Century-Fox film that has excellent color photography and art direction, and Bernard Herrmann's wonderfully atmospheric music score. These elements have continued to make it a favorite with fantasy film fans who can appreciate older movies, though it's true that some of it is silly at times, but I don't think the film's makers were trying for a serious movie. It also contains one of James Mason's best performances (He was always good). I have this film in its most recent letterboxed version on laserdisc. Seeing this film letterboxed and in stereo-surround is the only way you can appreciate the impact it must of had when it was in theaters at Christmas 1959. Hopefully this film will come to DVD soon.

When I first saw this film on TV in the early 70s, I thought it was so cheesy I gave it very little attention. Then in the early 90s it was released on laserdisc in a letterboxed version and I bought it on a lark. After I viewed in the first time I still didn't think much of it and thought maybe I wasted my money. But then, as the years passed, I would look at it every so often and now I love the film. It is an acquired taste. You first have to love vampire films -- the old-fashioned, Gothic kind. Next, you need to appreciate Polanski's style and his understated approach. It's also best to watch this film late at night with the lights off, and especially with a snow storm outside. Give it a chance and this film will creep up on you. Hopefully it will come to DVD soon.

This movie, barely promoted by Paramount back in 1964, has acquired over the years a cult following, mostly by men who remember seeing it when boys. I first saw this film on TV in the 60s when I was a kid. The first half is very good, once you suspend disbelief because we know know that Mars has little atmosphere and a human can't survive in the open on the surface. But given that, the first part of the film may remind some of the beginning of a better know sci-fi film, "Planet of the Apes." This film came first though, and the location shooting in Death Valley is excellent as we follow the stranded astronaut's struggle to survive. But the film somewhat falls apart in the second half as aliens in unconvincing costumes and spaceships borrowed from "War of the Worlds" (the budget was very limited) are introduced and the focus of the film shifts. Still the movie remains enjoyable at its own level. The lead actor, Paul Mantee, actually reminds you of the original Mercury astronauts, and he's very good. The other actor, Vic Lundin, playing the alien "Friday" (referring to the Defoe classic) has a much harder job pulling off his part, but he manages well. And Mona the wholly monkey will keep the kids entertained. A very good movie that's worth checking out. Unfortunately, I don't think it's currently on video.

I first saw this film in 1968 when I was eight years old. No other film I'd seen up to that point so sustained suspension of disbelief as this one did. The actors in ape make-up seemed utterly real, and after the conclusion I left the theatre speechless. The movie gripped my imagination and has never let go. I'm now almost forty-one and it's still my favorite movie. That's not to say I think it's perfect. The story has plot holes and the make-up, once so convincing, now looks somewhat primative. Still the movie holds up. It is extremely well-directed (this film put Franklin J. Schaffner on the map), the Panavision photography of Leon Shamroy is excellent, the performances of the actors in ape make-up is great (I don't think Roddy McDowall ever gave a better performance as an adult), the costumes deserved their Oscar nomination as did Jerry Goldsmith's landmark score. (In fact, Goldsmith's score is now probably the film's best element. Few other scores fit a film as well as this one does. The music soundtrack album has never not been in release on records, tape and now CD.) Even Charlton Heston is better than average here. Some claim he overacts, but I think he's just about perfect, esp. since his being the star is one of the movie's biggest jokes. If you can, rent this film in its THX transfer, and letterboxed since this is one of the best examples of what a Panavision film should look like, and Goldsmith's score is in stereo surround. I can't wait for it to come to DVD. I just wish 20th Century Fox didn't put the image of the 'surprise' ending on the box. And finally a word of warning, don't bother with the sequels -- none are as good as the first and at least two, esp. the last, are down right terrible. But if you must, "Escape From The Planet of the Apes" is the best. "Planet of the Apes" is such a great piece of Sci-Fi political and social allegory that a remake is on the way for 2001. I just hope they don't monkey around with it too much.