Review of Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973) by Matthew D — 22 Jul 2009

Okay this one was actually pretty good. The other three sequels were crap, especially "Conquest". But this one was fairly entertaining and well done. They finally explain the incongruities in the time line with the possibility that the future seen in the first film is not the same future they are now entering (i.

E. the past has been altered by Cornelius and Zeera going back in time and the characters are free to build their own future). While I hated this same cop-out of an explanation in Star Trek 2009, for Planet of the Apes (a total mess of inconsistencies and holes in the storyline) it actually works and ties everything together at the end.

This movie actually has a lot of action in it which is good after the boredom that characterized the other sequels. The storyline actually makes sense and the script is well written. The characters are well established at this point so they are much more likable.

I must admit I like the gorillas and the evil humans from the city the best. They are much more "real" than Caesar and the other wimps. This movie actually leaves you with a good feeling at the end like the horrible future encountered by Charlton Heston may not happen after all.

On a stupid note though, why do they keep using Roddy McDowell as different chimps? He's a good actor sure but its ridiculous to keep seeing him again and again. They don't even try to make him look any different.

Imagine if Mark Hamill had been cast as Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequel trilogy. It would have been idiotic regardless of whether they are supposed to be father and son. Anyways this movie is still a sequel and still inferior to the original Planet of the Apes (one hell of a movie) but this is the best of the sequels.

You might want to check it out.