Great video again... fyi (everyone) this series is pretty much the first time an American movie and its sequels had a single storyline/continuity. so yeah, they recapped the end of the first one at the beginning... before this movies and sequels were always basically stand alone stories, like episodes of old / early TV shows. And after the Apes movies the Star Wars movies were the only other movies to expect an audience to know earlier movies, for another like twenty years, ish. (In American movies, Japanese and H.K. movies were never that pokey and dumb)
Ahhh I see that makes a lot of sense. I didn’t knock it down for that cause I wasn’t really sure if it was a huge thing back then and I kinda assumed it was cause people might not forget but that’s really cool! Thanks for tuning in again man I’ll make a video on the third one if this one passed the copyright strikes lol
@@joegordon2915 yes, but the sequels always make sure to recap previous movies completely and carefully, and they're written so if you watch them in isolation, you can still follow them. Still, though, you're not wrong. The Universal horror movies of the thirties were the first time repeat characters crossover for a sequel in a "shared universe" (I don't remember what the specific movie was, but it's multiple Universal monsters appearing together)
How else am I supposed to view it as a current liver of the present time? Movies age and that’s normal. If you like the movie despite its age that’s great, I can dislike a movie for that reason as well. 👍🏼
@@Eonity "It aged just fine" but you have to stop "viewing all things through a presentist lens." Pretty low hanging fruit, so I'll stop there. I'm sure I'd have loved the second movie just as much as as I did the first, but you gotta admit, it was made for a different time.
Beneath is likely the best of the sequels. Lower budget but nothing like as low as it will go. The music and sets are fine, new ideas are introduced and the ending is more surprising than the first.
i dont think it was a commentary on 1970s society i think it was just normal to do. can't be part of ape culture cause apes dont hurt other apes, that's like a big thing in the movies.
@@Eonity As I recall, I think it had a lot to do with being an influence on other films that came out later. It has been a while. Still not as good though as the original. Many films go through that for various reasons. When it was reported that HOWARD HUGHES would watch ICE STATION ZEBRA over ande over, it was reassessed.
I love the original Planted of the Apes series. It’s supposed to be mindless escapism. Although there is an underlying message about tolerance. Most movies fall apart if you take them too seriously.
--- GO TO SCHOOL . . . and get it right. Planet of the Apes (1967) and Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1969) are two years apart. To parse the errors in the script would be unsporting.
My information is according to Google searches and every search says the first was 1968 and the second was 1970 😭 idk where you’re getting your info can you send me a link to verify?
I stopped 5 minutes into this. Sorry man, if you want to be a legit movie critic you have to actually do the work and not just watch the movie and then "critique" it. "I don't remember this guy's name", so you're just going to call him New Taylor? Really? And how did Nova find Zira and Cornelius? She knew who they were from the first movie. Just because she's mute, their brains aren't the equivalent of apes, they're still capable of higher thought, which is why Nova gradually understood Taylor. And Cornelius looks odd in this movie? Well, since Roddy McDowell couldn't reprise his role and had to be replaced by another actor, of course he doesn't look the same, the prosthetics would look different. Sounds like you're younger, which is great, but you also sound like you don't even know who these great actors of the time were. You have potential, kid, but go back to the drawing board and start over.
@@Eonity Not if I don't watch it. 😆 Seriously though, you can take offense at the criticism or disagree with it or ignore it, no harm no foul. Not trying to insult, just pointing out that there's a lot of room for improvement and that there's potential for good material and reviews. If you really love movies and critiquing them, it'll show by the work you put into it. Good luck in your endeavor. Oh, and as for the third movie, EVERYBODY hates it lol.
im not critiquing a movie to be a movie critic, im critiquing it for fun lmao. this isnt supposed to be a super serious video its supposed to be my thoughts and a few jokes here and there. if you take it too seriously thats on you man. i was also told everyone hates the second movie and so far i mostly have comments bashing me 5 mins into the video without gathering my full thoughts on it lmao. obviously i called him new taylor because it was a soulless rehash of the first movies protagonist with no depth to him. in the first movie they made it very apparent that the humans are primitive and have no cognitive thinking skills beyond being what we consider to be apes. its not my fault they threw that out of the window for this movie. why else would they portray them to be animalistic (eg. nova wanting to just have sex with taylor, the humans going crazy when taylor pushed her aside when she removed his writing on the floor, the humans begging for sugar cubes like apes do in cages in our time.) they wouldn't have all these similarities if they werent trying to make ap oint. Cornelius still looks odd, regardless of who acted as him. lol. its not that he looks different its that it was done badly. do you know who the great actors of my time are? could you name them? do i have to know the great actors of the time to be able to review a movie fairly? your points are just there due to bias
I'm sick in the beginning of this video, sorry.
The original movie series is fine, still looks way better than the recent run of AI Apes crap.
Haven’t watched all of them but the story in the current one seems way better and more nuanced than this lol
Yeah they went totally apesh*t.
Great video again... fyi (everyone) this series is pretty much the first time an American movie and its sequels had a single storyline/continuity. so yeah, they recapped the end of the first one at the beginning... before this movies and sequels were always basically stand alone stories, like episodes of old / early TV shows. And after the Apes movies the Star Wars movies were the only other movies to expect an audience to know earlier movies, for another like twenty years, ish. (In American movies, Japanese and H.K. movies were never that pokey and dumb)
Ahhh I see that makes a lot of sense. I didn’t knock it down for that cause I wasn’t really sure if it was a huge thing back then and I kinda assumed it was cause people might not forget but that’s really cool! Thanks for tuning in again man I’ll make a video on the third one if this one passed the copyright strikes lol
The Universal Frankenstein movies had a continuing story line
@@joegordon2915 yes, but the sequels always make sure to recap previous movies completely and carefully, and they're written so if you watch them in isolation, you can still follow them. Still, though, you're not wrong. The Universal horror movies of the thirties were the first time repeat characters crossover for a sequel in a "shared universe" (I don't remember what the specific movie was, but it's multiple Universal monsters appearing together)
It aged just fine.
You just have to stop viewing all things through a presentist lens.
How else am I supposed to view it as a current liver of the present time? Movies age and that’s normal. If you like the movie despite its age that’s great, I can dislike a movie for that reason as well. 👍🏼
@@Eonity "It aged just fine" but you have to stop "viewing all things through a presentist lens." Pretty low hanging fruit, so I'll stop there.
I'm sure I'd have loved the second movie just as much as as I did the first, but you gotta admit, it was made for a different time.
Beneath is likely the best of the sequels. Lower budget but nothing like as low as it will go. The music and sets are fine, new ideas are introduced and the ending is more surprising than the first.
I liked 4 and 5 more
@Eonity 4 probably has the least to it of any of the films, it's a rebellion that's it.
I always thought that Cornelius "hitting" Zira was a description of Ape culture and not a commentary on 1970s society.
i dont think it was a commentary on 1970s society i think it was just normal to do. can't be part of ape culture cause apes dont hurt other apes, that's like a big thing in the movies.
When Beneath came out in 1970, it got pretty poor reviews, though overtime was better received.
thats pretty interesting. what caused the switch up?
@@Eonity As I recall, I think it had a lot to do with being an influence on other films that came out later. It has been a while. Still not as good though as the original. Many films go through that for various reasons. When it was reported that HOWARD HUGHES would watch ICE STATION ZEBRA over ande over, it was reassessed.
I love the original Planted of the Apes series. It’s supposed to be mindless escapism. Although there is an underlying message about tolerance. Most movies fall apart if you take them too seriously.
The movies underlying theme is about war and racism, what about that isn’t supposed to be taken serious? Lol
Cornelius was played by a different actor, David Watson in Beneath the Planet of the Apes, not Roddy McDowall from the original and latter ones.
Ah well they both do such great jobs, honestly all the actors in the movie are great. More on that in the third one
W video i thought this was a pretty good review, some people are just crying over an old poorly made movie 🤷🏽♀️
That’s what I’m sayin!! Thanks man, came from dbz video?
too many flashing and changing sceens, its made for tick tok brain but 22mins long, bad video
Am I supposed to play the entire movie? 💀
--- GO TO SCHOOL . . . and get it right. Planet of the Apes (1967) and Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1969) are two years apart. To parse the errors in the script would be unsporting.
My information is according to Google searches and every search says the first was 1968 and the second was 1970 😭 idk where you’re getting your info can you send me a link to verify?
@@Eonity --- YES. THE DATA ARE IN THE CREDITS of THE FILM . . . do the job right.
the film was shot a year prior, it was released 1968 and 1970 sorry man
I stopped 5 minutes into this. Sorry man, if you want to be a legit movie critic you have to actually do the work and not just watch the movie and then "critique" it. "I don't remember this guy's name", so you're just going to call him New Taylor? Really? And how did Nova find Zira and Cornelius? She knew who they were from the first movie. Just because she's mute, their brains aren't the equivalent of apes, they're still capable of higher thought, which is why Nova gradually understood Taylor. And Cornelius looks odd in this movie? Well, since Roddy McDowell couldn't reprise his role and had to be replaced by another actor, of course he doesn't look the same, the prosthetics would look different. Sounds like you're younger, which is great, but you also sound like you don't even know who these great actors of the time were. You have potential, kid, but go back to the drawing board and start over.
You’re gonna HATE the third movie’s review
@@Eonity Not if I don't watch it. 😆 Seriously though, you can take offense at the criticism or disagree with it or ignore it, no harm no foul. Not trying to insult, just pointing out that there's a lot of room for improvement and that there's potential for good material and reviews. If you really love movies and critiquing them, it'll show by the work you put into it. Good luck in your endeavor. Oh, and as for the third movie, EVERYBODY hates it lol.
im not critiquing a movie to be a movie critic, im critiquing it for fun lmao. this isnt supposed to be a super serious video its supposed to be my thoughts and a few jokes here and there. if you take it too seriously thats on you man. i was also told everyone hates the second movie and so far i mostly have comments bashing me 5 mins into the video without gathering my full thoughts on it lmao.
obviously i called him new taylor because it was a soulless rehash of the first movies protagonist with no depth to him.
in the first movie they made it very apparent that the humans are primitive and have no cognitive thinking skills beyond being what we consider to be apes. its not my fault they threw that out of the window for this movie. why else would they portray them to be animalistic (eg. nova wanting to just have sex with taylor, the humans going crazy when taylor pushed her aside when she removed his writing on the floor, the humans begging for sugar cubes like apes do in cages in our time.) they wouldn't have all these similarities if they werent trying to make ap oint.
Cornelius still looks odd, regardless of who acted as him. lol. its not that he looks different its that it was done badly.
do you know who the great actors of my time are? could you name them? do i have to know the great actors of the time to be able to review a movie fairly? your points are just there due to bias
@@Eonity Ah, you're just doing this for fun and laughs then, got it. I misunderstood, my bad. Carry on.
thanks for being respectful about it all man, i hope you tune into the latter two films review because i honestly loved 4 and 5 lol