Nearly sixty years removed, it is perhaps all too easy to forget just how radical of a work Franklin J. Schaffner’s original “Planet of the Apes” truly was. In adapting Pierre Boulle’s “La Planète des singes” novel into a feature film, Schaffner and co. maintained the book’s hard science-fiction intellectualism while also infusing it with a radical counterculturalism that resonated so deeply with younger audiences of the time. The resulting film often plays like a feature-length “Twilight Zone” episode in the best of ways, balancing more traditionally thrilling action sequences out with headier diatribes on the human condition, and fittingly so, seeing as it was co-written by Rod Serling himself.
After decades of sequels and one sensationally ill-advised attempt at a Tim Burton-helmed remake in 2001, the “Planet of the Apes” franchise half-stumbled into something remarkable in the 2010s. While “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” was a critical and commercial success, it wasn’t until that film’s sequel, “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” that a new legacy was truly cemented, with the addition of writer-director Matt Reeves. Reeves’ films, “Dawn” and “War for the Planet of the Apes,” brought a raw and immediate emotionality to the work that, when paired with similarly excellent elements such as Andy Serkis’ phenomenal lead performance and Michael Giacchino’s decadent musical score, truly brought “Planet of the Apes” to a new generation. In many ways, just as Schaffner’s 1968 film reflected the fears and anxieties of its era and spoke directly to audiences of the day in primal form, so too did Reeves’ films for modern audiences of the 2010s.
It is into this legacy that Wes Ball’s quasi-sequel/quasi-reboot/quasi-legacy-sequel, “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes,” enters. And while Ball’s film is perfectly functional, competent, and resplendent in its technical achievements, “Kingdom” spends its entire runtime shouldering the burden of the franchise’s history, to its own detriment.
TOP FIVE THINGS ABOUT “KINGDOM OF THE PLANET OF THE APES”
5. WEAK SPOT: THE OPENING
It truly cannot be overstated what a colossal misstep “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes” takes in its literal opening frames. Opening on the deathbed and funeral pyre of Andy Serkis’ Caesar from the previous trilogy, surrounded by characters from those films, “Kingdom” delivers a fond farewell to these characters and drops its title card, right before hard cutting to a full 300 years later. This is so bizarre for so many reasons (the in-film ‘many generations later’ text is laugh-inducing) but chief among them is that it actively works to put distance between the audience and Noa, the primary character of this film.
Noa doesn’t know who Caesar was and is going to spend the next two-and-a-half hours of runtime finding that out as well as hearing apes debate over Caesar’s teachings and legacy. So opening with Caesar on his deathbed, surrounded by characters who mean nothing to this film, is indulgent at best and detrimental at worst. It prioritizes a quick dopamine hit of nostalgia that serves no purpose over the audience’s actual connection to the present-tense characters and story.
4. THOSE MONKEYS THOUGH
The visual effects, spearheaded by the fantastic team at W?t? FX, continue to be absolutely incredible here. With each successive film in the previous trilogy, the bar was raised for exactly how authentically a human actor’s performance could be translated to the face of a digital ape. “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes” proudly continues this tradition, allowing its actors’ performances to truly shine through the digital augmentation.
In addition to this, the ape-on-ape action sequences are well-staged here, especially an early one that kicks off Noa’s Campbellian hero’s journey. There’s a visceral quality to the speed and momentum with which the Apes move, which is a fantastic blend of human movement and digital enhancement from W?t? FX. Furthermore, there’s a ton of little details throughout “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes” that W?t? FX gets precisely right in fascinating ways, specifically in regards to artifacts and artifice of the camera and how the apes look within the frame. The delicate way in which focus shifts occur, the way lens flares react through this digital interface—it’s all exquisitely well-constructed.
3. WEAK SPOT: REHASHING
Director Wes Ball has spoken a lot about how “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes” takes place 300 years after “War” to introduce audiences to an “Apes” world with exciting new story possibilities. In theory, that sounds perfect for a franchise running for nearly sixty years. However, in execution, that’s not at all what “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes” delivers.
For many Fox-owned properties, the Disney acquisition has led to surprisingly passionate and off-the-wall new films: Dan Trachtenberg’s “Prey,” Arkasha Stevenson’s “The First Omen,” etc. But “Kingdom” doesn’t feel like a passion project brought to fruition; it feels more like Disney looked at a spreadsheet and realized “Planet of the Apes” was among the most consistently profitable franchises in their new stable and commissioned a new one regardless. Instead of new ideas or stories, “Kingdom” mostly rehashes things audiences have seen before in this franchise.
The sheer number of beats and story ideas that feel recycled, in whole or in part, from either “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” or Schaffner’s original “Planet of the Apes” is staggering. Even the film’s attempt at an emotional, stakes-heightening climax sets up more conflicts we’ve already seen. Despite the lip-service to paving the way for new stories, “Kingdom” feels like someone shuffled their “Planet of the Apes” greatest hits playlist, and this is what we got.
2. THE HOOK OF RELIGIOUS THEMING
The film’s most intriguing concept is treating Caesar like ape Jesus, despite the absurdity of the notion.
By exploring the idea that Caesar’s ancient teachings have been distorted over centuries to serve the agendas of those with darker motives, “Kingdom” stumbles upon fertile creative territory. Like previous entries in the “Planet of the Apes” franchise, the film has the potential to offer a unique commentary on its contemporary era.
In today’s polarized American society, we witness manipulative figures weaponizing religious texts for personal gain. The antagonist, Proximus Caesar, and his cohorts seem poised to symbolize this phenomenon, offering the beginnings of a pointed allegorical critique.
1. WEAK SPOT: A FAILURE TO ENGAGE WITH SAID THEMING
“Kingdom” initiates an intriguing premise but fails to delve deeper into its potential. While it deserves recognition for introducing this captivating concept, the film disappointingly fails to explore it meaningfully, merely skimming the surface.
As the narrative unfolds, this deficiency becomes more apparent, culminating in a final conflict that feels rushed and disconnected from the central themes. Despite feeble attempts to link the religious motif with human involvement, it devolves into mundane ape versus human conflict, devoid of substance or relevance to the overarching theme.
RGM GRADE
(C)
“Kingdom” misses a golden opportunity to parallel Caesar’s legacy with that of the “Planet of the Apes” franchise itself. The potential for a poignant reflection on how messages can be distorted over time, akin to the franchise’s impact on generations of audiences, remains largely unexplored. Instead, the film succumbs to repetitive storytelling, recycling familiar tropes and narratives without self-awareness or innovation.
In essence, “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes” falls victim to its own lack of originality, mirroring the very phenomenon it could have examined critically.
