Planet Of The Apes premiered on February 8, 1968 at the Loew's Capitol Theater on Broadway and 51st St.

I attached the New York Times review from the day after. Not only is it a bad review, but the critic dares to refer to the spaceship as being "unconvincing."

Damn him all to hell!

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa304/CarsonDyle/NYTpotaReview.jpg

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa304/CarsonDyle/POTAPremiereAd.jpg

......Sgt Pepper taught the band to play.....

Damn dirty Apes.

IT'S a MAAADHOUSE !
hb

That's what passed for writing in 1968? "relatively new movie type"?

Didn't know Rod Serling was in on PotA

Its both amazing and quite shocking to read some of those comments from today's perspective.

Huzz

Didn't know Rod Serling was in on PotA

The twist ending and long-winded monologues are a dead give away.

What twist ending?

You can make fun of the review all you want, but it really isn't fundamentally different from a lot of comments I see on these boards about current movies.

In the first two paragraphs, he's essentially accusing the movie of being politically correct with a liberal agenda.

What twist ending?

It's been 40 years and you have'nt seen it yet?????????:p

Nova....Nova....Nova...NOVA !!! :woohoo:

I always thought that the NY Times was crap, but now?!

HOW DARE THEY BLASPHEME AGAINST THE SPACESHIP!!!

Hand wringing, emploring gazes skyward, pounding fists on ground...

The real irony of the above review is that it tells us much more about the critic (and the time in which he was writing) than it does about the film.

For the life of me however I can't imagine what motivated that snotty comment about the spaceship. At the time a more credible motion-picture spaceship had never been seen. Hell, I think the design still holds up.

Look at that picture of Nova. Could they have selected a worse photo? She looks 40 years old and 40 pounds overweight.

.

The real irony of the above review is that it tells us much more about the critic (and the time in which he was writing) than it does about the film.

I was thinking the same thing. Movie criticism has come a very long way! Aside from him obviously not like the movie much, I really am surprised at how poorly written that review is - I've read much more thoughtful writing right here on this forum. Heck, I've read better citicism from my high school students. But then, we have 40 years of better film crit to than for that I think.

John O.

Yeah,

Its actually more interesting to read to see what mentalities were going on back then.
Obviously, not a great period in our nation, racially speaking.

But I am suprised at the poor quality of the writing.
Were people really that simple minded back then? Makes one wonder how we ever got to the moon.

And even back then people say liberal like its a bad thing.
Must be a relative of Ann Coulter.

/\/\ Not like "conservative", huh?

You want a real belly laugh? Look up Bosley Crowther's original NYT review of Dr. Strangelove. It's a right-wing diatribe worthy of General Ripper.

You want a real belly laugh? Look up Bosley Crowther's original NYT review of Dr. Strangelove. It's a right-wing diatribe worthy of General Ripper.

If it's this one http://www.nytimes.com/1964/01/30/movies/013064strangelove.html

I wouldn't call it a diatribe so much as the reviewer "working out on paper" what it is that makes him so uncomfortable about the movie. Again, maybe it reveals more about the writer and his times - it's certainly in there that he doesn't feel good about satirization of the political/military system. I think that's fine. DSL isn't really supposed to have you feeling good about atomic war ...or maybe it is, just relax there's nothing you can do about it. Isn't THAT more to Kubrick's point?

John O.

reading these old reviews and knowing the films in question is a great study of society.

The films reflect attitudes and perceptions. Almost more importantly these reviews reflect the more common attitudes and perceptions of the people at the time.

fascinating....

And shocking. The 60's weren't as enlightened as we'd like to believe they were. It's almost as if we were looking at a different century.

And yeah, I saw the ending of PotA, just messing with you. Serling's trademark was the "surprise ending". I get a kick out of it today as much as I did then even if he used the device a little too much...

It's almost as if we were looking at a different century...

Steve,

You might want to check your calendar ...it actually was a different century. I have paintbrushes older than any of my high school students who were barely just born ...ya know, in the previous century!:freak:

John O.

And yeah, I saw the ending of PotA, just messing with you. Serling's trademark was the "surprise ending". I get a kick out of it today as much as I did then even if he used the device a little too much...Although Serling was known for his ironic twist endings in God knows how many Twilight Zone episodes, Pierre Boulle actually used a surprise twist (actually a DOUBLE surprise) at the end of the original novel of Planet of the Apes. The ending of Tim Burton's remake was much closer to that of the book.Steve,

You might want to check your calendar ...it actually was a different century.I think Steve was being facetious.

A planet where movie critics evolved from man?

/\/\ Not like "conservative", huh?

uhhh, I don't recall writing the word "conservative".

While not falling into either catagory, I don't see 'liberals' bashing 'conservatives' the same way I see 'conservatives' bashing 'liberials' the way Ann Coulter does.

Uh oh ...

"She wiggles her hips when she wants to say something."

Hmmm.... I've been meaning to watch this film again. It seems non-verbal communication survived the devastation. I'm going to try to decipher any hidden messages I've missed over the years.

I'm sure Linda received more than her share of grief being the girlfriend of Zanuck and all. But, aside from being way too attractive to play a semi-savage, she actually does a very credible job in the role.

AND, she's at Wonderfest this year!! :woohoo:

There must be a website somewhere compiling negative reviews of films that later became classics. Wizard of Oz, It's a Wonderful Life, many of Kubrick's films, Citizen Kane, etc.

There must be a website somewhere compiling negative reviews of films that later became classics. Wizard of Oz, It's a Wonderful Life, many of Kubrick's films, Citizen Kane, etc.

Someone on another board claimed that The Wizard of Oz was slammed by film critics when it was first released. I looked all over the net and could only find one statistic and no reviews - the statistic being that the movie didn't do very well at the box office.

My question is, how many bona fide film critics were there in the late 30s and early 40s and how broad could their audience have been?

No clue on that one. But there were certainly entertainment reporters galore. And I'm sure all the movie mags at the time had on-staff reviewers. I too have never personally read a negative Oz review, but have just accepted that they exist from hearing it repeated so often.

A planet where movie critics evolved from man?

DE-volved, maybe ;)

My question is, how many bona fide film critics were there in the late 30s and early 40s and how broad could their audience have been?

I don't think there were detailed film reviews like we get now, but the Walter Winchell's and Heda Hoppers of the day could help make or break a film by saying they liked it or it sucked. IIRC correctly, one of the big radio gossip stars(Louella Parsons?) slammed Wizard of Oz as terrible when it was initially released.

Serious film criticism as a form of journalism, at least in the United States, didn't really come into its own until movies began to be regarded as an art form, rather that just spectacle or entertainment for the masses. That would have been around the mid-1960s. Of course, the Europeans were at least a decade ahead of us in that regard. It's also worth noting that contemporary reviews of ground-breaking films like Bonnie and Clyde and 2001: A Space Odyssey were divided very closely along age lines: critics over 40 hated those movies, critics under 40 embraced them. The times, they were a-changing. . .

Attention "2001" enthusiasts in the Los Angeles area (I know there are a couple of you)...

http://www.oscars.org/events/2001aspaceodyssey/index2.html

This is probably a once in a lifetime event. Given the scarcity of artifacts from this film the displays alone should be worth the price of admission.

"Wednesday May 21. Tickets available May 1. Tickets are $5 for the general public and $3 for Academy members and students with a valid ID. Tickets may be purchased online, by mail (HTML or PDF format) or at the Academy during regular business hours. The Samuel Goldwyn Theater is located at 8949 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills. Doors open at 7 p.m. All seating is unreserved. For additional information, please call the Academy at (310) 247-3600."


Five Bucks! (and 20 for parking?)

Evening parking for the Goldwyn Theater is free.

Although Kubrick was somewhat secretive regarding the making of 2001: A Space Odyssey, the Kubrick Archives were recently donated to the University of the Arts in London, and David D. Larson, who has been researching a book on the film’s history for the last eight years, gained unprecedented access to the collection. Trumbull aided Larson by identifying and contextualizing many items from the trove of original artwork, memos, call sheets, photographs and other artifacts; highlights of these discoveries will be included in “2001 in 2008.”

Complementing the presentation will be a lobby display of actual items used in the film, including a spacesuit, helmets and set elements, all on loan from private collections.

sheesh. you better go and take notes. I expect a 2 page report, double spaced, on my desk the morning after.

I will definitely be there.

sheesh. you better go and take notes. I expect a 2 page report, double spaced, on my desk the morning after.

Just got my tix. :)

I'd like to take pix of the display items, but I doubt this will be possible. Academy events at the Goldwyn theater typically require the attendee to pass through a metal detector, and no cameras (including the cell phone variety) are permitted. :mad:

There's always the cardboard box camera. No metal. I've taken photos inside museums with them. Not the greatest quality.