Overall I feel like it did somewhat hold true to Pierre Boulle's novel, first published 1963. Although they changed some things, I have come to realize that--while some people want to find an excellent interpretation of their prized books on film--a movie is good as a stand-alone. As long as the spirit of the original novel stays intact. What do I mean by that?
Prime Examples:
The Count of Monte Cristo is an EXCELLENT book. An EXCELLENT read. It's smart, intelligent, and the interwoven story lines do not feel heavy. It is a complex story, most definitely.
The film that came out with Jim Caviezel and Guy Pearce started off all right, and then about the midway point, took a turn for the worst. Yes, it's a revenge story--yes everybody gets their just desserts. But the film lacked the spark and the wit--and the TRUE JUSTICE of the original story. Jail and death sometimes do not hit an emotional spot--do not break you in that way--that other methods may. I have yet to view the Laurence Olivier version, but I am sad to think that it may always remain a good story--for the pages. That proves unfortunate for those who do not enjoy reading...
Howl's Flying Castle--the film--seems to venture FAR from the original spirit of the novel (in fact, many of the facts are really quite different), but I enjoyed both--as their individual stories and art forms, and when I thought on it--it wasn't the "not following original story/plot line", but the way it was delivered. The spirit of the story remains intact. The characters are true to their attitudes and traits, and the novel and film move along in a similar fashion--masked in intrigue and magic.
Back to Planet of the Apes.
NOW- I just finished it with my boyfriend, who has seen the Mark Wahlberg version, so he semi-predicted some plot points. My mother (unfortunately) ruined the ending of the 1968 version, which is why I have never really found reason to watch it. But for my French lit class, I had to read the book (in French, of course--which shocked me; not to sound ethnocentric, but I assumed it was an American sci-fi novel--GO READ IT, even if you have to read a translation!) and compare to the 1968 film.
Many of my fellow classmates enjoyed the book more (there are so many more subtleties that can be woven into a book than a film), but when I think about it--the spirit DOES remain true.
I've seen the tail-end of the newer version--it's all right, but Tim Burton seems to be following the M. Night Shyamalan streak--his movies of late are falling a bit short--maybe because he's trying too hard.
Rod Serling was one of the screenwriters of the original 1968 film.
Now, we have to take into account special effects and make up (and to some extent--acting) were not what they are today, so please do not judge on that account. Remember what I said before--you have to get into the mindset of the period--the story.
Other than that, I found it true to the novel (again--some departures, but don't let that irk you!) and enjoyable.
The only issue was Charleton Heston's acting. OMG. Smug and overdone. I like the main protagonist in La planète des singes but Heston's Taylor is smug and frankly, a douche. With that said (I realized that I started to enjoy the movie when his character couldn't speak), I would give this moving a B/B+ rating. Not too bad. As I was telling my boyfriend--directing is a huge part of the acting and execution, so I'll credit his acting to that.
I'll leave you to ponder ... (or watch!)
Enjoy!
