MovieChat Forums > Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972) Discussion > An Incredibly Bad Movie

An Incredibly Bad Movie

posted 8 years ago by tabbycat
20 replies | jump to latest

Wow.

Hadn't seen this since the Roxy theater in 1972.
Nothing could have prepared me.

It is almost impossible to believe a major studio actually released something this inept. Filmed at the Century City shopping center, which I now recognize easily ... because, well, it's just the mall and nothing else. Even Logan's Run, filmed at the Culver City mall, took some effort turning the familiar landmark into a set. Not here: a few silly signs ("CIVIC CENTER") made with construction paper and crayon, and a few concrete posts with chains are all we get.

Add hack television actors with bad hair pieces, a crapload of dark turtlenecks, and dialogue that would make a seventh-grade writing class cringe, and you've got Conquest. As in all bad 70's cop shows, everybody in authority is always mad and yelling. This to show us how MEAN AND AUTHORITARIAN this world is. The public announcements alone would keep Mystery Science Theater busy for weeks ("FAILURE TO DISPERSE WILL RESULT IN LOSS OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PRIVILEGES FOR A YEAR!!!") and would take a broken-down backseat to any direct-to-vid one-star horror flick.

No need to go into the one-note direction and the Elmered-together props, or the little things like lights on the shock table panel still aglow despite the power cut. If there were, I'd be writing a novel.

I feel sorry for Hari Rhodes and especially Roddy McDowall.
Sometimes films are forgotten for a reason.

[–] Fletcherj119 8 years ago

The production values were the studio's fault; they didn't value sequels very highly. The government men played by Severn Darden and H. M, Wynant were relatively soft-spoken. It was basically Governor Breck that did all of the yelling. Anything to do with the budget (including the choice of actors) rests solely on the miserly 20th Century Fox.

[–] JamesA-1102 8 years ago

You're judging a movie made over 40 years ago by today's standards. Back then all films were not big budget extravaganzas. And back then Century City was relatively new so most of the audience wouldn't have recognized it.

[–] savagebiscuits 8 years ago

I always find it a pity when a poster (the OP) just can't let their imagination take them on a journey, instead of getting all uptight about some production limitations, many of which were unavoidable at the time, and missing out on a great story and message. Sure, there are production issues, but back then (and, to be fair, for many now), we just made allowances for such things and not get distracted from the main thread of the story. We saw these issues, but didn't focus on them and lose our attention (sometimes it adds to the charm).

As for the location, it was new, as you say, but also many of us weren't from the US or that part of the US, so wouldn't have recognised it anyway. I was about 6,000 miles to the east, with an ocean in between.

[–] JamesA-1102 8 years ago

Well said! 

[–] Hilwo 8 years ago

I have loved this movie ever since I first saw it in '99, became an all-time favorite.

http://www.trespasser.nl/misc/pta/pta.pdf -->> Planes, Trains and Automobiles script

[–] Jetfire1959 8 years ago

Congratulations, savagebiscuits. A very eloquent, thoughtful statement. Maybe you should consider posting it on other boards who's subject has shifted from discussing a film to tearing it apart for technical faults or because someone doesn't like one or more of the cast members.

I don't even know enough to know how much I don't know. Ya know?

[–] For-the-Overwind 8 years ago

As for the location, it was new, as you say, but also many of us weren't from the US or that part of the US, so wouldn't have recognised it anyway. I was about 6,000 miles to the east, with an ocean in between.

I live in the US, just a hair over 2,000 miles from Los Angeles, and I had absolutely no idea what Century City was until I Googled it. Just seems like a glorified planned community to me.

[–] HowYaLikeDemApplesWill 8 years ago

"Back then all films were not big budget extravaganzas."

Well yes, but....this was a cash cow franchise that made the studio a ton of profit. This was the fourth film of the series, had a decent story that could have been fleshed out, and yet the studio chose as the OP said, to do this on the serious cheap. The prosthetics of all the apes not-named Caesar, was as they said in Step Brothers, "not movie quality"...and laughably so.
So if you can't even buy into the fact that apes are apes, and not extras wearing rubber masks...well, the rest is kinda moot.

Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

[–] JamesA-1102 8 years ago

this was a cash cow franchise that made the studio a ton of profit.

Not exactly a cash cow franchise when you look at the numbers: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=planetoftheapes.htm. Plus each film earned less than the one before it. So to continue to earn "a ton of profit", the budget for each installment was reduced.

Rather than looking back with 20-20 hindsight and judging a movie from over 40 years ago by today's standards, as another poster wisely said above:

I always find it a pity when a poster (the OP) just can't let their imagination take them on a journey, instead of getting all uptight about some production limitations, many of which were unavoidable at the time, and missing out on a great story and message. Sure, there are production issues, but back then (and, to be fair, for many now), we just made allowances for such things and not get distracted from the main thread of the story. We saw these issues, but didn't focus on them and lose our attention (sometimes it adds to the charm).

[–] Geektheist 8 years ago

For those of you who are bemoaning the low production quality - while this is the fourth of the franchise, each subsequent film had a smaller budget than the one preceding it. By this film I'm surprised that they were able to hire more than five actors, much less be able to produce an entire movie.

[–] JamesA-1102 8 years ago



[–] Fletcherj119 8 years ago

Every movie should be as equally "incredibly bad" as this one. If so, maybe I'd start paying to see movies in theaters again.

[–] Jiiimbooh 8 years ago

I don't think it's bad. The story is good and the execution is decent.

The script had some problems that could have been fixed without the need for a bigger budget such as the bad humans not checking if Ceasar is really dead after being electrocuted.

___
"What does it do?"
"It doesn't do anything. That's the beauty of it."

[–] chet19 7 years ago

I went to a political statement and a movie broke out. This film clearly wasn't meant to entertain, but rather to show that all bosses are evil and workers are justified to murder any boss.

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

Maybe not any boss, my boss yes, but not any boss. :-)

[–] chet19 7 years ago

Good one ! :)

My friend walked by while the was on, watched it for about 15 seconds, and said, "They're not real subtle with the political symbolism, are they?"

[–] JamesA-1102 7 years ago

It was the 70s, no one was subtle.

[–] Fletcherj119 7 years ago

These days everything's sugar-coated and glossed over, if not just plain submerged.

[–] Stan_Kubricks_Mentor 7 years ago

The main problem with Conquest is that it has not aged well.

_________________________________________

"If you really want something in life you have to work for it. Now quiet, they're about to announce the lottery numbers."
Homer Simpson

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I would guess humanity got grumpy in this because they lost all their cats and dogs. That would make anyone annoyed, I would think.