gavin6942 The sole survivor of an interplanetary rescue mission searches for the only survivor of the previous expedition. He discovers a planet ruled by apes and an underground city run by telepathic humans.Although Charlton Heston showed little interest in reprising his role as Taylor, studio head Richard Zanuck thought the actor was essential to the sequel. After some disagreement with the actor's agents, Heston agreed to briefly appear with the provision that Taylor be killed and that Heston's pay go to charity. The writers decided to have Taylor disappear at the story's start and only return by the film's ending, and have a new protagonist for the major part of the story.Strangely, the switching out of heroes does not seem to have much effect. Whether it is Heston or anyone else, the lone human idea remains just as good. Now, the new humans are a strange addition. Accepting ape-people is one thing, but then to add a second mysterious race takes this another step and begins to distort the allegory. But it also creates plenty of sci-fi opportunities.

Anonymous Andy (Minus_The_Beer) Appropriately yet ironically titled, "Beneath The Planet Of The Apes" marks a steep drop-off from the indisputable sci-fi classic "Planet Of The Apes." When the original proved to be a major hit, striking a chord in the imaginations of audiences everywhere, a sequel was rushed into production. With half the budget and half the talent (a reluctant Charlton Heston agreed to appear only in cameo form and with the caveat that his character takes action to ensure there are no more sequels -- ha!), "Beneath" apes its predecessor in more ways than one. Not only does new leading man James Franciscus look and act a lot like Heston (so much so that even sympathetic ape lady Zira confuses the two characters) but the plot has a distinct whiff of been there, done that. Well, until that zany last act, anyway.It would be all to easy to dump on the film for all of its shortcomings. "Beneath The Planet Of The Apes" at least gets a few elements right. The attempt to push the narrative forward and pick up at the point where the original left off is a good start. Not too far into the film, Taylor (Heston) and Nova (the striking Linda Harrison) are separated, leaving room for newly landed astronaut Brent (Franciscus) to accompany her. As tensions among apes builds - - some of the film's most memorable images are that of a peaceful ape protest that is broken up with brute force -- the twosome are forced underground, where they discover the remains of their lost civilization. And mutants. Telepathetic mutants at that, hellbent on destruction and worshipping the atomic bomb. Yeah, that's right. This movie goes there.By far the most bizarre and inconsistent film in the franchise without Tim Burton's name attached to it, "Beneath" at least gets by on its bizarre digressions and admittedly chilling visions of a decimated New York City (condemned to the underground, "Futurama" style). If nothing else, it's never dull. Thankfully, the series would make a much needed course correction with the melodramatic but much improved "Escape From The Planet Of The Apes" and its even more politically-minded "Conquest Of The Planet Of The Apes." But in the context of the original five "Apes" films, this one feels perhaps the most extraneous. Lots of good ideas lost in muddled execution. It's also -- for lack of a better term -- completely and utterly bananas.

bankofmarquis A "done on the cheap" sequel - and it shows. Charlton Heston bregrudingly agreed to come back, the budget was slashed, so more and more of the apes wore masks and not the full makeup and they filmmakers cobbled together a script that makes very little sense.Out are the characters and characterizations that made the first film interesting. The filmmakers focused on outdoing the "gotcha" moment of the first film. Roddy McDowell was unavailable to make this film, and I'm sure he's happy for it. Both Kim Hunter and Maurice Evans looks like they are sleepwalking through this - even though their faces are covered up by make-up and James Gregory chews even more scenery than Heston as the lead war-mongering gorilla. Add into this the "mutant men" and you have a baffling film that, in the end just doesn't work.6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (of Marquis)

chriswright1969 Beneath The Planet of the Apes (1970) belongs in that list of sequels that could have been as good or even better than the original film. The first sequel to Planet of the Apes (1968) has two strikes against it. The film had only half the budget of the original film and Charlton Heston has a supporting part, while the screenplay was clearly written with his character as the lead. In those days a star did not do sequels, but apparently he was grateful for the success of Planet of the Apes that he did a cameo and donated his salary to charity. Heston became a science fiction icon and would go on in the seventies starring in the SF classics The Omega Man (1971) and Soylent Green (1973).The writers Paul Dehn and Mort Abrahams and director Ted Post took Beneath The Planet of the Apes serious enough and did excellent work despite these limitations. A couple of years later Ted Post would direct another sequel: Magnum Force (1973). The first Dirty Harry sequel which could also be rated as a sequel almost as good as the original.The first 30 minutes of Beneath The Planet of the Apes is a quick rerun of the plot of the original film, but when the lead characters get underground (hence the title), we get a first rate science fiction parable. The underground ruins of New York city are inhabited by mutated humans with psychic powers and worship an atom bomb as a God. This story line does make the ape race secondary characters in the second half.The ending is very nihilistic and seems like a very definitive ending to the series. But because of success at the box office and the ingenuity of the writers, we got three more sequels/prequels. All of them are very enjoyable, but nowhere near as powerful as this first underrated sequel.