Three apes in green stand on a platform with armed guards on both sides
Film review

Escape from the Planet of the Apes

1971 · Directed by Don Taylor · 1h 38m

In a sentenceTwo chimpanzees try champagne, a hotel bath and a Presidential commission, and one man in a grey suit has already done the arithmetic

A spacecraft splashes down off the California coast and three chimpanzees in flight suits climb out. Taken to a zoo in Los Angeles, they are studied by two animal psychologists, Dr. Lewis Dixon (Bradford Dillman) and Dr. Stephanie ‘Stevie’ Branton (Natalie Trundy), who set them intelligence tests and get more than they expected when Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter) speaks. Zira and her husband Cornelius (Roddy McDowall) have come from the future, from a world where apes rule, and their cautious companion Dr. Milo (Sal Mineo) would rather they said nothing at all. Instead they are brought before a Presidential commission, made famous overnight and put up in a hotel. Watching them is Dr. Otto Hasslein (Eric Braeden), the President’s science adviser, who wants to know exactly what future they came from.

Fi1m review

Don Taylor turns the series inside out: two talking chimpanzees land in present-day California and are lionised, then feared. Roddy McDowall and Kim Hunter make it the funniest entry and, in its second half, the saddest. The budget shows in every frame.

The first two Planet of the Apes films sent men into a world run by apes. Escape runs the idea backwards. A spacecraft comes down off the California coast and three chimpanzees in flight suits climb out: Cornelius (Roddy McDowall), Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter) and Dr. Milo (Sal Mineo). They are taken to a zoo in Los Angeles and examined by two animal psychologists, Dr. Lewis Dixon (Bradford Dillman) and Dr. Stephanie ‘Stevie’ Branton (Natalie Trundy). Then Zira, bored of being tested, says so aloud. Paul Dehn’s script builds a proper film from that moment on almost no money, and it is the best of the sequels by some distance. We recommend it to anyone who liked the first film and gave up on the rest.

The first half is a comedy of manners with the manners the wrong way round. The apes are brought before a Presidential commission chaired by John Randolph, where Zira announces that she does not care for bananas and the commission laughs with her rather than at her. They are put up in a hotel, taken shopping, toasted at parties. Hunter plays Zira as a woman delighted to be the cleverest person in every room, and McDowall gives Cornelius the careful good manners of a husband who suspects the invitations will stop. We laughed, and often; the scene in which Zira discovers a hotel bathroom is the happiest stretch in the whole series.

Watching from the edge of the frame is Otto Hasslein (Eric Braeden), the President’s science adviser, and he is the reason the film is more than a novelty. Braeden does not play him as a villain. He plays a tired, reasonable man who asks the apes where they came from, listens to the answer, and starts to do the sums. The second half takes a turn we will not describe. We can say that ten minutes after laughing at Cornelius in a lounge suit, we watched Hasslein lay out his reasoning to the President (William Windom) and felt cold. Nobody shouts. He sounds like a man ordering stationery, and that frightened us more than any gorilla on horseback the series has produced.

It looks cheap, and it is. Joseph F. Biroc shoots Los Angeles in the flat, even light of television, and the zoo, the hotel and the committee room could be sets from any American series of the period. That suits the film. The apes are the only strange thing on screen, and that is as it should be. Marion Rothman cuts fast through the montage of the apes as celebrities and slows right down once the mood turns; the last twenty minutes have few cuts they do not need. Jerry Goldsmith, who scored the 1968 film with drums and scraped metal, writes something jaunty here, brass and electric guitar, and then takes it away almost entirely for the closing stretch. The chimpanzee make-up has not improved since 1968, and Hunter and McDowall act through it anyway; you can read every thought in Zira’s eyes.

The flaws are the ones a film made quickly usually has. Dillman and Trundy are pleasant and have almost nothing to play; Dixon and Branton exist to be kind and to drive cars. Mineo, as Milo, gets the least to do of the three apes, which is a waste of him. A few of the first-half gags, a shopping trip, a night at the boxing, run past their laugh, and Don Taylor does not stop them. The business of how the apes got here is explained in one speech and then everyone agrees not to mention it again.

Against the series’ own standards this is the one that remembers the 1968 film was about ideas. It has none of that film’s scale and none of the bleakness of Beneath the Planet of the Apes, and it is the better for both. Most critics put it a little higher than we do, and we see why: the ending takes a risk few studio films of its period would have taken. We cannot pretend the middle half hour is as sharp as what surrounds it, or that the sets would survive a large screen.

The certificate is PG. Children will enjoy the first hour. Sit with them for the second.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

81
Positive
8
Mixed
1
Negative
0

The reviews are warm, and consistently so: eight of nine are positive, and several call this the strongest of the original sequels. The praise clusters on the script, which sends Cornelius and Zira back to 1970s California and turns the series round so the apes are the outsiders, and on Roddy McDowall and Kim Hunter, whose likeable double act carries the fish-out-of-water comedy of the first half. Don Taylor’s direction is described as efficient and tactful, and most critics admire the way the film moves from satire to something much darker without losing its footing.

The reservations are few and mild. Empire is the lone mixed voice, finding the opening potentially silly, the ending predictable and the central idea watered down by the job of setting up later entries. The New Yorker has quibbles about characterisation. Otherwise the spread is narrow, and the later writers are, if anything, warmer than the contemporary ones.

Variety
31 December 1970
85*

The review deems it an excellent film, almost as good as the original, crediting an outstanding script, excellent direction by Don Taylor, and superior performances from Roddy McDowall and Kim Hunter. It shifts from comedic antics to a horrifying dilemma in a literate and thought-provoking way.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★★★ · David Parkinson
80

The third film in the sci-fi series sees advanced apes Cornelius and Zira travel back in time to 1970s California. It is a movie of two halves: the first an amusing collection of observations on modern life through the eyes of the apes, the second much darker as humans resort to cruelty to protect their future.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
29 May 1971 · Roger Greenspun
80*

The critic finds it one of the better new movies in a science-fiction genre often invisible at the middle level, praising the time-travel premise and its development into dramatic inevitability. Direction by Don Taylor is efficient and tactful, with strong performances from Roddy McDowall and Kim Hunter.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
29 May 1971 · Penelope Gilliatt
75*

The critic calls the film rather splendid and encouraging, noting the striking effect of the talking chimpanzees and the cutting portrayal of how they are treated as outsiders. The script is shrewd and fast with some quibbles about characterizations.

Read the full review →
Empire
28 March 2006 · Sam Toy
65*

The film overcomes a potentially silly opening to explore humans embracing talking apes in a clever twist on the series, though it ends predictably and dilutes the central idea while setting up future entries.

Read the full review →
Collider
5 July 2014 · A- · Matt Goldberg
90

The critic praises the film's shift to a more comic, heartwarming, and empathetic tone while staying true to the franchise's thoughtful darkness and fatalism. Singles out the warm relationship between Zira and Cornelius and the tragic, ominous ending with Baby Milo.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is Escape from the Planet of the Apes worth watching?
Escape from the Planet of the Apes is worth watching, and we scored it 77, the best of the sequels by some distance. Kim Hunter and Roddy McDowall make the first hour the funniest stretch in the series and the second half the saddest. It looks cheap, and the middle half hour sags, but anyone who liked the 1968 film and gave up on the rest should try it.
How long is Escape from the Planet of the Apes, and what is it rated?
Escape from the Planet of the Apes runs 1h 38m. It is an action and science fiction film.
Where can I watch Escape from the Planet of the Apes in Panama?
Escape from the Planet of the Apes is streaming on Disney+ in Panama. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.
How does Escape from the Planet of the Apes compare to Beneath the Planet of the Apes?
Escape from the Planet of the Apes is the better film: funnier, warmer and more interested in ideas than Beneath the Planet of the Apes, which retraces the original for an hour before turning strange. Escape has none of the earlier film's bleakness or scale, and is the stronger for both. Choose Beneath only if you want the series at its grimmest.
Do you need to have seen the other Planet of the Apes films before Escape from the Planet of the Apes?
Escape from the Planet of the Apes works well as a first entry, because it brings two talking chimpanzees to present-day California and explains where they came from in a single speech. You will get more from it having seen the 1968 film, whose ideas it picks up, but the plot of Beneath the Planet of the Apes is not needed. It is a fair place to start.
What should I watch after Escape from the Planet of the Apes?
After Escape from the Planet of the Apes, try Planet of the Apes (1968, Fi1m 84): Start here if you somehow have not; the last shot still does its work. Then Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972, Fi1m 73): Picks up this film’s thread; angrier, cheaper and stranger than it has any right to be; and The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976, Fi1m 82): Roeg’s visitor in America, undone first by kindness and then by men in suits.
What order should I watch the Planet of the Apes films in?
Release order is the safe choice for Planet of the Apes, and it is the order our collection page lists them in. Escape from the Planet of the Apes is number 3 of the 9 Planet of the Apes titles on Fi1m; before it comes Beneath the Planet of the Apes and after it Conquest of the Planet of the Apes. The full order.

Part of · 3 of 9

Planet of the Apes

9 films on Fi1m · 1968–2024 · average 68 · best Planet of the Apes 84

All 9 in order

Cast

If you liked this, try…

  1. Planet of the Apes (1968, Fi1m 84)Start here if you somehow have not; the last shot still does its work.

  2. Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (1972, Fi1m 73)Picks up this film’s thread; angrier, cheaper and stranger than it has any right to be.

  3. The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976, Fi1m 82)Roeg’s visitor in America, undone first by kindness and then by men in suits.

  4. La Jetée (1962) · not reviewed yetMarker’s half-hour of still photographs ties the same time-travel knot, tighter.

  5. Starman (1984, Fi1m 77)Carpenter’s gentle take on the stranger, the road trip and the government car behind.

Free account

Know what to watch tonight

Two lists that know where things are streaming, collections you can share, your own score beside ours, and Discover that remembers what you have seen.

  • Want to see, sorted by what is streaming now
  • Seen, with your score out of ten
  • No adverts, ever