Planet of the Apes

I'M NOT REALLY SURE ABOUT ANY OF THIS

Planet of the Apes is a 1963 novel, originally published in French, by Pierre Boulle. I recently purchased the DVD of the 1968 adaptation, directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, and also the novel, all for under £5! Yay, university!
So, I went about reading the novel, and I really, really liked it. This isn't a blog where I review books, but it's somewhat relevant so I'll just explain that I thought the plot progression was natural and intelligent, the character development was interesting and believable, and altogether I thoroughly enjoyed it. (And would strongly recommend it, it's 50p in HMV and about 200 pages long, go read it.)
Soooo, this review will contain spoilers for both the book and the film, if anyone cares. And this might be a lengthy review.
SO! First things first: The premise. I was looking forward to the film, and was expecting to enjoy it, because it's obviously very well-known and is a classic; in addition, the original script was written by Rod Serling and, gosh, do I love The Twilight Zone; apparently, the script that Serling originally wrote sounds a lot more like what I had envisioned, too. And I thought all of these things in spite of the fact that the DVD cover is just a massive spoiler (oh my god, I was wrong... it was Earth all along).
I'm not actually familiar with the work of any of the actors or the creative team behind the film, so I didn't have expectations in terms of formality or acting; I especially didn't expect what I was presented with.
Now, just to be clear: I'm not saying this is a bad movie. I'm saying it's a bad adaptation of a good book. As a standalone movie, it's good; it still presents sometimes profound themes and ideas, the cinematography is interesting, and even the acting is good. But the book was a much more enjoyable experience, overall.
Obviously, production was largely hindered due to the era; making a film like this would be a lot easier in 2013 than 1968- as demonstrated by Rupert Wyatt's Rise of the Planet of the Apes in 2011. It's undeniable that the prosthetic make-up worn by the apes is impressive- especially in chronological context. It's not flawless; especially in close-up dialogue sequences, it's quite obviously a mask; but when they are still the make-up is fairly convincing.
One, slightly painful, thing to note is in the beginning sequence of the film, when the explorers first land on the unknown planet; they plant an American flag in the soil. Which isn't just a throwaway action- a number of close-ups are given to this statement, as well as a lengthy shot of Charlton Heston's character laughing maniacally in response. That whole shebang was unnecessary and uncomfortable. But it's American science-fiction in the 1960's, so I can't blame them.
As with all adaptations, the movie deviates from the book's narrative quite a lot- but not, I think, in beneficial ways. I understand that the book would have been difficult to adapt into a screenplay; it is written in the first person, and a lot of the story progresses and is interpreted by the protagonist's mind, which is understandably hard to translate to the screen, but is a shame because the narrative progression is a lot more natural, interesting and believable in the novel than it is presented in the film. For example, in the book, the protagonist- Mérou, Americanised as ~Taylor~ for the film, is an intelligent journalist, which allows for more emphasis on exciting discoveries and interpretation of events. I got the impression that the book's protagonist had more motivation and determination than his movie counterpart; Mérou was tasked with communicating his intelligence to the apes wordlessly, instead presenting himself as an outstanding scientific specimen; and then slowly learning the ape's native language in order to communicate fully and seek liberation. Taylor, however, was simply shot in the neck (what) and had to wait until he regained use of his vocal chords and simply speak to the apes... who were speaking English anyway. And I know that's incredibly easier to demonstrate on-screen, but it really sacrifices the intelligence of both the story and the protagonist. Having to learn an entire language and convince a dominating creature that you are sentient and intelligent is a lot more impressive than simply insulting your captors in your mutual language and achieving freedom through aggression. And it calls into question why Taylor is so surprised when he discovers he was on Earth the whole time, if all the creatures speak perfect English...
Another change to the narrative that made me quite angry is what they did with Zira's character. In the book, Zira is the compassionate chimpanzee- a scientist- who sees a uniqueness to Mérou and even helps him learn their ape language. She basically single-handedly cares for him when none of the other scientists would believe in his abilities, and only later mentions her scientist fiancé, Cornelius, who can help him make an appeal. In the film, however, Zira is still present and compassionate but has very little screentime in Cornelius's absence. The film presents Taylor's rehabilitation as a wholly joint effort between the two of them, when in the book Mérou has very different relationships with both Zira and Cornelius, and doesn't spend very much time with both of them at all. 
One of my main issues with the film is that they sort of changed the whole point. That is, in the book, the ape's society is almost identical to how ours was perceived to develop, at the time of publication- but only slightly less advanced. In the book, the apes had cars and aeroplanes and almost all modern technology that was available in the 1960s, when the book was written, but had not yet attempted space travel. Other than that, society was supposed to mirror Earth's almost perfectly, which apparently is what Serling's script resembled. However, in the re-write, it was decided that for funding purposes the apes should be more primitive, unable to fly or even drive- they travel by horse-drawn carriage in the film. The apes do not have sophisticated houses (not even left over from human civilisation)? And almost every visual aspect is very primitive and in no way resembles the image the book created, which I found to be one of the most disappointing aspects. 
Another thing about the protagonist; in the movie, he's presented, for lack of a better word, like a complete douchebag. The character in the book is written with a fair degree of arrogance, more acceptable in context when his species is ridiculed and mocked by a seemingly lesser species, but is still respectful, intelligent and thoughtful. In the movie, however, he gets almost everywhere by being rude and demanding (the first, famous line he speaks to the apes; "get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape".  Rude.) And doesn't attempt to respect the customs of the apes or, really, do anything to help anybody but himself, which was upsetting because I could relate to Mérou to a degree, but did not like Taylor at all.
I've definitely got a lot more I could say, but this is getting super long, so I'm going to end with the ending. Both the film and the book end in similar ways, but again, the book does it more intelligently and thought-provokingly. The book uses a lot of foreshadowing to suggest that perhaps this planet resembles Earth a little too closely, as well as characters carrying out neural research on humans and finding trapped memories of apes beginning to usurp their duties, but the novel ends with Mérou escaping back on his shuttle to return to Earth, only when he lands back in Paris, the air traffic controller who greets him is a gorilla. This is interesting and ambiguous; it could either be that he never really left Earth, just travelled through space in a circle, landing back on Earth both times, or it could be that Earth has met the same fate as the ape planet; humans have again fallen, allowing apes to rise in their place... it's uncertain, and up for debate. In the film, however, there is comparatively little investigation into the human race's history, and he discovers he is on Earth after all upon seeing the ruins of the Statue of Liberty (again with the USA imagery), which isn't up for debate and seems to unequivocally mean that he never really left Earth. Which, to me, feels less exciting, you know?
</end ramble>
TO CONCLUDE. Planet of the Apes is an enjoyable film, which does what it sets out to do and keeps audiences interested. However, the original novel tells the same story in a much more interesting and creative way, in my opinion.

DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL