Destination Moon (1950) User Reviews

Story by Heinlein, astronomical art by Bonestell, Pal produced and Woody Woodpecker to boot!

[llltdesq · 7/10 · 14 October 2000]

I can go for quite a while listing the movie's weaknesses-script, actors, et cetera. But with an idea by Robert Heinlein, Chesley Bonestell handling the astronomical artwork, George Pal as producer and a special bit of animation by Walter Lantz starring Woody Woodpecker done just for the movie, what else matters? Anyone who recognizes all those names and appreciates them understands just what I mean. Since everyone coming here is likely to know Pal and Woody, I won't say any more. For the rest, gather round my children and attend.

Rober Heinlein was the dean of Science Fiction writers. He spun off enough ideas as throwaways to do another writer proud for two careers! As for Chesley Bonestell, quite simply, he was the greatest artist ever when it came to astronomic art. Paintings he did look so real, you'd swear that they were photographs and so accurate that you'd swear he'd been there. Not only did he have no equal, he lapped the field two or three times over. If I ever strike it rich, the first extravagance would be a Bonestell. Genius strikes rarely. Greatness with only somewhat more frequency. This film, flawed in many ways, is shadowed by greatness and touched by at least one genius.

Almost Too Real to be Entertaining

[aimless-46 · 6/10 · 5 January 2006]

More historical curiosity than entertaining science fiction film, "Destination Moon" is a must see for those interested in the evolution of the genre and the political climate of the early cold war years. Don't expect any cheap thrills or exploitation elements. There are no aliens, no monsters, and no hot women. Instead it presents a detailed speculation of what they thought it would be like to go to the moon in a rocket-ship. Despite looking like a massive version of a Von Braun rocket from WWII, the speculation about the problems faced by the engineers and crew of such a product are surprisingly accurate and must have been fascinating viewing back in 1950. Both the rocket and the moon are considerably more realistic than the old "Flash Gordon" stuff.

Like another science fiction classic "Them", "Destination Moon" is loaded with political references conveying a not so subtle distrust of the federal government. But the two films convey the same message from polar opposite perspectives. "Them" placed the blame for its giant mutations on reckless atomic bomb testing and portrayed the federal response to the crisis as clueless until assisted by local law enforcement and an eccentric university scientist. "Destination Moon" has a hawkish perspective, with unidentified fifth columnists sabotaging America's early space program. Fortunately, selfless patriotic industrialists come to the rescue and finance a successful private enterprise program to claim the moon for the United States.

The deliberately low-key documentary style is relieved by the last minute addition of space novice Joe Sweeney (Dick Wesson) to the crew. With a Brooklyn accent (his first view of earth from space elicits a desire to know who is pitching for the Dodgers that day) Sweeney provides both comic relief and an excuse for the expect members of the crew to expound in layman's terms about the details of space travel. I couldn't help thinking of "Dark Star's" Sgt. Pinback whenever Sweeney began to whine about not belonging on the mission.

Another concession to the unsophisticated 1950's audience has the project leaders making their pitch for financing through a special Woody Woodpecker space training film. The skeptical fowl and his two audiences receive their indoctrination at the same time. "Destination Moon" must have infused the nation with a sense of wonder and faith in what the free enterprise system could achieve because it is actually listed as an event in NASA's chronology of the history of space travel. It is likely that the producers were more successful with this upbeat message than with their attempt to spread fear and promote a space race. Although considerable effort is made to sell the audience on the military value of the moon nothing very convincing is presented in that regard. Ironically, much of the actual space race a few years later would have a military purpose.

"Destination Moon" has two moments of suspense. The first is when Charles Cargraves (played by Warner Anderson) exits the ship in space and drifts away once his magnetic boots lose contact with the ship. Since Cargraves is the ship's designer, it seems rather implausible that he should forget this but no more so than his constructing the ship out of heavy steel. The second is when they botch the landing and must lighten the ship to have enough fuel to return to earth (of course we 21st century viewers knew the thing was too heavy as soon as we learned about the magnetic boot thing).

Science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein teamed with producer George Pal to put "Destination Moon" into production. They soon learned that Kurt Neumann was working to release "Rocketship X-M" in time to benefit from their publicity campaign. For legal reasons Neumann modified his more sensational film to feature a landing on Mars rather than on the moon. Although Neumann's paid less attention to scientific details, it turned out to be more accurate in the use of a two-stage rocket and not the one-stage monster featured in the Heinlein/Pal version. Both films were subject to staggering naiveté about the complexity of space travel. Although the film's version of the moon surface is hauntingly beautiful (thanks to Chesley Bonestell's backdrop paintings) it looks more like a dried lake-bed than the actual lunar surface.

In retrospect, "Destination Moon's" most unique sci-fi genre feature is the absolute refusal of its producers to show anything that deviated from what they believed at the time to be the truth about space travel. Although today it is a struggle to really appreciate the film, at least as it would have hit viewers in 1950, how many science fiction films have been criticized as being too real to be entertaining.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

Interesting early sci-fi flick

[nnnn45089191 · 6/10 · 3 August 2007]

Purely of historical value now, "Destination Moon" is still quite entertaining.It's fun to see that the concept of reaching the moon wasn't seen as a unrealistic goal twenty years before mankind was able to achieve it. The science in the movie must have been as accurate as they could make it almost sixty years ago. I was relieved that the movie mostly keep its feet on the ground in regard to the fantasy element. There are no aliens on the moon. However the most annoying aspect of the movie is the performance of mediocre comic Dick Wesson. He almost spoils the whole movie. The Technicolor and effects are quite nice. Not a great sci-fi but a interesting one

A rare bit of 1950s science-fiction.

[roarshock · 19 June 2000]

Most science-fiction films are actually raw fantasy, with a disregard for reality that commonly borders on pure contempt. This isn't always a bad thing, since I really like fantasy. But techno-babble and flashy gadgets are too often only gimmicks favored by dumb producers, ignorant directors, and lazy writers who get themselves into of a jam. "Destination Moon" is rare and different. An enormous amount of time and effort were expended to make it as technically accurate as was possible in 1950. Even Kubrick wasn't this consistent in "2001"; he often let gravity appear where it shouldn't be. They never made that mistake in "Destination Moon". So it's unfortunate they didn't spend as much effort on the story and the acting, but both cast and crew were so wrapped up in creating a real moon trip they skimped on these aspects of story telling. The result was surprisingly impressive visuals for the time, but characters who are shallow, trite, and dull, and crises that arise and are solved while leaving us indifferent.

But there is real drama here, the drama of people trying to imagine what was virtually unimaginable back then -- how to actually get people to the Moon and back -- using real physics and engineering. And if it doesn't measure up to the story of "Apollo 13", another technically accurate film about a REAL trip to the Moon, it still stands out as unique among 1950s films and remains almost as unique among all science-FICTION movies ever made.

A Really Good, Early Sci-Fi Adventure

[sddavis63 · 7/10 · 7 April 2011]

The problem I have with a lot of the early science fiction stories is that they were more often than not heavy on the fiction and light on the science. I have to give credit, therefore, to "Destination Moon." It completely reverses that. It's actually quite heavy on science and the fiction element is pretty light - at least in the sense that it treats the story very seriously. The title sums it up perfectly. A group of scientists and industrialists team up to build a rocket to travel to the moon. As it turned out those who made this movie weren't accurate prognosticators - the method of space travel portrayed (atomic powered engines) turned out not to be what eventually propelled humans to the moon - but the thoughtfulness was there, and I appreciated it. I liked the fact that the effort didn't involve the U.S. Government - in fact, the government wasn't completely supportive. It was all American (and in the context of the very early years of the Cold War the point was made that "we have to get there first or else we're in trouble") but still, it was private citizens doing this. I appreciated that. For 1950, I thought most of the effects were pretty good; the movie rarely seemed dated at all. It had a fresh look and feel pretty much the whole way through, with perhaps only the animated scenes (which were long distance views of the "astronauts" outside the rocket while in flight) looking a bit primitive. Even the Woody Woodpecker cartoon seemed appropriately placed.

This isn't especially dramatic. There are a few attempts to introduce drama and excitement, but for the most part I didn't feel any real tension until the very end, when it did seem as though someone was going to have to be left behind on the moon's surface. Aside from that, it was the technical quality and the serious nature of the movie that really appealed to me. The cast (largely unknown, at least to me) was decent enough. Until seeing this, I would probably have dated "Forbidden Planet" as perhaps the earliest truly "serious" sci-fi movie made that I had seen. This was made 6 years earlier, though, and so now takes that prize. Well done, indeed! (7/10)

Generic 50s movie about space flight

[nickenchuggets · 6/10 · 13 May 2021]

Honestly I shouldn't even be giving this movie a review because the plot is so barebones and weak that it is essentially copy and pasted from a ton of other sci-fi films, but because it is one of the first sci-fi films in color I feel like I have to address it. One thing that this movie should be known for more than its story is the fact that it depicts a moon landing almost 2 decades before the actual thing, and it's surprisingly realistic. The moon is shown to have craters and rocky formations on its surface that would end up being accurate to what the crew of Apollo 11 would later see. Essentially, the movie is about space enthusiasts who get industrialists to build them a rocket to fly to the moon with, and once in space, they engage in strange things like walking on the outside of the ship's hull while its moving. One of the astronauts slips off, but is later retrieved. The movie gets slightly more dramatic toward the end, when it is shown that even though the moon landing was successful, the descent used too much fuel, so now the ship cannot reach the necessary speed to escape the moon's atmosphere. The men desperately scour the ship for heavy objects that are deemed non important to the mission and toss them overboard in order to free up weight, but still no luck. They come to the conclusion that someone must sacrifice himself and stay on the moon if the rest are to make it back to earth, but after discarding the ship's radio they're all able to leave safely. This cliche of having someone stay behind so the rest can make it back is ripped straight from Fritz Lang's Frau Im Mond, but the writers probably figured that movie is so old nobody would notice the copying. This movie practically paved the way for more science fiction films involving space, but by modern standards it doesn't look like much.

This is the end...of the beginning?

[Hey_Sweden · 6/10 · 11 December 2023]

One of the earliest entries in the science-fiction movie craze of the 1950s, "Destination Moon" details an attempt to build a craft capable of taking people into outer space. Forced to launch their craft in a hurry, four astronauts are faced with various crises while they undertake an historic first mission to the moon.

Co-scripted by acclaimed sci-fi author Robert A. Heinlein, "Destination Moon" is very notable for taking a largely *realistic* approach to the topic of space travel (in point of fact, it did get a number of things right). There are no buxom, sexily dressed babes, no goofy monsters, and no alien intelligence waiting for our heroes. This is just a decent, "down to Earth" (so to speak) story about the appeal, and the inherent risks, in venturing into the cosmos.

Our four heroes are played by John Archer ("White Heat"), as an industrialist who gets involved, Warner Anderson ("Detective Story"), as the scientist, Tom Powers ("Double Indemnity") as the retired military man, and Dick Wesson ("Calamity Jane"), in his film debut, as the radio / radar man. The first three approach their roles with grave sincerity, while Wesson supplies the comedy relief as the "ordinary Joe" type with the complaints and the quips. His shtick does get a little tired, but he's still pretty believable as the one guy who didn't exactly volunteer to go on this mission. Erin O'Brien-Moore ("Seven Keys to Baldpate") has the only female role, and is given very much nothing to do as Andersons' concerned wife.

The first half is actually dedicated to getting the project off the ground; the spacecraft doesn't launch until halfway through, and the men don't reach the moon until two thirds of the way through. But the story is still absorbing, and the impressive Academy Award-winning special effects (Chesley Bonestell, as always, does a great job with the "astronomical art") insure that we get something interesting to look at, and some real atmosphere. The music by Leith Stevens is good, and there's one innovative method of delivering exposition by funneling it through cartoon character Woody Woodpecker.

This was noted sci-fi producer George Pals' initial entry into the genre.

Six out of 10.

Nineteen Years Before

[JamesHitchcock · 7/10 · 22 March 2021]

American science fiction films from the 1950s today generally have a deservedly bad reputation. They were notorious for their low budgets, melodramatic plots, poor standards of acting and, above all, for their feeble special effects. Some of them, most notoriously "Plan 9 from Outer Space", are regularly ranked among the worst films ever made.

That was, of course, not the whole story. Hollywood was on occasions able to come up with intelligent, literate sci-fi films with decent scripts and acting; for me, "Forbidden Planet" stands out as a particularly fine example. "Destination Moon" is another example of fifties sci-fi which remains watchable today. As its title suggests, it tells the story of a manned expedition to the moon, something which of course would be accomplished in 1969, nineteen years after the film was made. No attempt is made to give a futuristic look to the scenes set on Earth, implying that the action takes place in the early fifties, but this may have been because the film-makers did not want to waste time and money creating a vision of an imaginary 1975 or 2000; they wanted to save their special effects for the moonshot itself.

The film was made during the Cold War, and as might be imagined the opportunity was not lost to make patriotic propaganda. Unlike the actual Apollo missions, the expedition is not funded by the U.S. government but by private industry, allowing the scriptwriters to sing the praises of American capitalism. It is emphasised that America must remain the dominant power in space in order to prevent a rival power from using the Moon as a military base. (This "rival power" is never named, but audiences in 1950 would have associated it with the Soviet Union). The failure of an earlier rocket launch is blamed upon sabotage; the saboteurs are never caught or identified, although again the implication is that they were working for the Soviets. After the rocket is launched, however, the political propaganda is largely dropped. The astronauts have to cope with a number of hazards during their journey, but Russian sabotage is not one of them.

Some of the film's predictions about space travel have been borne out, others have not. The spaceship shown in the film is a single-stage-to-orbit atomic powered rocket. The Apollo moonshots used chemical propulsion and multi-stage rockets, and even today, more than fifty years on, nuclear propulsion and single-stage rockets remain possibilities for the future rather than something actually accomplished. The film did. however, correctly predict the possibility of astronauts walking in space.

Ever since 1969, it has been impossible to avoid seeing this film in terms of "what did they get right and what did they get wrong?" That, of course, was not in the spirit in which it was made. It was made to inspire people with the idea that space travel was a real possibility which lay just around the corner, not just some wild idea dreamed up so that pulp novelists and hack screenwriters could pen exciting but implausible tales of adventure. And "Destination Moon" certainly is exciting, particularly towards the end when it seems that the crew will not have enough fuel to bring them all safely back to Earth. But, unlike most of the sci-fi movies that had preceded it, and unlike many of those that would come after it, this one is far from implausible. It does not quite have the depth and complexity of "Forbidden Planet", but it is certainly one of the better science fiction films of its time. 7/10

A Perceptive Look At The Future.

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 20 July 2009]

Destination Moon was our conception in the middle of the last century as to what our first hesitant steps would be towards getting to the Moon. What I was amazed to see was just how accurate they got it in terms of reality.

Four men, John Archer, Warner Anderson, Tom Powers and Dick Wesson are the chosen astronauts though that term had not come into usage at the time. When you think of the selection process for astronauts that was to come with the formation of NASA this part of the film seems almost a bit silly. Dick Wesson who provides the comic relief is a communications specialist who gets to go at the last minute because the chosen traveler gets appendicitis.

The best part of the film was the space walk, when they have to do some needed repairs to the ship. Robert Heinlein who wrote Destination Moon was very accurate with that and with the dangers of performing that task when needed.

As for the very harrowing trip home, the plot was eerily accurate in terms of what happened to some astronauts for real in the early Seventies. I really do marvel at how Robert Heinlein got so much of it right.

Without any weird alien monsters, Destination Moon still manages to be thoroughly entertaining and incredibly perceptive. The film won an Oscar for Special Effects no mean achievement since it's only competition was Cecil B. DeMille's big budget Samson and Delilah. It also was nominated for Best Art&Set Direction, but in this case it lost to Samson and Delilah.

When you beat out a DeMille film from Paramount with all the money that studio could throw behind a campaign, you know it has to be good. Even now the Special Effects aren't bad by today's standards.

Opening Titles

[jimrym · 7/10 · 13 April 2013]

Interestingly, the opening title sequence looks vaguely familiar, let's see, could it be that George Lucas could have 'borrowed' the receding prologue sequence in Star Wars from Destination Moon? Certainly this is no coincidence and a testament that there is nothing new under the sun...or moon in this case.

Though dated, as so many 50's Sci-Fi films are, this one, with Heinlein's influence, attempted to be as factual as it could and showed some very sophisticated special effects for the time. In fact, the film won a Oscar for that category.

The film's very striving for authenticity is the very thing that makes this film so genuinely a period piece...the lack of security at the lift site, the footage of the 'computer', the wise cracking radio man, the zero gravity sequences and, my fave...the obligatory rescue scene. All have become stereotypical features in countless films to follow...yet this is, in many ways, ground zero for films of this genre. If you are a fan of 1950's Sci-Fi, this is a must.

Destination Moon (1950)

[MartinTeller · 5/10 · 12 January 2012]

I'm not a big Heinlein fan, partially because of his politics... and his conservative viewpoints do factor into the film, although thankfully only in the first act. Like THE WOMAN IN THE MOON, this is a speculative look at what it would be like to travel to our satellite. This is a far more realism-based film than Lang's, however, with the advantage of an additional 20 years of knowledge. And it does seem to get a lot of the science right. Unfortunately, it could use a little more imagination, and ends up pretty dull and too concerned with scientific explanation (including a Woody Woodpecker cartoon illustrating the basics of space flight). There are a couple of intriguing/exciting scenarios but even those are undercut by Dick Wesson, playing a "Joe Six Pack" character who comes along as a last minute replacement for one of the crew. Wesson's dumb Brooklynese comments are real groaners. This movie ought to have been a lot more fun.

Considering the first man in space was in 1961...

[horton-2 · 8/10 · 12 January 2001]

Sure the plot was very straightforward and it was inevitable that the problems that came up would come up but overall, I really liked the film. When you consider that nobody had even put a satellite in orbit yet and everything they attempt to show of what space is like is based entirely on what they thought they knew, it's amazing how accurate they were.

The acting at first seemed bland and I wanted to slap that stupid Brooklyn guy around but as someone stated, the movie needed someone the scientists had to explain everything to. I guess if they wanted the audience to understand any of it they had to do it this way. At that year I highly doubt most people knew what space was like at all. We just take it completely for granted now.

Fifty-one years from its release and here I am watching it in DVD format. It amazes me sometimes. I gave it an 8.

Solid 1950s SF Entry.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 5 October 2008]

A likable and interesting film that pays a lot of attention to details of physics and atmosphere. With the help of venture capitalists, men build a rocket ship and take it to the moon and back. The four crew members are Warner Baxter as the captain, Tom Powers, John Archer, and Dick Wesson as the wise guy from Brooklyn who is recruited as a last-minute replacement. ("Gee, I wondah who's pitchin' fuh da Dodgers," he inquires in mid space.) Wesson plays an Irishman named Sweeney. What they really needed was a Jew like Sam Levene or Arnold Stang, a nervous cynic who, during the shuddering take off, could pound his knees and shout, "Who NEEDS this! Who NEEDS this!" It's not as dramatic as "The Right Stuff" and not as subtle as "2001: A Space Odyssey," but the former was history and the latter was (and still is) science fiction aimed at a more sophisticated audience -- and surely both were crapulous with funding in a way that this simple introduction to space travel was not.

We're introduced to the phenomenon by a Woody Woodpecker cartoon. Weedy fires a shotgun multiple times, its recoil driving him into the air, illustrating one of Newton's laws. A little later, in explaining why the ship doesn't need to fire its engines in space, another of Newton's laws is invoked -- not by name. This is a cartoon, after all, and is being played for an audience in 1950 that had little grasp of these goings on.

The technical details are pretty accurate. The earth is shown as a mostly blue sphere clotted with clouds. Light years ahead of the Universal Studios logo at the time. What I mean is that in a less thoughtful movie, the earth would appear simply as blue ocean and finely etched brown continents, as in a grade school geography book. Some of the details turned out historically to be dead ends. The astronauts and cosmonauts don't wear magnetic boots, for instance, but that could easily have been introduced in order for the camera to keep the men on the same plane. The alternative -- one guy up on the ceiling, one on the floor, and two on the walls -- would have been distracting and difficult.

If there's little drama, there's a good deal of suspense. The crew do an extra-vehicle walk or whatever it's called, in order to fix a frozen antenna. Baxter foolishly unleashes himself from his safety line and begins slowly drifting away into space. He's rescued by Archer, who uses the valve of an oxygen tank as a propulsion unit. Good for Heinlein and Van Runkel for trusting the audience enough to understand the principle involved.

At that, though, the introductory scenes make clear that this is private enterprise at work. The government is uninterested and refuses to fund the project. More than that, it throws obstacles in the way. And when the question is raised of why we would want to go to the moon anyway, the answer is brusque and emphatic. If we don't do it first, somebody else will -- "The first nation to reach the moon can launch rocket attacks on earth." None of this baloney about moon rocks. I found the underlying ideology to be a little sour and, though understandable in the light of historical events, apt to leave an unpleasant aftertaste.

George Pal Reaches for the Moon

[wes-connors · 5/10 · 21 July 2009]

Fearful that a foreign power will launch an attack on the United States from the Moon, a group of American entrepreneurs decide to get their spaceship "Luna" there within a year. Aeronautics expert John Archer (as Jim Barnes), rocket scientist Warner Anderson (as Charles Cargraves), veteran Tom Powers (as General Thayer), and radio radar expert Dick Wesson (as Joe Sweeney) make the trip. Lamenting that there will be "no beer, no babes, no baseball" in outer space, Mr. Wesson provides comic relief in Brooklynese.

This increasingly bland film was very influential; a quality production that took its subject matter seriously.

You can safely bet some combination of future "Apollo 11" (1969) astronauts Neil Armstrong, "Buzz" Aldrin, and Michael Collins as well as future U.S. President John F. Kennedy saw "Destination Moon" in their local theaters. Since this is a realistic, for the time, depiction of how a real Moon mission might proceed, the men do not find anything resembling Zsa Zsa Gabor on the Moon (she was on Venus). But, you do get a "Woody Woodpecker" cartoon. The George Pal produced special effects are nicely done.

***** Destination Moon (6/27/50) George Pal, Irving Pichel ~ John Archer, Tom Powers, Dick Wesson, Warner Anderson

One of my favorite fifties sci-fi films

[rjgannon · 14 March 2000]

Destination Moon stands out as one of the better sci-fi movies from the fifties, mostly because they approach the idea of travelling to the moon in a very specific and realistic way. Unlike other films such as When Worlds Collide (another George Pal film) which sends the rocket down a giant ramp, Destination Moon relies on many of the same procedures that NASA later used in its actual launches. Of course, it still shares some of the fantasy qualities of others in the sci-fi genre as well as some great special effects (for which it earned an Academy Award). The characters are usual sci-fi fare, and that includes the usual "comedic element", in this case Dick Wesson playing a street-wise technician from Brooklyn who talks of "dames and baseball". By the way, this character was humorously parodied in the classic spoof Amazon Women On The Moon. So if you enjoy cigar shaped rockets, great fifties special effects, and cool retro images, you should check out Destination Moon.

Destination Moon (1950)

[robfollower · 7/10 · 5 April 2021]

George Pal's movie directing career began in the 1930s. He was a leading Hollywood proponent of science fiction and fantasy special effects in the late 1940s through the mid 1960s. His production of Destination Moon was released in 1950, years before spaceflight actually began. Think of the greatest sci-fi movies of the 50s and one name keeps hitting the headlines - that of GEORGE PAL, visionary producer of such classics as:

Conquest of Space 1955 War of the Worlds 1953 When Worlds Collide 1951 and DESTINATION MOON 1950.

When production on Destination Moon began in 1949, everything about the project was state of the art. The film's astronomical visions were realized by Chesley Bonestell, whose artwork virtually defined the look of space travel at the dawn of the rocket era. Destination Moon is even noted in NASA's official timeline of space-travel history, and almost inevitably won the Academy Award for Best Special Effects. One of the earliest sci-fi films about the first moon expedition and the terrors of outer space.

Good Science-Fiction of the Fifties which involves the first American spaceship to travel the moon

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 21 November 2020]

This cool Scifi film has as main figures, the prestigious George Pal as main producer and the notorious fantasy writer Robert Henlein as one of its screenwriters, nevertheless the sets and production design are dated today . It deals with a team of expert scientists : John Archer, Warner Anderson, Tom Powers, Dick Wesson, prepare a rocket to go the moon. However, some familiar philistines, unadventurous businessmen, supertitious politicians and other people are opposite this fantastic feat. Eventually, the team of brave space travelers take off in their new rocket to beat the Russians who also have an expert bunch to go the moon. Finally, the valient US scientists with their impressive spacecraft land on the moon.

Typical Scifi of the 50s with usual elements, characteristically thin on plot, breathtaking in its Technicolor cinematography , high on patriotism and spectacular FX by the time, however, nowadays, it looks corny , including excessive matte-painting on the moon scenes. A rather splendid space atmosphere and a wonderful pointed rocket compete for paying attention in this lively piece of Science-Fiction genre. Adequate runtime which passes about ninety minutes away in no time. This is one of the George Pal-produced series of Science Fiction films of the Fifties, in fact Pal produced a lot of Fantasy/Scifi movies, such as : War of the worlds, The Time Machine , 7 faces of Dr Lao, and Tom Thumb. This Destination Moon boasts the ordinary pointed spaceship, and astronauts wear suits in different colour with regular bubble helmets.

It packs a colorful and clearly gorgeous photography by Lionel Lindon and it seldom Technicolor cinematography looked so attractive. As well as thrilling and evocative musical score by Leith Stevens. The motion picture was professionally directed by Irving Pichel. He was a good professional who made nice films, such as : Miracle of the Bells, Dance Hall, Mr Peabody and the Mermaid, Colonel Effingham's Raid, They won't believe me and the classy Most Dangerous Game. Rating :6.5/10. Nice fun and it is still great amusement for genre fans. Well worth watching.

Surprisingly good for its time

[daydreamers-72414 · 7/10 · 7 May 2021]

Despite multiple test failures a private venture builds a nuclear thermal rocket to reach the Moon. Sidestepping the opposition of the US government, four astronauts hastily launch towards our satellite.

Possibly the 'hardest' example of science fiction happening before actual spaceflight. There is no need for far-fetched alien civilisations or secondary plots because it's all about the voyage itself, and drama will be driven by its challenges (a spacewalk to perform repairs, or being short on reaction mass for the return trip).

The overall realism and almost didactic approach aren't for everyone, but it makes up for the weak characterisation and is truly refreshing in comparison to many other 50s sci-fi movies with trite plots and less funds (in fact, there are movies made today that still can't match this one's accuracy). Solid special effects, and the spacecraft's design is iconic. As expected from 1950 there are some blink-and-you-will-miss Red Scare motifs, with the launch failures being blamed on 'sabotage' and the push for the mission being justified in terms of beating 'them' to the Moon.

An interesting parallel with the somewhat-inferior Rocketship X-M, shot in a brief time and on a small budget to capitalise on the anticipation for Destination Moon, and much more pessimistic in its view of nuclear energy and mankind's chances of success.

"For the Benefit of All Mankind"

[retrorocketx · 7/10 · 7 June 2010]

It is difficult to evaluate Destination Moon, not easy to give it a rating of good or bad. It is a gigantic film, a brilliant landmark in the history of sci-fi movies. Destination Moon set the standard, dialed in the setting and launched 50s space sci-fi. Yet, for all that, is it watchable today in the 21st century? Or are modern viewers so distracted by the dated and corny elements that they lose sight of the sheer genius of the film?

Bear in mind that Destination Moon was made at a time when everything we knew about the moon came from a telescope. The most advanced rockets in the world were an aging handful of captured German military V-2s, left over from WWII and sparingly launched from the desert of White Sands, New Mexico.

Desination Moon set the standard for rocketshps of the 50s. Spaceship Luna introduces the style that would come to dominate the decade. Luna is graceful, sleek, and sexy - a design derived from the famous V-2 (we get to watch a V-2 launch as the film begins). This style of rocket became outdated (sadly) when the actual space program was underway and it was realized that wings on rockets were unnecessary.

Destination Moon helped inspire ordinary moviegoers to think seriously about space travel (by mid-decade popular magazines like Collier's would be imagining space vehicles and Disney produced a TV show on the subject). Robert Heinlein is to be congratulated for helping to deliver an excellent story, but even more so for his clear vision of the science and technology needed for actual moon landings. What other movie of this era is so faithful to science? The special effects look great - the depiction of weightlessness, the spacewalk, the gravity boots, the seat cushions compressing with g-forces, the performance of the rocket...I don't know how the special effects could have been better done in 1950.

Destination Moon articulated the awesome experience of venturing into space. From the awe of leaving the earth, to the wonder of walking on another world, the Destination Moon writers clearly saw the poetic and emotional impact of space travel. In the film, the astronauts reach the moon (and burn up most of their fuel looking to land, just like the Eagle did on the Apollo 11 mission) and two of them walk around and establish radio contact with earth. They attempt to communicate their feelings (what an amazing artist's conception of the lunar surface!). The things these guys say are eerily similar to statements made by the first men to actually walk on the moon. Almost 20 years after the movie, Americans left a plaque on the moon which read, "We came in peace for all mankind." It was one of America's finest moments.

Destination Moon helped 50s America prepare for that future moment.

The End of the Beginning

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 30 December 2015]

The rocket engineer Dr. Charles Cargraves (Warner Anderson) blows-up a rocket during the tests and loses the government funding. Together with his friends General Thayer (Tom Powers) and Jim Barnes (John Archer), they raise funds from American industrialists to build a rocket using atomic engine in the desert to reach the moon. However the public opinion is against the project afraid of radiation leakage in the spot and they decide to anticipate the launch of the spaceship without tests. The radar and radio operator Joe Sweeney (Dick Wesson) is invited and teams-up with them and the rocket is called Luna. During the descent on the moon, they use too much fuel to safely land. After the exploration of the lunar soil, Charles realizes that they need to reduce the weight of the rocket to launch back to Earth based on the remaining fuel. They remove all the essential equipment but Charles concludes that someone must be left behind. Will they return to Earth?

"Destination Moon" is a surprising good sci-fi from 1950. The story uses technological concepts to explain the situations and is very well developed. The use of the Woody Woodpecker is very funny and the special effects are impressive for a 1950 film. The conclusion "This Is the End of the Beginning" is visionary. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): Not available on Blu-Ray or DVD.

Seeds of Legend

[onward-1 · 7/10 · 3 January 2007]

A slightly flawed child of the 1950's, this film is notable on a number of levels.

First, it represents something of a change in the direction of film making of Producer George Pal. Destination: Moon was the first in a line of ground-breaking films which would become iconic in the science fiction genre. War of the Worlds, When Worlds Collide, The Time Machine... Pal's incredible legacy starts with this film.

Second, of course, is Bonestell's artwork. His graphic images would determine how a generation thought of space.

It's interesting to note how both Bonestell and Pal "fell" later in their careers. Pal's last film was the forgettable "Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze," while I believe Bonestell worked on Disney's SF "epic" The Black Hole. But I'll need to check IMDb to be sure of that! I highly recommend this film. It might help a younger generation understand what their grandparents were thinking about "The Final Frontier."

Noble Intent, Dreadful Script

[Lechuguilla · 4/10 · 18 April 2013]

The story centers on efforts to get to the moon. The film's intent seems to be to explain space travel in a realistic, scientifically accurate way that can be understood by ordinary people. That's commendable. But the approach is dreadful. In the first few minutes a group of potential financiers get treated, along with us viewers, to a five minute cartoon ... literally ... with Woody Woodpecker learning how a rocket ship could lift off of Earth, get to the moon, and return safely. Do the film's producers really regard viewers as having no more than a kindergarten mentality?

The rationale for the rocket project is just as curious. Deadly serious, a scientist explains to these same financiers the project's necessity. "(Among nations), the race is on and we'd better win it ... The first country that can use the moon for the launching of missiles (cue dramatic pause) will control the earth! That, gentlemen, is the most important military fact of this century!" Okay, whatever.

The rocket's crew consists of some scientists, and one idiot, brought in to replace an ailing pro. This idiot, named Joe, is the ultimate simpleton, reluctant to go along on the mission 'cause, like, he's got a hot date with a good-looking chick. And he has doubts about the rocket's success: "The thing won't work; it can't; it's crazy". Still, the captain coaxes him into going along, and Joe replies: "Okay, I'll set up there with you and twiddle the knobs ... hey, you guys are really serious, ain't cha."

Most of the film consists of indoor sets and tons of dialogue. There's precious little in the way of interesting visuals until we get into the second half. Here, a desolate moonscape propels the imagination, finally, with a dark background peppered with stars.

Background music is dreary. Costumes are consistent with the era's perception of space travel. Space helmets resemble old-fashioned ladies' hair dryers.

The film's educational intent is noble. But the script talks down to its audience. There's too much dialogue, most of which is stodgy and lacks subtext. Special effects look cheap. Casting is perfunctory; acting is below average. I find "Destination Moon" boring, time-bound, and less sci-fi than cultural melodrama.

Writer Rip Van Ronkel was Wide Awake when he wrote this one!!

[zensixties · 10/10 · 26 September 2003]

The 1950 film Destination Moon, based on the Heinlein book, is incredible for it's accuracy of what was to come 19 years later. To show rocket physics in simple terms a Woody Woodpecker cartoon is used. Unlike some of the sci-fi films of the era (Ed Wood comes to mind), there is very little cheesy about this (unless you believe what they say about the moon).

A small group of scientists have decided to get private US companies to finance the building of the rocketship to the moon. I'm sure they had McCarthy breathing down their necks enough to use this line: "Whoever gets to the moon first will be able to hit anywhere militarily on Earth and rule the world." In spite of the meglomaniacal military mentality of this, the rest of the film stays off of this track.

It's interesting to compare this with the actual Apollo missions. First they show the weightlessness pretty accurately with decent weightless FXs, and when they walk on the spacecraft and someone drifts away they utilize something the first Galileo spacewalkers didn't even think of; using an oxygen tank as a jet to maneuver (after the first spacewalkers found it too difficult without them the spacewalk jets were later used). They ate bananas and coffee (as opposed to tang and baby food), and they never showed how they used the bathroom (in Apollo it was with great difficulty).

And the idea to land the rocket whole on the moon was the original concept of Apollo until the main designer found it was much easier to create a Lunar Module. The FX of Earth from space was pretty accurate even if the colors weren't quite right, and most striking was how the moon looked in this film. Check it against the Apollo footage and you'll know they were accurate. I mean in 1950 they did have telescopes powerful enough to see the lunar surface up close and they utilized this. And most impressive is the science, being accurate with the airlocks, 1/6th gravity, and even the crisis where they must lower the payload.

And compare the words of what the 2 astronauts who first step onto the lunar surface tell the world via radio: "First impression is one of utter barrenness and desolation...most intensely brilliant stars anyone ever dreamed of". Buzz Aldrin said "Magnificent desolation." And "I claim possession for the United States for the benefit of all mankind." Neil Armstrong planted the American flag and said the mankind bit.

Remember this was all theoretical and a decade before anyone had even entered space. The stars I guess is what turns people off here, as they are too bright and looked more like lightbulbs. I guess the technology wasn't good enough back then to use actual star footage, but even on the Star Trek TOS intro they use fake stars.

And considering all the B films about space travel since (the one with James Caan in '68, The Stowaway in '74, Capricorn One '79, Mission to Mars '99), this stands out for it's being dead on in many ways, even using 4 astronauts (opposed to 3). I'm wondering if the Apollo planners took some cues from this film.

No, it's no 2001: Space Odyssey, but it's great for 1950. And one other point: they even predict the Space Shuttle, as the rocket is designed to "glide to a landing". I'm wondering when mankind will once again venture to the Moon, establish a moonbase, then onto Mars and beyond. We have the technology now, so let's do it!

a fair attempt at realism

[myriamlenys · 7/10 · 28 July 2018]

One should try to look at the movie with the eyes of a viewer from the year 1950, at least where the technical aspects of space exploration are concerned . If one doesn't make the effort, "Destination Moon" is sure to look home-spun, primitive or silly, where in fact it was a laudable attempt at scientific and technological accuracy. Its barren lunar landscapes, for instance, were based on observations by astronomers ; seen in retrospect, they aren't all that different from the real thing. Other details too ring true, such as the scenes where the astronauts experience the vast stresses of lift-off or float around in amazed weightlessness.

However, I wasn't too fond of the story itself, which lacked depth and nuance. The four astronaut characters, too, could have used far more care and attention. As it now stands, the viewer gets 3 well-meaning but bland heroes plus 1 well-meaning hero of the "comic relief" variety - and the result, sadly, doesn't offer much in the way of surprise or dynamism. The dialogue too is far from scintillating.

Still, I was delighted to see that the movie contained an early ancestor of all those tourist photographs, based on a trick of perspective, where a person is shown supporting the Leaning Tower of Pisa, touching the tip of an Egyptian pyramid, cradling the Brussels Atomium, and so on. Visit the Moon and return with a souvenir that will give your pals a chuckle !

50's sci-fi

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 3 April 2022]

The latest American rocket fails. Dr. Charles Cargraves and retired General Thayer have to start over again without government support. Thayer recruits rocket manufacturer Jim Barnes to build an atomic rocket to go to the moon.

The production designs are interesting. It has the rocket, the moon, and all the rest. It also has Woody Woodpecker in an animated section. What it doesn't have is a compelling plot, charismatic actors, or enough story tension. The art design is probably the only compelling aspect of this film.