Change Your Image
inews-2
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Five (1951)
An excellent example of post-apocalyptic genre, maybe the first!
You can read the IMDb.com listings for the details, so I won't rehash those here. As far as I can tell, "Five" is the first film with survivors of a global nuclear holocaust. "Things to Come" (1936) did deal with a post-global war devastation of civilization, but it wasn't nuclear. There were lots of survivors in Things to Come, but true to HG Wells' inclinations, they split into barbarians and technologists. (pre-Morlocks/Eloi)
"Five" presumes only five people survived. With so few characters, they do tend to fit into archetypes, each embodying something about humanity. For my two cents, Rosanne (whom the story really centers upon) embodies the Hope of mankind, and as such, is always looking back. She's always hopeful (even in a dower way) that her husband survived, that people can get along, that some others might have survived too. Michael embodies Pragmatism. He works hard, fixes the shelter, tries to plant a crop of corn, etc. He's always focused forward, defiantly refusing to look back (e.g. go down into the cities). There's a natural tension between the two.
Later arrivals, Charles and Mr. Barnstaple, add to the mix. Mr. Barnstaple, a doddering old bank clerk, seems to represent mankind's old ways of thinking -- jobs, capital, investments, etc. All that was blown away with the bombs, but Mr. Barnstaple (now suffering from radiation-induced dementia) keeps talking about being on vacation. Writer/Director Oboler seems to give the Old World a kind-hearted burial by letting Mr. Barnstaple go and see the ocean (which he loved) before he passes away quietly, on the beach. Goodbye old world.
Charles is a lot like Rosanne, full of hope, but not about finding parts of the old world survive. He's like Michael in focusing on the future. As an oppressed black man in late 40s America, his hope is tinged with freedom from the old world. Charles, too, is a hard worker. The scenes of white Michael and black Charles, working side by side with shirts off (fixing the roof, planting the corn) was a pretty bold racial-equality statement for 1951.
Eric, as another reviewer said, is the serpent in the garden of Eden. He represents the dark side of humanity. He's egotistical, lazy, lustful, greedy and willing to kill. As Eric is trying to whisk Rosanne away to the city in the wee hours, Charles discovers them. Eric kills Charles in a sort of Cain killing Abel parallel. In keeping with the serpent motif, Eric tricks Rosanne into coming with him to the city with the pretense that they were just checking for survivors. "Down in the city is everything we've ever wanted." Once there, Rosanne finds the skeleton of her husband. No hope in the city anymore. Eric scoffs at Rosanne's request to go back. "You think I brought you here to take you back? You're mine as long as I want you." In the ensuing scuffle, Eric's shirt is torn, revealing the welts of radiation sickness. He doesn't handle it as nobly as Mr. Barnstaple. Eric runs away crying.
Rosanne eventually makes her way back to the cliff-top house and Michael. Along the way, her baby dies. This struck me as odd at first, since the baby seemed to represent the new-beginning motif. But on second thought, the baby represented the last vestige of the old world. Rosanne's baby from her dead husband Steven. Once that last vestige of the old was gone, Rosanne was ready to stop looking back at the old, and face the new. The movie ends with her walking up to Michael who is re-tilling the corn field. She carries a shovel too, and says, "I'm ready to help you now." (helicopter lift pan out)
Like many of the post-apocalypse genre, there is a hope of mankind rising phoenix-like from the ashes. Civilization was destroyed, but not man himself. "On the Beach" (1959) was a bold departure from this formula. There, everyone died and stayed dead. In "Five," mankind's pragmatic nature triumphs, but only after letting go of hope for saving the old world, and shedding the sinful old man (as typified by Eric).
Like several other 50s sci-fi films, there is a strong dose of religious point of view. The film opens with nuclear blasts, clouded skies and quote from Psalm 103:16. "The deadly wind passeth over it, And it is gone: And the place thereof Shall know it no more..." (note: the word "deadly" was added. It's not in the Bible). The Charles character quotes from a black poet who wrote a paraphrase of the creation account in Genesis, but it's the poet's words, not biblical quotes. The end quotes from the Book of Revelation (ch.21) about the coming of the New Heaven and New Earth. Amid all the human struggle in Five was a spiritual undercurrent.
While any mention of God seems to really wrankle some sci-fi fans, the Christian cosmology makes an interesting background to the action in "Five." Man's self-destruction isn't seen as a great Oops, but as expected. The modern world didn't make a wrong turn, so much as it knowingly drove off a cliff. The survival of a remnant is also, then, seen as prophesied. The remnant of mankind didn't WILL itself to survive, but was ALLOWED to live. The more religiously minded 50s audiences would have gotten this. The more godless minded of today miss this completely.
Finding a copy of Five was a major challenge. It's little known, but there are some sites out there which have copies. I think Five was worth the effort. It's a great addition to a post- apocalyptic movie collection.
Return of the Fly (1959)
A worthy sequel (in 50s B sci-fi context)
(spoilers marked below)
Return of the Fly is actually a cut above the average B movie of the 1950s. As a sequel, released only a year after the original, it works quite well as follow-up story.
So many reviewers complain about wooden acting, as if every movie created must be Citizen Kane. The acting in Return of the Fly is many notches above the usual B-grade films. Watch Plan 9 From Outer Space (1959) or watch Killers From Space (1955), then watch Return of the Fly. You'll see that Vincent Price puts in an A-level performance. Brett Halsey plays Phillipe reasonably well. The others aren't on screen long enough to fail. David Frankham, as Phillipe's assistant actually does a creditable job too, in playing the spy.
Some complain of laughable special effects, as if every movie ever made must be 90% CGI. Return of the Fly is no "worse" than the original. Yes, the disappearance in the chambers is more obviously just cuts, (they needed more bright flash to hide the cuts, as the original did), but the costuming is better. The fly-head in the original was a little underwhelming. The fly head in Return is much better.
The rest of the set and props are very obviously re-used from the original, but since it's the continuation of the original story, this never feels like a cheap substitution.
The ultimate morph of the movie -- Phillipe turning into a half-fly / half-man just like his father Andre had, was hardly a surprise when it happened. That's what the audiences expected. You knew it had to happen. But this time around, it's not so improbable as another mistaken fly getting in. No, this time around, there's some cruel irony behind it.
---- spoiler parts below ----
The Return plot adds the concept of things being "disintegrated" by held in electronic storage for later "reintegration." (Consider how Star Trek and Stargate used this concept too, and you can see that Return was not just another Plan 9). Phillipe disintegrates a guinea pig for later reintegration the next day as a test of the storage concept. During the night, his assistant, Alan, (who is really an industrial spy wanted for murder in England out to steal the Disintegrator plans) kills a British agent who tracked him down. Alan uses the Disintegrator to get hide the policeman's body "in storage" following the scuffle. When everyone had gone back to bed, he brings the dead agent back out of "storage" but he cross merged with the guinea pig. Alan kills the guinea pig with human hands, and disposes of the dead agent with huge guinea pig hands.
When Alan later knocks out Phillipe in a confrontation scuffle, he thinks to electronically hide Phillipe the same way, but gets a cruel additional idea. Phillipe was always visibly spooked by flies, knowing his father's fatal mistake. Alan, not knowing any of the history, saw Phillipe's agitation over flies. Alan catches a fly and puts it in the Disintegrator with Phillipe as an impromptu cruel-hearted twist.
Return of the Fly is more of a revenge tale than a love-lost story like the original. Fly- headed-Phillipe seeks out and kills his betrayer Alan, and Alan's secrets merchant.
Unlike the original, Return ends more happily. Fly-Phillipe and Phillipe-fly are put back into the Reintegrator again, and both return to normal. Another reviewer said the machine was destroyed, but it was not. Perhaps this left the door open to another sequel.
All in all, Return of the Fly makes a good double-feature with the original. It's a high-grade B movie.
Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women (1968)
Underrated sequel to an American remake of a worthy Soviet sci-fi film
You really can't appreciate Planet of Prehistoric Women (PoPW) if you don't know its roots. As you will have read in other reviews, much of PoPW is made out recycled footage from Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet (VPP). VPP itself is the English dubbed version of the 1962 Soviet film "Planeta Bur" (Planet of Storms). I managed to get copies of all three and watch them in chronological order. As a fan of 50s and 60s sci-fi, it was a great experience.
A foundational "fact" which many overlook is that a very early theory about the solar system presumed that it formed from the outside in. The further planets were older in their "evolution" than the inner ones. Hence, Mars is often depicted as an older "dying" world, with an ancient civilization which seeks escape (usually to earth). Venus, in that vein of thinking, was younger than earth, less developed. Hence the idea that you'd find dinosaurs, volcanoes and primitive beings (the lizard men, not the blonds). The woman were theorized to be the feral remnant of failed colony of an advanced people who came to Venus from "out there..."
First off, the primary donor film, Planeta Bur (I had an English subtitled version) is much more of a "A" grade sci-fi film. Given that it was produced in 1962, it was a pretty strong effort. Much more akin to Forbidden Planet than Plan 9. The sets and effects are a huge step up from the B-grade stuff of the late 50s, early 60s. The rocket interiors, the seriously industrial robot, and the very cool flying car, were not low budget products.
Since the premise of PoPW is that it's a flash back, reuse of the Planeta Bur (PB) footage works. In fact, the premise of PoPW is that it's a sort of parallel story to that of PB (and by extension, VPP). In PB the cosmonauts only hear the mysterious female voice singing -- except for the little sculpture of a woman's face that Alexes finds at the last. PoPW explores that other side of the story.
Interspersed with the original PB footage (still using its English dubbing via VPP version), are new clips of the women we never see in PB. Now, I grant you they're an obvious sop to the teenage boy movie goer. They're all 20-something beautiful blonds. But, look past that. They represent the remnant of the lost civilization which the cosmonauts in PB hypothesized about. The blonds eating raw fish and worshiping a pterodactyl statue peg them as primitives -- even if remarkably well groomed.
The women in PoPW are cast as the cause of some of the cosmonaut's disaster situations: the volcano, the flash flood, which were unexplained in PB.
What continues to be left unexplored is the source of the mysterious singing voice. In PB and the English remake VPP, the mystery voice saves the cosmonauts, giving warning cries to bring rescue from the tentacle plant, etc. The women in PoPW are cast as agents of mischief, so are not that protectress (who is seen at the end of PB reflected in a rocky pool).
A curious feature of PoPW is that it splices in even more footage from yet another Soviet sci- fi film than VPP did. The rockets are completely different, but clearly still Soviet. The big red star on the tail fin is hard to miss. I've not located this other old film, but it looks cool too.
Some details within PoPW make it interesting. One is "Marsha". In PB, there was a female cosmonaut named Masha. She stayed in orbit and was the love interest of the square faced cosmonaut. Hers was a minor foil role. In VPP, she was replaced altogether (not simply dubbed) with new footage of Faith Domergue acting out the exact same role. Faith's name, along with Basil Rathbone's, had more marquee power. However, in PoPW, even Faith's footage is dropped. Instead, we're told (only once) that "Marsha" is a nickname for mission control. This is to explain the cosmonauts often calling to "Marsha" for information, etc. A bit lame.
One scene in PoPW makes no sense w/o knowledge of the prior films. When the cosmonauts think they've lost contact with earth, the square-faced cosmonaut cries out mournfully, "Marsha, dearest Marsha..." Obviously a bizarre response for not hearing from mission control, but not if you've seen PB. Just a little of the original leaking through.
Watch PoPW with an open mind. If you can, watch PB first, then VPP, then PoPW. Yes, it's a low-budget movie that (like many B-films) used prior footage to pad itself out. Here, however, instead of stock military footage, Corman used obscure Soviet A film footage. That keeps PoPW above the truly banal B films of the 60s.
Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956)
One of top 10 classic 50s sci-fi
Don't let today's standards for big budget CGI and special effects jade you. Earth vs. Flying Saucers is great. Ray Harryhousen's stop-action saucers are still very cool and totally classic. They get so much screen time that they almost steal the show. Oh sure, the alien space suits are a bit lame, but look past that. Note that they're dark, stiff and faceless. No friendly ET here.
Earth vs Flying Saucers belongs in the top 10 of 50s sci-fi for its bold directness and pace. Most 50s sci-fi movies were expressions of Cold War angst. Many 50s sci-fi movies portrayed a frighteningly powerful alien which we earthlings can't hope to stop, as analogy for the impending nuclear war we feared. In The Day the Earth Stood Still ('51) the alien was invincibly powerful, yet benevolent. War of the Worlds ('53) suggested frighteningly powerful hostile aliens, which we couldn't stop. (WE didn't win, the humble germ saved our collective butts.) The whole Godzilla series depict a huge destructive power which we ourselves awakened and could not stop.
Earth vs Flying Saucers, however, reflected a lifting of the doom and gloom sentiments. Maybe we could fight back and win! One exchange between Dr. Marvin and a general summed it up. After hearing that the saucer men plan to descend upon Washington DC in a matter of days, a council of generals meets to discuss their plans. Dr. Marvin: "Then it's been decided that we'll fight?" General: "When an armed and threatening power lands uninvited in our capital, we don't meet it with tea and cookies." The paralysis of fear (of nuclear war) was giving way to a defender's resolve.
Along the course of the movie, the saucers attack and destroy some obviously logical targets, such as artillery or planes which are shooting at the saucers. In the massive climax battle scene, however, things are different. The saucers are a symbolic foe, after all, so symbolic targets are actually more appropriate. When the saucers are firing upon national monuments, they're symbolically attacking the essence of the American nation.
Will American spunk be enough? Watch Earth vs Flying Saucers with a couple of the other 50s classics. Between the differences and similarities, you'll see why it's one of the 10 best sci-fi movies the 50s produced.
Stick It (2006)
Teen girl "feel good" sports movie
Stick It follows some familiar plot paths in the "bad-apple turns hero" vein. In that sense, the movie is predictable in its outcome. You're only left to wonder -how- she does it. This seems to be fine with the young gymnasts I know who saw the movie. They didn't mind.
It is sort of too bad that the writer/director opted to sprinkle in a few coarse words (which would not have been missed if left out). Younger gymnasts would have probably liked the movie too.
(spoilers below)
It's somewhat predictable that the gymnasts are the unwavering heroes of the movie. Even the antagonist gymnasts Joanne and Tricia fall in to become "good guys" with all the other gymnasts in the end.
The judges, however, get the big black hats. They're painted as shallow, petty, and envious. They score the girls low for petty selfish reasons. That's what the gymnasts ultimately rebel against, and win!
That, perhaps, is the ultimate appeal to the teen viewer. They get to see their own age group (and sport) portrayed as heroic and "right." Adults (espeically judges) are portrayed as stifling, corrupt and "wrong." Adult badness makes the girls' rebellion okay, even heroic.
On this level, Stick It does manage to capture something of the young gymnast's mind set. Most of the young gymnasts I know have complained, at one time or another that the judges were unfair. Young teens like to hear that THEY are right and all the adults around them are wrong. That is what makes the movie "good" to the teen audience.