Reviews

This 1950s Sci-Fi entry has held up reasonably well over the decades.

The characters are enjoyable and the brisk dialog is well-written. The film captures the frantic desperation that develops when people realize they are in big trouble and the calvary isn't coming and the frigid, dark isolation of the location comes through very well. You can see yourself in their place.

The science is dated of course but that's acceptable. Younger audiences will probably have a hard time imagining a time when a large portion of the population absolutely believed in flying saucers and genuinely feared invasion by Earth-bound evil-doers (i.e., the Ruskies) - and worst of all: no cell-phone service.

This film has nothing for which to apologize and is a superb example of a well-done science/drama/horror of its era.

I loved this movie when I saw it as a kid and still enjoyed it when it popped up as a TCM/Robert Osborne feature 40 years later.

I was fascinated by the jet engine drag racer, the sleek Bonneville speed demon and most of all the turbine Chrysler. And although I was only 11 years old, even the romance aspect was tolerable since Pamela Tiffin was as cute as they come and Joanie Sommers had an adorable voice.

The Tri-State race that I found totally entrancing as a child still holds up quite well even today as there was a David vs Goliath element that always makes people feel good.

I found a low-quality pirated copy on-line and purchased it for peanuts and not sorry that I did.

I saw this for the first time at least 15 years after its release quite by accident and was very pleasantly surprised. I've never seen a film that struck so many chords of reality.

Sam's soliloquy at the tank ("Bein' a dried up old bag of bones, that's what's ridiculous - getting' old.") is as bittersweet an observation of the fruits and futilities of life as anything I have ever seen or read - from Sophocles to Shakespeare to Donne to Dickens - it doesn't get any better.

The leads all perform with a subdued expressiveness that leaves one hanging on every word they say, expecting some profundity in every statement. There are a few scenes I could do without and some of the characters are inadequately fleshed out but this is a movie I can watch over and over again, thinking to myself "Man, I wish I had said that!"

A heavily fictionalized and dramatized series about living and working in Los Alamos during the initial development of an atomic weapon.

The strong points: 1) Portraying the oppressive nature of operating under barebones conditions, with security and surveillance pervading every aspect of life and where military rigidity rules the roost. 2)Displaying that even the brightest and most talented scientists can succumb to the human flaws of envy and greed. 3) Demonstrating that political expediency and bureaucratic territoriality cannot be easily excised from even the most crucial government activities.

The weak points: 1) Though the scientific dilemmas are referred to, they are very poorly explained. Unless you have a special interest in the history of nuclear weapons development you'd have no clue as to what the primary conflict is all about. In fact, it would be hard to recognize that they're working on a nuclear military weapon. 2) Poor character development. It is hard to discern just what is driving anyone. Everyone is angry and nobody is likable. If you don't provide a little fleshing out all you see is bitter braniacs and bullying brass.

Overall, it's a good effort that tries hard and can keep a limited audience interested, but as others have pointed out, it looks very much like a 20 year old daytime drama you're watching for the first time. (As an aside, I loved seeing Richard Schiff again. He's basically playing the cold, mumbly, prickly Toby Zeigler persona but he does it so well you just have to smile.)

I originally saw this at the local theater a year or so after it came out. Naturally I had no criticisms whatsoever as it contained all of the elements that an 8 year old proto-nerd could want: science, space and monsters.

When I came across it some 30 years late on a late night movie I was quite excited. I will admit that the puppet-beast was really bad and Sam's love affair with his cryo-gun was just a bit too weird. The background sets appeared to literally be cardboard and were poorly painted. The acting was campy though they tried hard and by-and-large made a decent ensemble. There were, however, far worse low-budget sci-fi efforts of the era and when this came out on DVD I bought it without hesitation and still dust it off from time-to-time when I'm suffering from insomnia at 3 AM.

Though clearly not for everyone, this work was a solid portrayal of what actual personalities might exist within the rarefied world of advanced, cutting edge scientific research. Quirky, egocentric, poorly socialized, dweebs who are absolutely essential for the achievements that we have taken for granted and make our lives so much easier. Having been a mediocre performer as a biology/chemistry major in college, I recognized the superior - though sometimes imperious - performers who have the talent and drive to get to the next levels, leaving the rest of us to labor as garden variety doctors, pharmacists, science teachers, etc. I didn't like the characterization of Dr Franklin. If that was an accurate image, I'd find her intolerable. If it was misconstrued, it was a really shank job.

As a 10 year old, I saw this with my friends as a Saturday matinée at the local theater and it nailed my sci-fi preferences right on the head. We played this one out in the neighborhood in numerous scenarios having a deliciously creepy time dealing with "the guys with the globby eyes", whom we found preferable to the robots as scare factors. I ran across a pirate-copy DVD on-line a couple of years back and couldn't resist. Not surprisingly, the DVD quality stank, but the movie held up remarkably well. It would certainly earn no awards for excellence in any category, but carried a remarkably good atmosphere, particularly the scenes at the village inn. If I could find a better copy, I would most definitely make the investment.

I saw this when it came out and was enthralled with the scenes and sets of the "real" Uranus. The icicle trees, the frozen air that acted like quicksand, the frozen arm pulled back from the boundary wall and off course the monsters. When viewed 4o years later, however, it was a bit hard to take. I still liked the Uranian sets, but the preposterous beauty queens crow-barred into the "plot" (whatever it was), the terrible dubbing and wooden acting were things I obviously made absolutely no note of in my pre-adolescent phase. I still drag it out from time to time as a childhood reminiscence, but the recognition that it was unnecessarily bad still disappoints.

I enjoyed this film immensely when it came out. I was about 10 years old when I saw it in the theater and it stayed in my mind for decades. Like most sci-fi of the era, the film is certainly dated. The science was inaccurate even at the time. The small-and-adorable animal side-kick seems a bit silly but was standard fare for the period (a duck in "Journey to the Center of the Earth", a poodle in "Lost World". a seal in "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea"), I presume to add a little levity and something for the kids to watch during the boring parts.

All that being said, however, this is and enjoyable, seriously done and well-performed piece of entertainment. The starkness of the landscape and the portrayal of lonely, hopeless abandonment is superbly handled. The developing bromance between the human scientist-astronaut and his primitive humanoid companion was credible and added warmth to a cold, inhospitable environment.

I taped this off of TV onto a long-lost VHS tape about 25 years ago. Now I see that it is available on DVD and will give it some serious consideration.

This may be a member of the "so bad it's good" category but for a 10 year old in 1964 it was fully entertaining. The music made no impression then, but on re-viewing it 45 years later a couple of the songs were vaguely recognizable("You Are Not a Summer Love" is actually not a bad little ballad all things considered).

I had no recall of the wiggling white male tushies, but at age 55, that was far more frightening than the monsters were at age 10. On the other hand, there is little doubt that the girl performing the faux striptease on the beach probably elicited an unfamiliar stirring in my pre-adoloscent loins.

The acting? Well, what can you say? It's a movie about radioactively mutated creatures resurrected from the dead who drink the blood of girls dressed in swimsuits and babydoll PJs - what 5th grade atomic age boy could ask for more? The ending, with the monsters writhing, steaming and moaning in the darkness, made visible by the dim light of their burning bodies wasn't bad at all. As a adult - no better than a 2. As a early 60s proto-nerd - a 10. The 6 is a fair average.

I saw this when I was about 9 years old and considered myself quite the aficionado of horror and science fiction films of the era. No Universal Studios monsters, radioactive insects or invading aliens could bother me, I had seen it all. This film absolutely destroyed my suave, calm self-assurance. I was overwhelmed by the excoriated, enucleated farmer against the bedroom wall and unnerved by murderous birds pecking through a door. I completely unraveled as Tippi Hedren walked up the stairs to investigate flapping wings and had to get up and leave the theater from stark terror (much to my utter humiliation after I settled down). I had nightmares about this movie for at least a couple of years and 50 years later think about it when I'm near crows or gulls. It looks a little dated today but any film that stays with you for for a lifetime is special. I read the original DuMaurier short story a few years ago - very creepy. I could see how a horror master like Hitchcock could have come up with this idea.