Reviews

Being an admirer of the film "Ed Wood", I came across another movie that was supposed to be as bad, if not worse, than "Plan Nine from Outer Space".

Thus I was led to "The Creeping Terror". Saw some snippets of "The Creep Behind the Camera", so I purchased the blu-ray to try and learn more about the back-story behind the film.

While the "docu-drama" was mildly interesting, in the end I was left dissatisfied by the experience.

The main reason for this, is the tendency of modern documentaries to go in for rather cheesy "re-enactments" of events. Which usually involves mediocre actors doing bad soap opera, that has little to do with how the people were and what actually happened. It also gives directors an opportunity muddle actual events, for the sake of drama and helping viewers to "relate".

I found the best part of the film to be recollections from persons who were actually involved in the events in question. However this was relegated to definite second-place, as this "docu-movie" seemed to focus more on rather over-the-top dramatizations, that I suspect were highly embellished over actual events.

Please--documentary makers---just give us the well researched facts. And especially recollections from folks who actually were witnesses to events. Yes, I know there is a dread of "talking heads" being boring. But you are NOT making a drama intended to win an Oscar for acting. Just the facts and some explanation of what happened and why.

I usually don't care for modern documentaries. Most of those made today are full of cheesy "re-enactments", using bad actors and ridiculous dialogue. But fortunately this one is free of such gaff. And it contains fascinating interviews and real-person accounts from people who knew De Mille, relatives, researchers, and filmmakers of today who were inspired by him.

One of the outstanding features is the glorious music composed especially for this documentary by Leonard Bernstein. Who also scored The Ten Commandments and worked closely with De Mille. The music for this doc (performed by the Prague Orchestra) was Bernstein's last work before he passed on.

While you can get the DVD of the music soundtrack (which I highly recommend), sadly a DVD of this 2-part documentary is unavailable. I have searched everywhere for it, and it seems a DVD was never issued. The only option is watching it on YouTube, where it is available (as of this writing).

Apparently your modern movie-goer needs a constant barrage of "mood music" to get any emotion of a story today. The incessant pounding "score" never let's up, and I found it annoying and intrusive. I was wishing there was a way to turn it off during the movie.

As for the story---there's nothing about the story behind the battle. Instead we get the usual "personal story/dramas" that Hollywood thinks it needs in today's historical movies, to keep the viewers attention.

Watch instead the epic 1969 movie "The Battle of Britain". At least with that one you get some historical background. Instead of just a bunch of guys seemingly hiding all the time and running around.

A much under-rated sci-fi film! People assume just because Roger Corman produced it, that it is automatically B-movie schlock. Nothing could be further from the truth! It's a genuinely creepy and and imaginative take on the usual "bug-eyed monster" films so common in the Fifties. It presents a an alien that is TRULY alien, and some very unusual and unique ideas on what an alien civilization could be like, and the threat it could present to Earth. Add to this a gutsy female heroine, and it is a movie that any aficionado of Sci-fi should watch!

Black and White film was perfect to setup the eerie atmosphere of this story. 

Forget about the silly 1988 rip-off of the same name, starring ex- porn star Traci Lords. They makers of that may have had 10 times the budget and much more movie technology, but it doesn't hold a candle to the original.

Gotta love these 1970's disaster films! The deadpan dialogue. The soap opera sub-plots. The missiles look like they were made from Revell model kits. But "Meteor" still delivers the goods and keeps you entertained. Far more so than some other "big-budget" films in the same category today.

The A-list actors seem to enjoy being in this film. Also Brian Keith's and Natalie Wood's authentic Russian dialogue gives a legitimacy to the story line.

"Armageddon" may have had 20x the budget, but it didn't deliver even 1/10th the entertainment as this film!

After "Conan the Barbarian" became a surprise hit, there were literally dozens of imitations made of it, all across the budgetary range. As a fan of these types of movies (the "sword and sandal" genre), I have seen quite a few. Even in the most cheaply produced ones, I can point to at least something I liked in the movie.

However, with "Barbarian Queen", there is not a single good scene or even one bit of dialogue that distinguishes the film. An hour into the film, it still has not advanced beyond the "warrior women being pursued by lusty men--interspaced with swordfight scenes".

One of the most annoying things in the movie is the unconvincing nature of the lead actresses. Basically they are Playboy Playmates pretending to be Amazons. They can hardly lift a sword, and deliver unconvincing and wobbly strokes against men who are twice their size.

The music contains excerpts from other Corman films, like "Battle Beyond the Stars" and "Deathstalker". The costumes of the evil guards and soldiers (such as the headware) are lifted also from the latter film.

Of course, with a Corman-produced film you aren't expecting Ingmar Bergman-like quality. But even a low budget swordfest like "Deathstalker" was much more enjoyable than this. Zero effort seems to have been put into making even a passable script.

This movie is sure to put you to sleep.

I came across this movie purely by accident (part of a DVD collection of 80's fantasy/sci-fi movies). Watched it last night on my home theater. Watch it, if you have the chance, because it's one of the most interesting low-budget films of the 1980's.

This movie has everything: a "mandroid" Terminator-type robot, a gutsy female robotics expert, a Humphrey Bogart/African Queen boat captain, a Ninja warrior, Neanderthal cavemen, an R2D2 clone, southern rednecks (wait till you see "Bayou Betty"!)---and a villain cyberneticist whose real ambition is to travel back in time and become a Roman Emperor! Surprisingly everything holds together very well, and from beginning to end it definitely keeps you entertained. It's a great family film, with action for the kids, and just enough intelligence and wit to make it interesting for the adults.

One of the best if not the best "80's B movies". Watch it!

It briefly made the rounds of late night television in the mid-80's here in the U.S., and then I didn't see it until I recently bought the DVD.

I admit I'm a "sword and sorcery" fan, and am usually rather forgiving when I watch one of these movies.

But "Hawk--the Slayer" is in a class of bad all its own.

First--the dumbest dialogue ever. It's as if someone filled a Rolodex with "standard lines from fantasy epics", and then used it to write the script. Thus we get such gems as "the prophecy is fulfilled!", "wolves now hunt where none were seen before", and "the wizards gather in the South".

Jack Palance is supposed to be Hawk's brother. But he looks old enough to be his dad; and other than some similarities in their right ear-lobes, there is no resemblance whatsoever.

The outside scenes all seem to have been filmed in the same tiny patch of forest. And what's with all those skulls and lizards that seem to be randomly scattered about? F/X largely is confined to stopping and reversing the camera, along with generous use of the smoke machine. In a supposedly haunted forest, our heroes are menaced by what appears to be a finger puppet.

The music is a curious sub-sub genre that can be best termed "medieval disco".

What WERE they thinking when making this film, anyway?

As a young man in the 1970's I watched the occasional episode of Kojak. While I have always liked Telly Savalis as an actor, I was not a regular viewer of the Kojak series; thinking it just another of the ubiquitous "cops and detectives" shows that were so common at the time.

In this movie, viewers get a history lesson in one of the little-known aspects of World War II. Specifically the fact that many in the Nazi-conquered countries collaborated with the Germans.

The most notorious of these collaborators were among the "White Russians" (today the country of Belarus--hence the title of the movie) and the Ukrainians. Both countries have a long history of anti-Semitism, and when the Nazis began the "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem" there were plenty of locals who participated enthusiastically in the rounding-up and killing of Jews.

After a series of murders of elderly Russian men in New York, Kojak discovers that the victims were actually Nazi collaborators who were living under assumed identities. But the plot thickens as Kojak uncovers further evidence that the U.S. government was involved in helping these Russian Nazis get into the country in the first place. And there is a surprise at the end when the murderer is revealed.

This movie makes great use of its New York locations, especially emphasizing the various ethnic enclaves in the city. Savalis steps effortlessly back into the role he left 8 years previously. It's great to see George Savalis in a good supporting role. Susan Pleshette as government-employee-turned-Kojak's-partner is always good. Swedish actor Max Von Sydow as a Jewish witness to the "Russian Holocaust" and Herbert Berghoff as a German Nazi round out the cast with great performances.

Hopefully this move comes out on DVD. So far there has only been a limited release on VHS in the 1990s. It's gripping, moves at a fast pace, and tells about a bit of WWII history that few people know about.

So---gay guys have lots of torrid sex with other hot-looking gay guys. And when they aren't engaged in that, they're out clubbing! As a gay man myself, can someone tell me what universe this show takes place in? But I suppose if you put lots of implied sex and near-nudity in a TV show, it is SURE to boost the ratings!

Apparently the gay world consists of narcissistic nitwits who are all beautiful and spout dumb dialogue.

This empty-headed series is just chock-full of the worst gay stereotypes. But then again, as I mention above, dopey dialogue and the occasional sweaty heaving (but implied) sex brings in the idiot viewers.

While not a rabid fan of the original "Battlestar Galactica" I nonetheless enjoyed the original series. It had some good stories and the f/x were great; and of course Lorne Greene is always an actor you want to watch. If it would have been allowed to get beyond only 1 season I think the original BSG would have been a successful sci-fi series.

Not having cable at my house, having largely given up watching broadcast TV some years ago, I missed the premier of this "new" series. Finally, after so many of my friends said I just HAD to see the new series, I started renting it on Netflix.

Sure enough: just as I expected they took what was a light-hearted, enjoyable, and rather daring TV show and really "updated/ruined" it for the 21st century.

Ponderous, slow, pretentious, and downright boring.

In the original series, Apollo and Cmdr. Adama have a great father-son relationship. The officers on the ship all respect and work with each other. This was one of the best and most attractive aspects of the original show. Human beings are depicted as trusting and courageous in the face of the terrible catastrophe inflicted by the Cylons.

Of course the way Hollywood "re-imagines" things now, all that is gone. The first order of business is to make it "dark". So now we get Apollo and Adama having issues, Starbuck and Col Tigh have issues, Boomer and Apollo have issues, etc. etc.

Make Starbuck a woman, and a barely disguised lesbian.

Edward James Olmos is a good enough actor, but in this show he mumbles so much as to be incomprehensible. I actually turned on the CC so that I could know what he was saying.

And they lay on the "shaky cam" and ultra-closeups with a trowel. By the time of the third episode, you get intimately familiar with every hair follicle and facial pore on the actors faces.

Oh yeah they make the Cylons human. Not really much explanation for this, as the reason is as muddy as so many other things in the story. I suppose it was done to cut down on f/x costs.

Baltar is supposed to be one of the smartest of the colonists. But why is the guy depicted as a sex-obsessed idiot?

The point I actually gave up on the series? When Starbuck launches and flies a crashed Cylon ship. Turns out the Cylon ships are actually "organic" (if the Cylons are machine creatures and denigrate anything organic as inefficient, then why do they make their ships organic?). At the point where Starbuck uses a piece of shirt to plug a hole in the Cylon hull, and begins manipulating various ganglia in the "organic" ship to make it fly---that's where I exited and instead popped in my new DVD copy of the "old" (and much better) BSG.

HUGE alien spaceships make an appearance.

Hundreds of CGI techs overload their MACs generating titanic explosions that wipe out cities in tedious slow motion, while a few important characters in the plot save themselves from the total destruction by jumping into a subway maintenance closet.

Then--the Armed Forces attacketh! Once again above mentioned computer techs overload their programs (and the movie screen) with thousands of CGI-generated alien space ships.

The President acts noble. Throw in his dying wife and a dog to add a little artificial drama.

A computer geek and his Jewish dad make an appearance. The Jewish dad is cantankerous and feisty at just the right moments in the movie, to add some comic relief.

An air force pilot amazingly masters a totally alien technology in about 1 minute of on screen time to learn to fly one of the spaceships.

The computer geek accompanies him and singlehandedly wipes-out the alien's with a laptop; by uploading a virus that crashes the nasty ET's Windows OS (didn't these guys bother to check for Microsoft updates once in a while?) Thaaaaaats ALL, Folks!! Except for the audience leaving the theater with permanent hearing loss from the endless Dolby Surround-sound explosions.

I just came out of watching this movie five minutes ago, and wanted to jot down some quick notes on my immediate impression of the film.

This is an excellent portrayal of the events leading up to an including the attempted assassination of Hitler in the summer of 1944.

For those viewers who are interested in the history of WWII, they will find that this has been a meticulous re-creation of events. Too often, these types of movies--for the sake of "dramatization"--obscure, ignore, or outright distort the historical record. There is very little, if any, of that here.

I suspect the screenwriters closely followed the history of this as depicted by William Shirer in his excellent "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich".

Too often this event has been relegated to a footnote of history. One of the things the movie tries to impress on the viewer is the incredible courage of the conspiracy members. I have read some reviews where the reviewers whine about the "darkness" of the movie. But it must be remembered that the conspirators knew that this was a desperate attempt to save Germany and stop World War II, and that there was only a slight chance of success. It is to the credit of the German Resistance Movement---too often dismissed by historians and even FDR himself--that they realized the evil of Hitler and tried to do something about it.

Cruise is quite good as Stauffenberg, and the British actors do an excellent job depicting the German co-conspirators.

I would urge others to see this movie, and especially young people. The movie has not only a historical lesson to teach, but a lesson in morality and courage in the face of tyranny. It is a lesson still pertinent today.

We also need to show Hollywood that there is a demand for good weighty movies such as this, and not only for the escapist mind-candy that so often appears at your local cinemaplex.

Calling Hollywood 1971! This is an urgent message sent via our local black hole from your descendant, Hollywood 2008! Help!!! We have run out of ideas for movies! Worse then that, we have lost the guts to be daring and need to dumb-down our story lines and have the lowest common denominator to appeal to the the maximum number of dumbheads out there to make sure we recoup our investment. So now we have all this CGI technology (still kinda fake looking, but working on that) and directors/producers who are more technical geeks then artists. And we have an overpowering urge to make everything PC (we'll explain what that means in a later message), and to add artificial "suspense" by means of dubious conspiracies and utterly evil cardboard characters. Of course throw in lots of action scenes, heavy pounding music, and especially make all the story points obvious so that the audience can "relate" to the movie.

Please respond ASAP with any good story ideas and movies that we can remake and mangle! And don't repeat our mistake---be sure to sterilize the goddamned thing before sending it through!

I just saw this film yesterday on a DVD copy that a friend gave to me.

While it had it's good moments, at the end I was just left with a big "HUH?" I thought that the setting i.e. the Danvers Mental Hospital was great. I also liked some of the shots of the hospital done in the full sun of mid day, that emphasized its creepiness (too many times horror films rely on murky night shots).

The film started out really well, and made me interested in watching more. However, all too soon it degenerated into the typical faults of modern horror movies. Mysterious "noises" and "shadows". Long lingering camera shots on incongruous objects with no explanation (I kept asking myself: Is that hole in the wall supposed to mean something? What this about the coins?) None of these are followed up on.

As the movie progressed, I had the feeling that the plot was like a car stuck in the mud---spinning its wheels uselessly.

I also found it hard to have much sympathy for the characters--sorta like the producers/writers told themselves: "Lets make these guys your typical working schlubs!!" with all the attendant qualities i.e foul mouths, empty minds, etc. The Scottish/Irish/British actor was by far the best and most interesting. There is something about the Brit actors--their training, professionalism, and (I suspect) just more worldly wise---that beats out any thing that your typical "Hollywood" actor can do.

I give the movie a 4 out of 10.

Recently purchased this on DVD from AnchorBay. I had seen the film when it first came to the US in 1968, and after that--except for a few network showings--it seemed to disappear.

I can't add many more comments than the excellent ones that have already been posted. I do want to say that this was a film that was definitely ahead of its time, and I don't think people realized it when it first came out. I remember TV-movie critic Judith Crist, reviewing it in TV Guide for its first network showing, declared that she was "mystified" by the storyline.

Some observations about the DVD: The DVD has an excellent commentary by Roy Ward Baker and Nigel Kneale.

There is a "World of Hammer" featurette that didn't particularly impress me.

One of the best things about this DVD release is the excellent quality of the transfer. The colors are vibrant, and the grain of the picture is pristine and crisp. You can easily see the finest details--down to the stitching and cloth texture on the actor's clothes. There are just a few lateral scratches at the beginning of some of the reels, but they are virtually unnoticeable. Fans of this movie finally get a chance to see it as it must have looked when it first was shown. Also the soundtrack is simply superb--no hiss or pops, and the full dynamic range is evident. I never fully appreciated until now the incredible sound effects that this movie used.

PS> Despite what Baker and Kneale say in the soundtrack commentary, I do think "Five Million Years to Earth" is a better title than "Quatermass and the Pit".

I came across this movie on DVD purely by chance through a Blockbuster rental. Voyage to the Planets is an excellent BBC 2hour documentary/drama about a future "grand tour" of the solar system. Taking pains to adhere to current knowledge about the planets and space flight, and plausible extropolations from existing technology, this movie tells the story of astronauts on a journey to Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto.

The special effects are excellent for a TV show. I found the actors believable as astronauts. The situations presented are for the most part plausible, and you learn a lot about the science of the planets and spaceflight! Only two minor complaints: I found some of the situations and dialogue somewhat maudlin at times. Furthermore I am unsure that a single crew and ship would be sent on a single mission to see all those destinations at once time. More than likely, visits to Venus, Mars, Jupiter, etc. would/will be separate missions.

They didn't try to skimp on this show with production values. The scenes of Venus and Mars were actually filmed in the northern deserts of Chile--the driest area on earth and a dead-ringer for the Martian landscape. Weightlessness sequences were filmed in a diving Russian transport jet. The producers could have fudged on either of these using studios and CGI, but chose the real thing instead.

I would like to especially mention the marvelous music that was composed for this movie. Don Davis's thrilling theme is the first thing that grabs you when the movie starts, as the magnificent shot of the Pegasus passes the screen and David Suchet intones "it is the destiny of man to explore the stars...".

Watching this on a small television screen is one regret I have. What a thrill to see this in a movie theatre, or even better an IMAX presentation!

HG Wells' novel was a ground-breaking and unique entry into the field of literature.

However, this movie only takes 3 things from the classic story: aliens invade the Earth with walking machines and are killed in the end by bacteria.

The rest of the movie is a mixture of elements from 9-11, Aliens, Independence Day and other aliens-invade-the earth movies.

The characters of Cruise's two kids in the movie were perhaps the most annoying aspect in the film. They are alternatively whiney, selfish, and hysterical.

One of the most thrilling and moving episodes in Wells' original story was when the battleship "Thunderchild" attacks a Martian war machine. I really had hoped the Spielberg would have included something like this in the movie, but no show.

After watching this movie, I appreciate all the more George Pal's original and classic telling of the story.

Came across this movie purely by chance, and was immediately intrigued by its premise i.e. a horror movie set in the trenches of WWI. I am a big history buff, and one of my chief interests is the history of the first World War.

If anything, the movie deserves credit for setting a horror story in such a unique environment. The movie certainly had its scary and interesting moments. However, I found myself distracted by the overlapping and terse dialog that too often made it hard to understand what some of the actors were saying---made all the worse by the (intentional or otherwise) thick Cockney and Scottish accents.

Too much of the movie consists of frantic camera movements and the actors running around screaming obscenities.

I thought the makeup of the group in the movie was a little too clichéd. You got the tough Sargent, the martinet commanding officer, the horny soldier, the psycho soldier, the fresh-faced kid, etc. Furthermore, most of the characters act so vicious and bizarre it is hard to have sympathy for them.

I was surprised to see Andy Serkis in this movie, in a role completely different from that of Gollum in LOTR. He does a pretty good job--in fact, his character was scarier than the supposed "evil presence" in the story. I also give the movie credit for accurately depicting the misery of trench warfare in WWI.

In conclusion, I had the feeling I was watching an over-long episode of the Twilight Zone. Edited down to an hour or so, it would have made a good and interesting episode in that series. It certainly starts out with a grabber of a premise. Instead, it gets bogged-down in familiar war movie and horror movie clichés.

Despite it's faults, it is not a complete waste of time. I would recommend the movie as a mildly entertaining way to spend a rainy afternoon with your DVD player.

I had the chance to see this movie again, after buying the DVD release recently. The last time I saw it was some years ago, on bw TV.

The film still had an impact on me all these years later. I think the concept of an earth-ending catastrophe was well presented. I found the increasing sense of urgency as the rocket ship is built to be well done. The method by which the rocket takes-off is unique.

Best of all, the last 5-10 minutes of the movie are still as absorbing as they must have been when people saw it for the first time. All these years have still not diminished its impact.

Many comments on this website have put down the movie because of its sometimes over-sentimentalized and naive tone. I also found the occasional not-to-subtle religious overlay to be distracting and/or annoying. However, as another user pointed-out on this site, it must be remembered that this was a movie that was made for the audiences of 50+years ago. Obviously tastes and sensibilities have changed in that time. Movie producers make their movies to appeal to the contemporary audience. I wonder what audiences 50 years from now will think of current "popular" movies.

A brief note on the scientific plausibility of the premise of the movie i.e. the collision of the earth with another star. To give some readers an idea of how unlikely this could be: according to astronomer Paolo Maffei in his book "Beyond the Moon"; if our Sun was the size of a basketball, the Earth would be about the size of a BB 40 feet away with the outermost planets about 260 feet away. On this scale, Alpha Centauri (the next closest star to our Sun) would be 40 miles away. And this is a distance between stars that is typical in our part of the galaxy. Even if possible, it is extremely unlikely that such a collision as premised in the movie could occur.

I remember when this movie was on TV in 1983. Just rented the DVD and am still impressed by how effective it is. Jason Robards is outstanding and is a real star here, as is John Lithgow. The film presents a plausible scenario of events that could lead to a nuclear war, as well as how such a war might unfold. It is difficult today, in the post-cold war era, for younger people to understand exactly how present and real the threat of this happening existed. The special effects of the bombs going off are well done, though somewhat marred by the stock footage of 1950s atomic bomb tests. This was also the first movie of its type to describe and show the effects of EMP in a nuclear detonation. The scenes of a devastated Lawrence Kansas are sobering. One of the most haunting scenes in the entire movie occurs almost at the end, as a dying-from-radiation Jason Robards looks out over the flattened vista of what used to be Kansas City.

I have some complaint about the tendency at times for the movie to fall into "soap opera". I find it hard for people to be going off making love, calmly painting a house, giving a lift to a hitchhiker, watching a movie in a theatre, as the warning sirens are going off.

I am a farmer in Eastern Kansas, and I was particularly irritated by the depiction of the "farm folks" in the movie. For example, they show the farmer's son filling old-fashioned milk jugs from a hand pump. Milk jugs like that shown in the film haven't been around for 40 years! And no farm I know of that has electricity still uses a hand pump for pumping water out of a well. Another typical Hollywood misconception of rural people is the annoying "twangy" accent that the farm family speaks with ("ma cahs caint graaaaze 'cause of the raaaadiaaaa-shun"). They certainly talk like no farmer I ever heard around here.

I am disappointed that the DVD release has no extras with it. I would have loved to have a commentary by director Nicholas Meyer--he is an eloquent and intelligent person, as evidenced by the commentary he provides on the DVD of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan (which he also directed). There could also have been commentaries by the actors, and it would have been great to have an update documentary and/or retrospect included. When the movie was originally aired on TV, I remember that afterwards there was a round-table discussion of prominent politicians (including Henry Kissinger), religious leaders, etc. concerning the issues raised in the movie. Again, this would have been a great extra feature to include in this DVD release. Maybe if enough people express interest there could be a re-issue by MGM in the future that would include these features.

However, despite the shortcomings in the end this is a cautionary tale of a time in the not-to-distant past of the situation that existed in the cold-war era."The Day After" is a well made film that succeeds much better, I feel, than such nuke movies as "Testament" and "On the Beach" because of its realistic portrayal of a nuclear war. Whatever its other faults, it pulls no punches in this area. At the time the movie was shown, Reagan was president. And having a man like that as president was enough to justify fears in the possiblility of nuclear war (In the movie, the president is a thinly disquised Reagan who gives a bombastic rah-rah speech over the radio to the country after the attack. One reviewer at the time commented that he "sounded more eager to win the war then comfort the nation over the terrible loss it has just sustained".) If anything, our current president (Bush II) would be even worse in this regard--probably with an attitude that a nuclear war is an instrument of the Rapture to bring on the Second Coming.

First---I want to say I have always enjoyed this movie since first seeing it some years ago. It explores some aspects of of a (relatively) little-know war i.e. World War I, and especially the use and technology of Zeppelins--which has been rare to non-existent in cinema.

Recently having purchased a video tape of the movie, I noticed something that has raised questions in my mind. In the movie, it is stated more times how critical weight is on a Zeppelin. For instance, when Richter-Douglas is first brought on board, Frau Altschul says "weight is critical on an airship--we haven't allowed for this man!" However, later when the Zeppelin has docked on the ship in the North Sea, a score or more of the men who are the "commandos" board the ship, and nothing is said about extra weight.

The only thing I can surmise is that the men who were to actually perform the commando raid in Scotland replaced the regular Zeppelin crew; who consequently disembarked and were left on the naval ship. If this happened in the movie or was mentioned, did I miss it?