Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women (1968)

Introduction:

Last time the 100 Sci-fi Classics gave us “Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet”. This time there are women involved. Ok, but last time the woman had a beehive and looked sedated. What? We get Mamie Van Doren this time? Sign me up!

Summary:

A rocket expedition to Venus ends up crash landing. Little hope is given for Dr. Kern (Georgi Tejkh), Allen Sherman (Yuri Sarantsev) and the robot named John (John Bix). Still a rescue expedition is sent out to find them comprised of Andre (Gennadi Vernov), Hans (Georgi Zhzhyonov) and Commander Lockhart (Vladimir Yemelyanov). Little do they know that the inhabitants of the planet are women who worship a strange reptilian god. They are lead by Moana (Mamie Van Doren) and she doesn’t like Earthlings much. Can our heros survive the “Voyage to Planet of Prehistoric Women”.

Good Points:

• Is filled with all kinds of adventures
• The special effects range from “not bad” to mind-bendingly goofy
• Mamie and the girls wear “interesting” outfits

Bad Points

• Some of the characters are aggressively annoying
• A confusing dub script renders logic useless at times
• Rendered even more dull by the new sequences with the ladies

Overall:

Ouch, did this one hurt. Ok, it’s basically reused footage from “Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet” but edited even worse than before. New footage with a half naked Mamie and girls adds visual interest, but makes the movie plod even slower than it originally did. All the fun of the previous film is sucked away leaving a husk of a film. Need a Mamie Van Doren fix – don’t bother with this.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 3

Sound: 2

Acting: 2

Music: 2

Script: 2

Direction: 1

Entertainment: 2

Total: 2

In Depth

You know I really don’t have much to add. Check out my review of “Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet”. I’ll wait till you read that over.

Ok, now that you know what that film was like imagine the movie cut up with a chainsaw. Then imagine someone adding a horrible voice over providing inane narration. Then imagine a long opening montage about space travel over models of spacecraft done just to pad the film. Finally imagine Mamie and her girls wandering around a rocky beach looking bored, high or bemused.

Having watched this so close to the previous film, I found this extremely boring. Maybe if a few months had passed, I would have enjoyed it a bit more, so I gave it better scores than I really felt. The Russian portions of the film are still pretty impressive, but the editing really butchers this one. I say avoid it.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Introduction:

When I caught the trailer for this movie I was a little disturbed. Sherlock Holmes beating the crap out of people? Quick cuts? Robert Downey Jr. nude and handcuffed on a bed with only a pillow hiding little Bobby from us. Um, who’s idea was this.

Then I saw that it was a Guy Ritchie film and it all made sense.

Summary:

Famous London detective Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and his partner Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) track down and apprehend Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) a murderer who’s actions are driven by the occult. Before Blackwood is hung he vows that he will return and that Holmes will be unable to stop him. Soon enough the prophesy comes true.

To complicate matters further the lovely con artist Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) returns to London and enlists Holmes help in a different matter. As the mystery thickens Holmes discovers that he has multiple adversaries out for him. Will he and Watson survive long enough to stop Blackwood?

Good Points:

• Downey Jr. and Law make a good team
• Period detail and atmosphere are effective
• Ritchie keeps things moving

Bad Points:

• Sherlock Holmes the super hero?
• Rachel McAdams felt out of place
• Ritchie gets a bit too creative for his own good

Overall:

Forget your typical mystery and prepare yourself for Holmes in a more James Bond type role, and you’ll actually have a good time. All the production elements are top notch and make for a good popcorn movie on a Friday night.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 4

Music: 4

Acting: 4

Script: 3

Direction: 3

Entertainment: 3

Overall: 3

In Depth Review:

The more I thought about it, the concept had merit. Sherlock Holmes is a character that gets revisited on a regular basis, like Dracula or James Bond. Why not bring him back and try something a little different. With Guy Ritchie aboard it would at least be interesting to look at. Robert Downey Jr. could bring a lot to the part. Lets take a look at the results.

The main idea behind this film is to take Sherlock Holmes: detective and turn him into Sherlock Holmes: superhero. The script does this by widening the threat of Blackwood. Instead of being a simple murderer he’s now into world domination. He even makes your typical Bond villain monologue explaining his evil plan.

The script also introduces a buddy picture element. Watson wants to wed the lovely Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly), but Holmes is unable to reconcile this. Holmes needs Watson, not only as a partner, but also as a friend. Watson needs Holmes as a friend, but also as a source of adventure. This dynamic results in some of the funniest parts of the movie. Each man does his best to outmaneuver the other and make it look like he’s not trying to outmaneuver him.

The actors know exactly how to play the parts. Robert Downey Jr. locks onto Holmes typical eccentricities, but adds a spin of mental instability. This man’s mind is in constant overdrive. Without a case to focus on, he becomes a shut-in constantly searching for new mental stimulus. Holmes can be a bit annoying, but Downey Jr. allows us to see deeper into the character.

Jude Law surprised me the most as Watson. According to my wife (who enjoyed the Sherlock Holmes stories in her youth) Law is one of the best Watson’s she’s seen, very close to his literary version in appearance and demeanor. I found his performance to be very warm and engaging, a perfect counter to Holmes and a vast contrast to the standard take on Watson as the buffoon.

Mark Strong certainly has presence as the diabolical Lord Blackwood. He appearances are kept to a minimum but when he’s on screen he projects menace. But I never felt that he was a real threat to Holmes. Just like most Bond villains, we know pretty early on that he’s not as clever as he thinks he is.

Rachel McAdams is a bit of a puzzle for me. Her character is interesting. Her acting is fine. She looks great in the costumes. But for some reason I was pulled out of the film when she was on screen. Maybe it was the American accent (explained away conveniently enough), or maybe she’s one of those actresses that doesn’t seem to fit in period films. Her part isn’t especially large, but it is important and it did end up affecting my enjoyment of the film.

The rest of the movie falls in line to make the superhero angle work.

The setting is dank and dirty reminding me more of Gotham city than the typical film representation of Victorian London. There is an added realism to the city from the sets down to the costumes. On top of that the movie has a grey color scheme, giving everything a slightly washed out look. This makes the explosions and blood stand out a bit more.

Ritchie does a lot of interesting things with the camera, especially when he jumps into Holmes head. During certain fight sequences, we see Holmes plan out his attack in detail. The camera shows each action in deliberate slowness as Holmes explains why he’ll attack and what the affect will be. Then the attack is executed in a stutter of real time and slow motion. It’s an interesting approach that gives us a peak into the mind of our lead character and punches up the action scenes.

The rest of the set pieces are filmed with skill, keeping everything clear while moving the sequence forward at a crisp pace. The sound effects play a big part in these sequences providing pop to keep things exciting.

Hans Zimmer who provided Batman with his most recent musical scores is on hand for this film. It’s an eclectic blend of musical styles, straying far from the more classical approach we’d expect. It lacks a true super hero theme, but it works wonderfully in the film, supporting the action as well as the quieter moments.

The movie felt a little too manufactured. It tired hard to be something new, a little too hard. Maybe if it had toned down the style a bit, let us settle into the world a little more, I would have found it more engaging. Part of this may be Ritchie’s direction, but I’m not sure if I’m sold completely on this concept of Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes as a superhero is an interesting idea and the concept works better than I thought it would. This makes for a solid nights entertainment, but it’s not a knock out of the park.

Study in Scarlet (1933)

Introduction:

I'm familiar with Reginald Owen from his work on "The Christmas Carol". I was intrigued by the idea of him taking on Sherlock Holmes. I'm not familiar with the original story that this film is based on, but things start off with murder - so the film makers are at least on the right track. Lets see how this latest offering from the 100 Mystery Classics box set stacks up.

Summary:

When a widow comes to Sherlock Holmes (Reginald Owen) complaining that her husband died and all of his estate was going to a mysterious group called The Scarlet Circle, Holmes is intrigued. Turns out he already has suspicions about the sleazy lawyer Merrydew (Allan Dinehart). The plot thickens as more deaths occur and the lovely young Eileen (June Clyde) may be a witness. Holmes tracks down clues, dons disguises and even draws a pistol in his attempt to save lives and solve the mystery of the "Study in Scarlet".

Good Points:

• Retains the personality and feel of Sherlock Holmes from the works of Doyle.
• Moves at a pretty good pace
• The ending held a few surprises

Bad Points:

• Some of the humor falls flat
• Owen's portrayal makes Holmes too cold
• Watson seems to be a third wheel for most of the film.

Overall:

This movie presented an intriguing mystery that did a good job of putting a good twist at the end. It was easy to spot the villain, but I didn't figure the entire mystery out. A few of the comic sequences didn't work for me and ended up slowing the film down a bit, but other than that this is an interesting take on the classic character. Worth seeking out if you can enjoy 30's style mystery.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 3

Sound: 2

Music: n/a

Acting: 3

Script: 4

Direction: 3

Entertainment: 3

Overall: 3

In-Depth Review

While I've never been a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes, it's hard to not to be familiar with his adventures and perhaps seen some of his film or television exploits. My wife is the one who's read all of the Holmes stories and is fairly familiar with most of the incarnations of the detective. But she had never seen Owen's take on the character.

The first thing she pointed out was that Owen has Holmes smoking the type of pipe described in the books. The familiar curved pipe does not appear in the stories and was an addition made by a famous stage production. This was continued by Basil Rathbone in his movies and became the accepted type of pipe used nearly all incarnations of the character. But this 30's version uses the straight pipe from the books. Don’t you feel better now that you know that?

Things continue in that fashion from there. Owen makes Holmes brusque, calculating and a bit on the snobby side. He moves around the sets looking for clues like a hunter, moving from place to place with precision and determination. While he doesn't taunt Dr. Watson (Warburton Gamble) or treat him like an imbecile, he does give off an air of superiority. He basically treats Watson like an apprentice of sorts. It's an interesting portrayal, and one that isn't too far from what I'm familiar with. My only issue is that this incarnation of Holmes may be too cold and even intimidating at times. Not the kind of man you'd feel comfortable hiring. I find Rathbone's take on the character a bit more engaging.

For the most part the rest of the cast is good. Dinehart provides us with a sleazy villain that you just want to get nabbed. If he had a moustache, he'd be twirling it. Gamble isn't given too much to do as Watson, but he doesn't play him like an idiot (as I've seen in several incarnations), so that's a step in the right direction. On the other hand, he doesn't really help too much either. He's just kind of there, taking up space. June Clyde is all right as Eileen Forrester, our damousel in distress. She's bland, but again, there isn't much for her to actually do. I was honestly surprised to see Anna May Wong playing Mrs. Pyke. It's not often you see actual Asian actresses in 30's movies. She's cast as the femme fatale, unfortunately she's not very good in the role.

One of the interesting points is that "A Study in Scarlet" is actually a contemporary take on Holmes. That means the movie takes place in 1933, so all the Victorian trappings are gone. All the men are wearing fedoras and the ladies look very nice in their depression era hats. Maybe this was done for budgetary reasons, and it proves an interesting point that Holmes as a character can work in any environment. For the most part the production level is solid visually, it's just a little odd to not have those Victorian touches.

The sound is a little rougher. Most of the time dialogue was clear, but there seemed to be issues with the microphones picking up every little creak in the set or squeak of a boot. This could make a few scenes tough to hear. On top of that, there is no score outside opening and closing titles. This is typical of 30's movies and I don't allow it to affect the score.

The script was interesting. According to IMDB, the plot for this movie has nothing to do with the actual story by Arthur Conan Doyle. Instead the writers come up with an interesting mystery that kept me guessing. It's obvious very quickly that Merrydew is up to no good. But it’s difficult to see just how he is involved. Once Holmes reveals the solution at the end, I saw how it all fit together, but the writers did a good job throwing you and Watson off the scent (but there are couple cheats here and there). The dialogue is pretty good, with the only weak part being the humor. Again with the comedy of booze. This seems to be a staple of 30's flicks and I have yet to find it funny. It shows up here and it does slow down the film a bit.

The direction is solid, with Edwin Marin keeping things moving and allowing the mystery to play out clearly enough so the audience can follow it. Things never get too inventive with camera angles or lighting, so atmosphere isn't a big deal here. It's a solid job, one that doesn't really hurt the film, but makes you wish a little style had been added.

The movie was entertaining, a good weekend movie for a lazy Sunday. While it may not be the quickest paced film, or even the most ingenious of mysteries, the final product will scratch that itch for Sherlock Holmes. Anyone looking for a change of pace should check out Reginald Owen's take on the famous detective.

James Lileks wasn't so hot on this one. Check out his review here.

The Adventures of Prince Achmed (1926)

Introduction

I ran into a review of this a few years ago and was immediately intrigued by the idea. A feature length animated film that predated Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs? I didn’t even know that was possible. But here it is, a classic of silent cinema, and one that any animation fan should check out.

Summary:

In the time of the Arabian Nights, Prince Achmed and his family are entertained by a powerful sorcerer. The sorcerer presents a fabulous clockwork horse for the Prince to try out. Well the horse spirits Achmed away to a far land, and the wicked sorcerer abducts the lovely Princess Dinarsade. Now Achmed must return home and save his sister. Along the way he will meet a beautiful woman from the spirit realm, a hideous witch, the Emperor of China, a harem full of lovely, lonely women, and even Aladdin himself. It’s a story full of fantasy and daring called The Adventures of Prince Achmed.

Good Points:

• Amazing silhouette animation with details that astound
• A musical score that creates the perfect background
• The movie throws one in visual delight after another

Bad Points:

• It’s a silent film and if you don’t like the genre you won’t like this
• Some pretty blatant and offensive racial stereotypes
• The story jumps around without a proper arc

Overall:

Looked at in context this is an amazing film. All the animation is stop motion using cardboard and lead cutouts. The use of lighting and special effects is skillful, but it’s the fluidity of the animation especially during the big set pieces that amazes. Fans of silent cinema and animation need to see this movie and enter the dreamland that was created here. Everyone else, I offer a cautious recommendation. The lack of a clear story, characters and dialogue may create a movie too slow to enjoy.

Scores (out of 5)

Animation: 5

Sound: N/A

Music: 4

Voice Acting: N/A

Direction: 4

Story: 3

Entertainment: 4

Total: 4

In Depth Review

I appreciate what Disney has done with animation. Walt really pushed forward the art of telling a story with animation back in the day. But Disney needs to stop claiming the title of first fully animated feature. Even The Adventures of Prince Achmed isn’t the first of its kind. But it is the earliest surviving fully animated film. With that sitting out there, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs needs to step down.

I had actually seen something like this before. There is a unique Japanese animated series called Revolutionary Girl Utena. This is an odd show all the way around, but one of its easily identifiable features is a Greek chorus that shows up in each episode with a mini story. This chorus is comprised of silhouette girls that look amazingly like the characters from Prince Achmed. Director Kunihiko Ikuhara must have been a fan of the style and decided to use it in his anime, and it works well in the context of the whole show. But even what he did doesn’t come close to the original.

If you are going to watch this movie, you need to be ready to accept what you are seeing. The silhouette is backlit and tinted comprises the entire animations style. You can get a good idea from the pictures I’ve added here. What is also visible, even more so on a large screen is the depth of the images. Not only are all the characters made in silhouette, but all the buildings and backgrounds. Then using angled light and layering, you get a full world, one that is amazing to see. The idea that someone went to all the trouble of designing, cutting and animating all these figures and buildings is mind blowing. Even Ray Harryhausen would be impressed.

Sequences like the amazing battle between the witch and the sorcerer are jaw dropping. These two beings continue to transform into various creatures in an attempt to kill each other. It’s very similar to the battle that occurs in Disney’s The Sword in the Stone. The fluidity of the transformations is stupendous and the way these transformations take places with pieces folding in and over and growing and flipping is like a dream (and reminded me of the mutation sequences in Akira).

The The Adventures of Prince Achmed uses smoke, sparks and creative lighting effects to add atmosphere and create a true fantasy environment. Maybe that’s what I love most about this movie – its like an Arabian Nights dream come to life, with a definite art deco feel to it. The fully rerecorded musical score does wonders here. Yes it has a definite classic cinema sound, but it fits the film and helps drive the story along. Doing some research I see that other scores have been created and while I’m curious to see how these would work, I wonder if they can match the story as well.

As I mentioned there are some downsides here. The story is really haphazard, seeming to jump all around and never really connect. There aren’t really characters here, just genre stereotypes. The evil sorcerer is just rotten. The hero is bland but good. The princess is lovely but always in peril. There aren’t any surprises in the plot really, but in a way that isn’t the point. The focus is obviously on the visuals and creating the mood. Plot is secondary in this case.

What is hard to overlook are the racial depictions of Chinese and African people in this movie. Keeping in mind when this was made, its something that is pretty common in cinema, but that didn’t stop me from shaking my head and feeling a bit wary about recommending it to people without warning them.

Honestly I can’t imagine any fan of animation or silent cinema missing out The Adventures of Prince Achmed. If you can find a copy to rent (Netflix has it for digital download!) give it a try. The actual DVD contains some neat extras including a documentary that goes into detail on how the film was made. This is an impressive film and one that influenced many other creators over the years. Its also entertaining in its own right and you can’t ask for more than that.

Let the Right One in (2008)

Introduction

When this movie came out a lot of comments were made that this is how a real vampire movie should work – you know as opposed to “Twilight”. Well you can say that about a lot of vampire movies. I was still intrigued because the story sounded like it could provide some creepy moments.

Summary

Oskar (Kare Hedebrant) and his mother live in an apartment in Stockholm. Oskar has it rough; he’s bullied at school, doesn’t seem to have any friends and is at an age where everything about him seems off (middle school I’m guessing). Then Eli (Lina Leandersson) moves in and things change. Eli befriends him, but she only comes out at night and her skin is cold to the touch. Then strange murders and attempted murders start occurring in their neighborhood. Oskar begins to suspect that his new friend is much more than she appears – but is that really going to change their friendship?

Good Points

• Excellent portrayals by both child actors
• Filmed in a way that keeps things cold and creepy
• Doesn’t pull punches with vampire lore

Bad Points

• A slow moving film
• Some viewers might find the relationship too creepy
• Not enough horror for fans of that genre

Overall

The movie’s main focus is on Oskar and his relationship with Eli. The fact that she’s a vampire puts a spin on it, and the movie never shies away from what that may mean. It makes the movie more creepy and disturbing, as it should be. In the end that is the main goal of the film, to get under your skin and it does so very well. I wouldn’t call it a horror film, but something more like a dark romance. I recommend it to anyone who likes some vampires in their foreign films.

Scores (out of 5)

Visual: 4

Sound: 4

Acting: 4

Music: 4

Direction: 4

Script: 4

Entertainment: 4

Total: 4

Curious about a full review, send me an email and I'll make additional thoughts to this review.

District 9 (2009)

Introduction

I kept seeing benches at bus stops with a strange icon telling me that the bench was for humans only. I thought it was for a videogame of some kind. When I finally started to see ads for "District 9" I was even more curious. I finally got around to watching the film and the memory of the benches made me snicker. It was only too appropriate.

Summary

Earth is finally visited by aliens, and land in South Africa. They are brought to earth and end up becoming a type of second class citizen, even though the technology on the ship has helped humans. Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley) is in charge of moving the undesirable aliens from their current slum of District 9 to an all new ghetto. Some of the aliens resist moving, and during a struggle Wikus is injured by an alien device. Now it appears that Wikus is slowly mutating into some kind of hybrid human/alien. Desperate for a cure, he becomes a hunted man, on the run from government agents, gangs, and a mysterious alien. It is obvious that his fate is tied to the people of "District 9".

Good Points

• Sharlto Copley is superb in the part, creating a believable character
• The world of the film is excellently realized, with believable technology and aliens
• The actions sequences are intense and executed very well

Bad Points

• The documentary aspect of the film is distracting in places
• Pacing is a bit off in the first half
• Some of the more violent sequences may disturb viewers

Overall

This type of movie is rare, a science fiction film that fuses high-octane action with interesting ideas. It makes for excellent entertainment that you can talk about after it’s done. Copley really sells his role and that combined with special effects that go for realistic over flashy, and you've got a movie worth checking out.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 5

Sound: 5

Music: 3

Acting: 5

Script: 4

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 4

Total: 4

Curious about a full review, send me an email and I'll make additional thoughts to this review.

Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet (1965)

Introduction:

Time again to delve into the 100 Sci-fi Classics movie pack. This movie has the words “prehistoric” and “planet” in the title. The last time I saw that combination of words in a title it was for a MST3K episode that included dorky cave men and provided the catchphrase “Hi-keeba”. Would this film be an improvement, and would it provide us with a better catchphrase? Grab your clay-mation dinosaur and get ready to find out.

Summary:

Earth has sent a three rocket expedition to Venus. Along the way a meteor destroys one of the rockets. The remaining crew decides to land on Venus in a smaller force. The first is comprised of Dr. Kern (Georgi Tejkh) the creator of John (John Bix) the robot, and Allen Sherman (Yuri Sarantsev). In the dense cloud layer the landing party is lost. So the remaining explorers descend leaving poor Dr. Marsha Evans (Faith Domergue) in the orbiting rocket and in touch with the lunar base and Professor Harman (Basil Rathbone). The rescue party of Andre (Gennadi Vernov), Hans (Georgi Zhzhyonov) and Commander Lockhart (Vladimir Yemelyanov) must face all kinds of dangers on Venus, including lizard men, exploding volcanoes, dinosaurs and a mysterious voice that may be a siren song to doom. Can the expedition survive their Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet ?

Good Points:

• Once the astronauts get to the planet things move pretty quickly
• Is filled with all kinds of adventures
• The special effects range from “not bad” to mind-bendingly goofy

Bad Points:

• Obviously a dubbed film with padding in English
• Some of the characters are aggressively annoying
• A confusing dub script renders logic useless at times

Overall:

You’ve got another rocket movie that will probably remind you of a host of other films. In most cases it’s a fun little movie, but there are moments where things get too tedious or confusing. I stopped trying to keep up with the plot and just enjoyed the ride of silly antics on Venus. You’ve got a robot, hopping lizard men, a couple dinosaurs, a hover car and rockets galore. If only the dubbing scriptwriter and dubbing actors had put in a little more effort (and the print was in better shape) this would have been a solid space exploration adventure. Adjust your expectations and you should get a kick out of this.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 3

Acting: 2

Music: 2

Script: 2

Direction: 2

Entertainment: 3

Total: 3

In Depth

Venus has fascinated filmmakers for many years, and while it might not eclipse the allure of the red planet, Venus was often the target for early space adventures. This was because for the longest time, Venus was known to have an atmosphere and was assumed to have many similar qualities to earth. The cloud layer hiding the surface was intriguing, and heck – it’s name after the Roman goddess of love. How could it not be hospitable?

Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet gives us a glimpse of a movie called Planet of Storms, a Russian film made a few years earlier. According to IMDB, Roger Corman and company grabbed the rights to this film and packaged it for release in the U.S. They hired Mr. Rathbone and Miss Domerque to provide some actual acting and then dubbed the hell out of it. This same type of process was used in the film The Magic Voyage of Sinbad which was actually a Russian fairytale adventure called Sadko. Just like it’s fantasy brother, this dubbed film suffers a bit in the translation.

What doesn’t suffer is the imagination and excitement of space travel. Much like the similar First Spaceship on Venus another Russian coproduction, this movie throws in as much technical and visual effects as it can manage. Much of it looks primitive to us now, but it’s got a spirit of adventure and fun that rings through the rough script and poor dub acting.

The movie opens with a blast of rockets as they hurtle through space. One is struck by a meteor and destroyed – all in the first few minutes, Michael Bay would be proud. From there you get a tentacled flower of death a strange siren song a hover car, a stop motion dinosaur, a flying dinosaur a submerged ancient city, hopping lizard men (some of the funniest sequences in the movie), a waterfall that almost overwhelms John the Robot, and an volcano.

So you can see, this movie is jam packed with crazy adventures and otherworldly goodness. Visually the look of the space suits and rockets is pretty well executed. A lot of location shooting went into the filming and the sequence with the waterfall is pretty impressive. Most of the work with sets is limited to the interior of the rockets. It is certainly more convincing than a lot of low budget rocket adventures I’ve seen, but it lacks some of the panache of the ship from First Spaceship on Venus. Then there’s John the Robot. He’s definitely influenced by the robot from Forbidden Planet, with his cumbersome body and whirling antenna. He moves very slowly and while he’s dubbed with a very annoying voice, he actually serves a valuable member of the landing crew. Just don’t expect R2-D2 or even the android from Metropolis.

In stark contrast are the padded scenes with Rathbone and Domerque. The sets are obviously thrown together, lacking the detail of the Russian counterparts. The costumes look more futuristic as opposed to the more conventional outfits of the astronauts. The scenes with Dr. Evans work a little better. She seems to be in a different part of the rocket, maybe a more streamlined and less cluttered part. Even if the dubbing was a lot better, you’d still know she was filmed at a different time. The whole print I saw was very faded with drab colors that made everything look brownish. This is a shame I suspect there was a lot of color in this movie. It probably looked much cooler when it was first released in Russia.

The sound isn’t too bad. The music is another beast all together. The score takes away from the film, distracting at times and not seeming to be married to the actual scenes in many cases. I’m not sure if this was an addition made by Corman’s crew or this was original to the film, but it’s not effective.

Rathbone is given top billing but he’s really nothing more than a glorified cameo. Dr. Evans falls into the same boat. I think she was added so a woman could actually appear in the film. Marsha is left on the rocket, so she can fret, make log entries, communicate with Rathbone and fret some more. I feel bad for saying it but Domerque’s performance is so vague and spacey I wonder if she was bored or a little high (or both).

The rest of the cast is hard to judge, because the Russian actors do a decent enough job as far as I can tell. They seem to be into the parts as the brave and adventurous heroes. But the dubbing is horrible. At its best the actors inject a little emotion into the parts, but most of the time you get bored sounding voices droning on and on (reminding me of the MST3K episode of Hamlet). The worst is the robot, John, who does the typical …I… AM… A… ROBOT… voice. He gets really annoying really fast.

I’m not sure what director Curtis Harrington actually did, other than shoot the footage with Domergue and Rathbone. He certainly didn’t film the bulk of the movie, but maybe he helped edit the film together. I do know he worked on the script and to be honest it stinks. Some of the dialogue makes no sense and only confuses the plot. The injection of Dr. Evans forces the story to warp not in the Russian version. It’s a real mess, one that increases the problems with the dub.

In the end, I can’t condemn the movie too much. I know what it was trying to do and the Russian elements are inventive and fun. At the time of its release this movie would not have been shown in the US. It was the middle of the Cold War and Russians are still the enemy. So this may be the only way a fun movie like this could have been released. But now, Corman’s take seems like a relic and makes me curious to see the original version. If you enjoyed First Spaceship on Venus then check this out. They would make a fun double feature. Just get ready for some riffing on the horrible dub.