ALL SCI-FI

[Bud Brewster]

I watched this movie on January 1, 2013 for the first time in over 40 years, and I gained a keen appreciation for it. If you haven't seen it, maybe this will help you enjoy it, too.

First of all, you have to admire a movie which presents a poster that doesn't mislead the audience by showing a monster or an alien which looks nothing like the one in the movie, holding a scantily clad woman in his arms who isn't actually one of the characters.

The poster for this movie accurately portrays the alien, and the lady he's carrying is actually in the movie (Lela Nelson in a bit part, early in the film). The lobby card features the same young lady — or at least her very excellent legs! I should point out, however, that Miss Nelson is NOT wearing sexy red high heels in the movie. Just plain old tennis shoes.


__________


However, the alien does have a scene in which he carries the heroine, Noreen Nash (a brilliant scientist who has most of the best moments in the film) and she also has a very nice pair of legs, but we never get a good look at them in the movie — unfortunately.


__________________


Ironically, when the alien does carry Miss Nash, he IS showing his legs, because he's not wearing his spacesuit the way he does in the poster. In fact, he's naked! But Miss Nash doesn't get to enjoy the view because he's invisible at the time.

Obviously the photo below doesn't represent an actual scene in the movie, but the gentleman who plays the alien seems to be enjoying himself in this publicity still. The expression on Miss Nash's face might mean she suspects just how much the alien is enjoying carrying her . . . if you know what I mean.





Concerning the plot: having little money to spend on special effects or makeup, producer-director William Lee Wilder did his best to entertain us with this imaginative tale about an alien who crash lands near the Griffith Observatory and tries to evade pursuing scientists and authorities.

(I guess that means this story is about an alien evasion! )





To save money, the filmmakers (a) never actually show the spaceship and (b) make the alien invisible. The scientists capture the alien's space suit (which is not invisible) when he discards it to escape from his pursuers, and they examine it in their lab.


__________________


The alien can't live on Earth without it, so he tries to get it back, but the helmet is accidentally destroyed. (At this point we all begin to wonder just how intelligent this guy is: he strips off his suit and runs around naked on a planet he can't survive on. Maybe he was just some nut who stole a spaceship!)


__________________


Dying from asphyxiation, the alien is finally cornered on a catwalk in the observatory.

The story has some intelligent points, including a discussion about the possibility that the alien's basic chemistry is based on silicon rather than carbon, and that the spaceship uses magnetic lines of force to travel through space.

The scientists discover that the alien becomes visible under ultra-violet light. Once the alien is revealed, he glows with an eerie light. It's the pay-off moment for this low-budget but entertaining movie.


__________________


There actually are quite a few other FX in this film, including floating objects being carried by the invisible alien. The scene in which the lady scientist uses an ultra-violet lamp to make the alien's hand visible is very effective.

I also discovered an interesting thing about the film's poster. In the best tradition of 1950s sci-fi movies, the alien is shown with a gorgeous young lady in his arms. Although the heroine of the movie isn't the lady shown in the poster, I did find the publicity shot shown below.

It's obviously the picture used by the artist — but this scene doesn't seem to be from the movie. The young lady is from a scene early in the film. Strangely enough, her hair in the movie is much shorter than it appears in the photo.


___

_______________________________________

This modest, low-budget film provided fond memories for me during my teen years when I watched movies presented by our local late-show host on Friday nights. He performed under the whimsical name Bestoink Dooley in Atlanta during the middle 1960s.


__________________


This wonderful character was created my Mr. George Ellis, and I was so devoted to his late-night show that I joined his fan club and received the button shown below.





A few years ago his granddaughter joined All Sci-Fi because she had discovered a thread in which I spoke kindly of her grandfather.

There are several videos of Bestoink Dooley on YouTube, one of which is a seven minute mini-movie with a terrific picture —


__________________


— and the other is a seven minute excerpt from an independent comedy/horror film he starred in called The Legend of Blood Mountain!


_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[Bud Brewster]

I like this review from Jimbo Berkey's wonderful site, Free Classic Movies (which he shut down, unfortunately), for Phantom from Space. He spotted something amazing about this movie that has me eager to watch it again!
_____________________________________________________

Science Fiction in 1953: In this movie I saw something that was so advanced . . . so conceptually futuristic . . . so very foreign to the 1953 world, I get shivers down my spine watching it.

I had to watch it twice just to be certain I saw what I think I saw.

How could anyone in 1953 have such a forward vision that they would add this to the movie plot? I don't think that Nostradamus ever foretold anything in the future that was so very dead-on, spot perfect. I'm still in awe as I write this.

No, it wasn't the creepy electronic sounds that accompanied the Phantom from outer space. It wasn't the concept of an indestructible space suit, or the invisible man from outer space. It wasn't the methods that the scientists used to probe the space suit or the alien.

__

It wasn't even the laughable notion that of course Santa Monica (like all towns in 1953) would have a 'communications' man, with several radio detection units at his disposal.

__

It was the characters of Bill and Barbara Randall.

Bill Randall is played by Steven Clark, with less than a dozen movies to his credit. Barbara Randall is played by Noreen Nash, who you may spot in a few other movies here, and some older television shows. Their characters were so impossible in 1953 America (but so common today) that I am aghast at the eerie relationship they portend.

You see, the wife is a scientist working long hours at the institute.

__

And her husband? Well, he is a house wife. He has no job or career that we know about, and early on in the movie she sends him away so that she can hunt down the man from space. She orders him to go shopping, and the dweeb husband smiles and dutifully leaves on his errands, never to be seen again . . . until it is time for him to frantically look for his wife, who the space man is carrying away.

__

He is fraught with fear at the disappearance of his wife, and runs aimlessly and helplessly around the empty corridors in search of his beloved.

Wow.

The typical role of a 1953 husband and wife are totally and clearly reversed . . . and it is presented on screen as 'normal.' But it jumped right off of the screen at me. In today's movies it wouldn't even be noticed, but I watch a lot of older movies, and my mind was in that older mind set. It jumped out at me like a bolt of lightning. This was not a part of 1953 America . . . what screenwriter would create such a script? How did he know that this would become common a half century later?

I wonder if it popped off the screen for the movie audience in 1953? Do you think they thought it was something that was sure to happen more and more in the coming years, or do you think that they figured it was just wild movie fiction, like the Phantom? I'm betting that a lot of men in the audience thought that this was the most outlandish fiction of the movie!

____Jimbo Berkey
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[orzel-w]

What's been puzzling me all these years is how this guy could see anything through that helmet's visor. It must have lined up with about the middle of his forehead.
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------

[SAM33]

OK, so somehow I managed to get this old and NEVER have seen W. Lee Wilder 50's sci-fi film.

For whatever reason they seldom or never were on TV where I lived as a kid, or I KNOW I'd have watched them.

Of course they have generally bad reputations, so I guess that somewhat kept me from seeking them out, but there are certainly many other "bad" films I love. However also I knew they were (at least this one and KILLERS FROM SPACE) PD and that the prints you could get were often so poor that they were painful to watch. So I think that was what really kept me from picking them up - I just find Alpha releases and their ilk are usually very disappointing.

Recently I realized there were supposedly better copies of two of them, so I got the the Legend PHANTOM:
http://www.amazon.com/Phantom-Space-Black-White-Beautifully/dp/B001BSBBLW

and this version of KILLERS:
http://www.amazon.com/Killers-Space-Restored-Peter-Graves/dp/B013KUEPOS/ref=tmm_dvd_title_1?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

I can vouch for them both being very solid discs, especially the Legend PHANTOM. It is colorized but has the black and white version, and it is really a good print! As it started "unspooling" on my screen I was really psyched-up for a "new old" experience!

Boy, I wish I liked it better than I do. I am a HUGE fan of 50's sci-fi, and can find things to love in almost any genre film of the period. BUT I honestly found this one of the most boring films of the whole canon. I know Bill Warren considers it the "best" of Wilder's output, and I see Bud's appreciation above.

For me, the sheer amount of scenes of talk, talk, talk were just too much. Now, if it had just had more location shots from the period, of ANYWHERE, I could dig it. Like the scenes where they pursue him in some industrial Santa Monica setting.

But there are SO many shots of an office interior where the cast goes on and on and on...

I did think the acting was OK, the photography fine, and the effects ambitious for the budget. But not enough of them. OR attempts at action of any kind.

I do like seeing the period interiors of the Griffith Park Observatory, but it's the same shots of the cast running one way then the other in the same hall for the most part.

Yes, it's really trying to not be dumb or exploitative, but for me it just doesn't manage to be ENTERTAINING. Again, I want to like it, but I just can't.
Maybe I'll revisit it someday, but I can also see me never being in the mood to watch it again.

Now, KILLERS FROM SPACE...
_________________
SAM33

[Bud Brewster]

________________________________

Thanks for calling my attention to the $7.47 DVD of this movie, Sam! And it includes both a B&W and colorized version to boot! I just ordered it, it will be here by the end of this week.

Meanwhile, we can all enjoy the enthusiastic trailer on Youtube, and anyone who's interested can watch the reasonable good version of the full movie there, too.

Jimbo Berkey's site offers two downloadable versions, and the larger of the two (at 675 MB) is a bit better than the YouTube version.

Having been warned by Casey not to expect too much, the folks who haven't seen this one might enjoy it.

________________________________

________________ Phantom From Space - trailer


___________


________________ Phantom from Space (1953)


___________
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[Bud Brewster]

________________________________

Thinking Outside the "Plot"!
________________________________

~ A Question for the Members: What kind of planet would produce a being who is not visible under normal light, and yet appears very human in the brief but fuzzy look we get at him before he dies, and the clearer look after he's dead?


__________________

__________________


And he's able to breath our air for a period of time, but it eventually kills him.

~ My Theory: We can assume that this alien actually IS visible to others of his kind. They have the ability to see each other because their eyes are tuned to receive ultra-violet light — the kind of light which the lady scientist used to make his hand visible.


__________________


The fact that his spacesuit was visible in normal light, but he was not, indicates that his invisibility is caused by some unique aspects of his physiology.

In other words, the matter on his planet would also be visible here on Earth. But the alien's invisibility when viewed under light below the ultraviolet range is caused by some physical characters which his species has evolved.

Why would this happen, you may ask?

The answer is obvious. Invisibility is the ultimate camouflage!

These aliens involved the ability to be invisible under "normal light" during the dawn of their species, to avoid predators. But they also evolved eyesight which allowed them to see their own kind, using the ultraviolet light which is also part of their sun's spectrum.

This answers the question we've all had whenever we've watched this movie; why did the alien take off his spacesuit and helmet, even though this meant he would eventually die?

The answer is simple: His fear of being captured by the humans caused him to revert to his instinctive need to rely on his natural "camouflage" . . . which was his invisibility!

Think of the irony! Humans feel exposed and defenseless when they're naked! Their natural urge is to cover up — even if this just means to clasp their hands over their naked loins!

But this alien's natural urge was the exact opposite!

He felt exposed and defenseless when he was wearing his spacesuit, because it exposed his location to the humans!

So, the alien couldn't resist the urge to strip down and run around naked because it felt instinctively right to him under the circumstances.

Wow, this movie is packed with intellectual concepts that can be analyzed and enjoyed by people who love that kind of thing.

I hope I'm not the only member of All Sci-Fi who likes to do that.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[Bud Brewster]

________________________________

Here's another YouTube member who has created Drive-in Double Feature videos which include a vintage drive-in "welcome messages”, the trailer for the movies, and a double feature.

It even has those great old “snack bar” promos during intermission!

"So, get comfortable, folks! Just sit back, relax, and enjoy the show!"

Enjoy!_

Double Feature Drive-in: Phantom from Space and Killers from Space


__________
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[Krel]

[Bud Brewster]

________________________________

Ah-ha! Now we're "Thinking Outside the Plot"!

The naked alien gave no indication that he HAD gonads!





Admittedly the scene above of him lying their buck naked doesn't prove he DIDN'T have gonads.

By the way, I found out that this is allegedly a plaster cast of actor Dick Sands, the alien. That's how the movie got around the Hays Code. But it looks so real I'm not sure I believe claim. Maybe it's actually Mr. Sands and the film makers just CLAIMED it was plaster!

But since he had several opportunities put his spacesuit back on and didn't do it . . . even when a barking dog was able to detect his invisible presence and seemed hell bent on gnawing the alien's nuts off (if he had any), I'm inclined to think that he was certainly a lot more comfortable running around in his damned birthday suit than I would have been!

By the way, David, your comment about the fragile nature of the alien's helmet was right as rain! When the alien foolishly yanked it off when the newspaper reporter flashed a photo of it floating in the air, the helmet shattered on the floor like Venetian glass!

Then the fragments evaporate, just like the suit did earlier in the movie.

My point being, of course, is that IF we choose not to dismiss all these odd things as lousy script writing (which they were . . . but where's the fun in that, eh?), we have to come up with imaginative explanations that prove we're smarter than the screenplay writers!

Fortunately the movie's characters spend a record breaking amount of time spewing out interesting ideas about the reason for these odd occurrences. And we're free to reject the ones we don't like and expanded on the ones we do!

Hey, that's what All Sci-Fi is all about!

David, I suggest you enjoy watching one of the YouTube videos of this movie and refresh your 60-year-old memory as to just what a mixed bag of good-and-bad elements it is.

Just FYI, a few years ago I bought the dirt cheap DVD because it has both the B&W and colorized versions. Unfortunately YouTube does not offer the colorized one, but the B&W one below looks pretty good!

________ Beware Theater - Phantom from Space


__________
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[Krel]

[Bud Brewster]

[Bud Brewster]

__________________________________

Joe Dante has interesting things to say about this movie, based on his fond memories of it from his childhood. The YouTube video is short and entertaining.
__________________________________

____ Joe Dante on Joe Dante on Trailers from Hell


_________
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)