Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!

Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Leofwine_draca A plodding adaptation of the classic Jules Verne novel which takes a slow-moving and talky route to the adventure story. The first half of the film is taken up of mere plot exposition and when the rocket EVENTUALLY takes off, another half hour is just taken up of dialogue and battles of wills between the men on board. It's clear that money was spending on giving the movie an A-list cast, so unfortunately none is left for special effects of any kind. 95% of the rocket-time is spent in cheap-looking interior sets. Being based on a Verne story, the film's plot is quite interesting and accessible for fans of sci-fi from the period, but this is so deadly serious and lacking in incident its tough to watch.The best "action" the film has to offer is a couple of guys nearly getting fried in a shower of electric sparks. Elsewhere, it's more small talk and dated romance between the two young leads which culminates in one of the most disappointing let-downs of an anti climax: Cotton and Sanders land on the moon (off screen) and there the story ends. It let me thinking "Huh?". Joseph Cotten takes the lead as the inventor-turned-astronaut and puts in a convincing performance, but he's not in the least bit charismatic as such a role should be. The always good-value George Sanders also has an interesting role as the stubborn colleague who misguidedly sabotages the mission and places the lives of all on board in danger. Also appearing are Debra Paget as the unconvincingly blonde-haired love interest and Henry Daniell (a baddie in the Rathbone Holmes series) in a bit part as a stuffy academic type.Despite the appearances of such notable actors, you could hardly say that this movie contains any outstanding performances - instead everyone is more workmanlike. A distinctly uninspiring and uninteresting piece of science fiction cinema, totally lacking in excitement in every area.

marinaro44 I have seen a lot of bad movies but this one ranks up there (down there?) as unique in its multiple levels of badness. That badness has depth here. Very bad special effects, incredibly bad script, and inane dialog kind of killed it for me.I could forgive the filmmakers as I assume they were working on a low budget and time constraints, so you could guess they just "knocked it out" as fast as possible. I could forgive the lame let's put a hot chick on a spaceship for romantic appeal. I could forgive the pathetic special effects that are on a level of Captain Video. I could forgive the let's get distinguished actors at the end of their careers who are willing to work for small change so as to at least create name prestige.But whoever wrote the script insulted the audience at a level I have rarely ever seen even, in "B" movies. Little of what happens makes sense. There is no continuity, no sense that the characters are real people making intelligent decisions. The actors woodenly read their inane lines with no conviction. And you can't blame them. Cartoons and comic books are more intelligently written. The one redeeming thing I found about this film is that it could be used in filmmaking classes as an example of how not to write a story and script it.

fwdixon A tedious exercise in cinematic boredom featuring Joseph Cotten and George Sanders. Unusual in that it had no protagonist - Cotten is an insanely greedy arms merchant and Sanders is a self-righteous, bible-thumping madman. The film plods along interminably with brief patches of action separating the endless preachy talk, talk, talk. Ultimately I found myself hoping for both of them to die along with the sappy couple of Debra Paget and Don Dubbins, just to bring this train wreck of a film to an end. There is no earthly (or lunar) reason to watch this dreadful film.

aimless-46 This 1959 movie adaptation of Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon" is the graveyard of declining actors. Joseph Cotton and George Sanders were at the end of fairly successful film careers and about to be relegated to guest appearances on a variety of television shows; the most notable being Sander's Mr. Freeze on "Batman". Debra Paget was in her late twenties; she had lost her glow and was used up by Hollywood standards. The change to an unflattering "strawberry" blonde look exacerbated the problem as few actresses have ever been less suited to a light hair color. On the plus side, the movie itself is a fairly accurate adaptation of Verne's story; at least the book's illustrations appear to have been used as models for the rocket and the cannon. Verne's 19th century take on space travel turned out to be more accurate than most of the speculation during the first half of the 20th century. The adaptation's biggest problem was altering Verne's story by inserting a topical theme about the post WWII arms race. In Verne's 1865 novel, the Baltimore Gun Club itself set about building a rocket to go to the Moon. In the adaptation a munitions manufacturer (think "Destination Moon") concocts the scheme to demonstrate his powerful new explosive. With a lot of discussion about science, weapons, and peace the movie dances around the subject extensively yet never makes a coherent point about its position (regarding the nuclear arms race), as if simply inserting the theme is somehow sufficient. The movie is a cross between "Destination Moon" and "Rocketship X-M", combining the former's good science and bad political message with the latter's dismal sets and comical special effects. The acting in all three films is equally sad. The premise has munitions manufacturer Victor Barbicane (Cotton) discovering an explosive (Power X) capable of firing a shell-like projectile to the moon. His plan is opposed for philosophical/religious reasons by Stuyvesant Nicholl (Sanders), another manufacturer. Although these philosophical differences play an important part in the story, they are never convincingly elaborated on, which undermines the basic storyline. President Grant orders Barbicane to abandon the project because it is considered an act of war by other nations. While this is unconvincing it does serve as Barbicane's inspiration to change the project to a manned space flight. Nicholl then agrees to manufacture the ceramic coating needed for re-entry and to accompany Barbicane on a flight to the moon. Paget plays Nicholl's daughter who hides inside the rocket just prior to take-off. "From the Earth to the Moon" is often confused with "First Men in the Moon" which was made five years later. Probably because both are set in the 19th century and both feature a female stowaway (played by Martha Hyer in the later film). "First Men in the Moon" (while not a great film) is superior in virtually every detail to "From the Earth to the Moon". Rather ironically it was adapted from a story by "H.G. Wells", an early science fiction writer often compared to Verne. Movie adaptations of Verne's books were a big thing in the 1950's and early 1960's. Among the good ones were "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" (1954), "Around the World in 80 Days" (1956), "Journey to the Center of the Earth"(1959), "Mysterious Island" (1961), and "Master of the World" (1961). Unfortunately "From the Earth to the Moon" is simply not in the same league as these examples. Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.