SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

LeonLouisRicci First off, this Film has been around in Awful Pan & Scan and Black & White versions (if you can believe it) for quite a While. It is finally Available in all its Widescreen and Color Glory. It still Remains a relatively Unknown and Little Seen British Sci-Fi Entry from the Fifties.Made before and released Prior to Sputnik it is a Curious and Slick looking Film. The SFX, while certainly Dated hold their own among others of its Type, including the George Pal Stuff. The Rocket Ship is Cool and there is some Attention to Detail and Overall the Movie looks Fifties Nifty.The Story is very Slow Moving in the First Half, Talky and may rely a bit Heavy on Domestic Issues concerning Love Life and such and the Technical High-Light of the First Half are some Very Modern Jet Fighters Zipping About.The Second Half, in Space, Things Tense up quite a bit and there's a lot of Talk about Bombs, and the End of War and Science's Responsibility, not to Mention Governments. Most of the Argument comes from a Female Reporter who Not Only is Philosophically Minded, but looks like a Model and makes Great Coffee and Sandwiches.Overall, this is a Serious Adult-Oriented Space Adventure that is Definitely Worth a Watch and Despite its common Flaws Typical of others in the Genre, it has enough to Offer Sci-Fi Fans and others Interested in the Mindset of the Decade Concerning Space Travel and Nuclear Warfare. Underrated.

Wizard-8 No doubt due to the fact that a big American distributor (Warner Brothers) helped to bankroll its production, the British film "Satellite In The Sky" does look better than many other British productions of the time. It's filmed in color, and there is money for things ranging from extras to elaborate set design. Some (not all, but some) of the special effects are also not bad for this time period. Still, there are some big problems, problems that are more evident to a modern audience than audiences in 1956. The script suffers from the problem of many other British movies, that being that it's very talky and reluctant to get to the action. It takes more than half of the movie before the rocket takes off into space. Another problem is that there is a remarkable lack of tension once the space mission gets into trouble. It's too casual of a feeling. While the movie is never aggressively bad, it feels kind of flat. Still, those who are fans of '50 sci-fi and who also are interested in seeing a British perspective of more realistic space travel story might find the movie has enough interest to make it worth tracking down.

lemon_magic The Brits in the 50s seemed to have a distinctly different idea of proper pacing for their movies compared to American output from the same period.(I think that's still true today). Most of the time, this makes British science fiction a refreshing change of pace (for example, in "World Without End".) Unfortunately, other times they somehow lose control of the rhythms and tempo of the screen play and the results slide into dullness and boredom now matter how good the actors are and no matter how hard they try (like "Immediate Disaster")."Satellite In the Sky" falls into the "dull" category, at least for my taste.There are some very nice touches here, of course. Most of the sets look great, costumes and props have weight and appeal, and most of the special effects are well conceived and executed (if you can overlook the "rocket exhaust" from the model that drifts upwards in a thoroughly illusion dispelling way.). And I liked most of the cast on principle - it was especially interesting to see "Miss Moneypenny" from the Bond Series here in a prominent pre-Bond role. And there's even a suitably moralistic plot complication in which a supposedly peaceful flight of exploration and adventure turns out to be financed by the military, who want to drop a super-bomb out in(for "test purposes".) But the screenplay doesn't have any real forward momentum, and there are too many scenes of characters going on and on about various issues without any tension, good blocking, or even plot advancement. People talk and talk and talk, but there's no real character development either - nothing anybody says will surprise you. And just when the final crisis is resolved and the super-bomb goes off, and you think the characters will reunite in a final scene to resolve their issues and relationships and settle various lingering threads, the movie just stops. "BANG", "The End".Certainly an interesting artifact of 50's science fiction...I can't help but think this is what a movie based on a Robert Heinlein story would be like if he'd been bowdlerized by the Editorial board of the Ladies Home Journal.

yortsnave I watched this film on DVD (in color with the original widescreen aspect ratio, a double-bill with "World Without End") with no expectations, not having seen it before. The movie started out great, with some amazingly beautiful footage of the delta-wing Avro Vulcan bomber. Then there was some excellent footage of another British jet plane, a small fighter which I believe (but am not sure) was a Folland Midge. The first views of the "Stardust" spaceship were really cool. And unlike many reviewers, I didn't mind the "talkiness" of the screenplay--I thought it gave the characters needed depth. So far, so good. But then things started falling apart, science-wise.Many of the scientific explanations were standard 1950s sci-fi B-movie gobbledygook--for example, that the space-plane would travel "beyond gravity" when it was merely going into orbit. The whole "metallic attraction" explanation for the bomb sticking to the end of the spaceship was nonsense, but I guess they needed some sort of plot device to endanger the crew. What really killed it for me was the rocket-exhaust effect. The exhaust floated about like cigarette smoke in a light breeze, nothing like actual rocket plumes. (I must believe that a little extra effort on the part of the FX crew could have given a much more believable rocket exhaust.) I really liked the observation bubbles on each side of the spacecraft, though--quite a nice touch.I still recommend this film for sci-fi and aviation buffs, if only for the Vulcan footage at the beginning.