NipkowDisc Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 how can you go wrong with a winner like this? when it comes to low-budget late 1950s sci-fi thrillers, marshall thompson is the man! my siblings and I watched this one all the time when we were kids. surplus radio electronics and ray 'crash' corrigan in his monster suit works better than lame millennial-catering cgi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
film lover 293 Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 I was wondering if someone was going to post about this film. Is this a precursor to "Alien" (1979),minus the "chestburster" scene? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NipkowDisc Posted November 6, 2015 Author Share Posted November 6, 2015 I was wondering if someone was going to post about this film. Is this a precursor to "Alien" (1979),minus the "chestburster" scene? so they say. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
film lover 293 Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 I'll be watching. Thanks for the post, NipkowDisc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hibi Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 I cant remember if I've seen this or not, but I'll tune in to see if it's familiar (LOL). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swithin Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 how can you go wrong with a winner like this? when it comes to low-budget late 1950s sci-fi thrillers, marshall thompson is the man! my siblings and I watched this one all the time when we were kids. surplus radio electronics and ray 'crash' corrigan in his monster suit works better than lame millennial-catering cgi. Oh -- it's a horror film? I thought it was about Ben Carson. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NipkowDisc Posted November 7, 2015 Author Share Posted November 7, 2015 Oh -- it's a horror film? I thought it was about Ben Carson. no, you would classify it as science fiction. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
film lover 293 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 ITTFBS is obviously low budget 50's sci-fi, with all the howlers of a small budget--frisbees as stars, supposedly metal objects are paper--but the idea for the film, & the script (allowing for lapses) isn't bad. If you've seen "Alien" (1979), you can mentally cut and paste ideas from ITTFBS into Alien. ITTFBS is ranked as a camp classic, but the film is executed just well enough to keep it from being a total howler, with the extra kick of trying to "match the idea" to Alien. At 68 minutes long, ITTFBS is an enjoyable example of low-budget 50's sci-fi, that has the strengths & weaknesses of the genre. JMO. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NipkowDisc Posted November 7, 2015 Author Share Posted November 7, 2015 ITTFBS is obviously low budget 50's sci-fi, with all the howlers of a small budget--frisbees as stars, supposedly metal objects are paper--but the idea for the film, & the script (allowing for lapses) isn't bad. If you've seen "Alien" (1979), you can mentally cut and paste ideas from ITTFBS into Alien. ITTFBS is ranked as a camp classic, but the film is executed just well enough to keep it from being a total howler, with the extra kick of trying to "match the idea" to Alien. At 68 minutes long, ITTFBS is an enjoyable example of low-budget 50's sci-fi, that has the strengths & weaknesses of the genre. JMO. were those frisbees??? what about the sound effect of the ship moving through space? I've always found it atmospheric. I've seen a lot worse low-budget sci-fi than ITTFBS. a lot worse. in fact, I think it is better than alien since it tells it's story in a much shorter time and at a faster pace. for all of it's high-tech visuality, alien is not scary. kids like me and my siblings were scared seeing ITTFBS on our living room TVs saturday nites when we wuz kids. I guess I'm too old school because I think ITTFBS is worth ten 2001 a space odysseys, paper metal and frisbee stars not withstanding. back in those days filmmakers on a budget accomplished a helluva lot more cinematic-wise with much less. a testament to their greater ingenuity and talent than todays cgi-dependent hollywood hindquarters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NipkowDisc Posted November 7, 2015 Author Share Posted November 7, 2015 then again... ray corrigan's chin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
film lover 293 Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 NipkowDisc--The frisbee I referred to is a planet or star in the opening shot(s) of the film. I referred to what "professional, paid for their opinions" film critics refer to ITTFBS as. If you read these boards it's obvious I Don't always agree with them! I guess I wasn't clear enough in My opinion--that for a low budget, 1958 sci-fi movie, I found it much better than its' reputation and a pleasant surprise to see. I said that Alien (1979) stole idea(s) from it. I was complimenting ITTFBS, not putting it down. The monster was well thought out and well executed, for the budget. Hope this is Clear I found ITTFBS a pleasant surprise. BTW--I like the music from 2001, but that's about it. It's not a favorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamradio Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 Robert Osborne had to mention at the beginning, this was not a Star Wars film....well DUH!! (but the corny costumes stayed about the same in 1977) I think I know why is alien is angry, he keeps biting his protruding tongue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NipkowDisc Posted November 8, 2015 Author Share Posted November 8, 2015 NipkowDisc--The frisbee I referred to is a planet or star in the opening shot(s) of the film. I referred to what "professional, paid for their opinions" film critics refer to ITTFBS as. If you read these boards it's obvious I Don't always agree with them! I guess I wasn't clear enough in My opinion--that for a low budget, 1958 sci-fi movie, I found it much better than its' reputation and a pleasant surprise to see. I said that Alien (1979) stole idea(s) from it. I was complimenting ITTFBS, not putting it down. The monster was well thought out and well executed, for the budget. Hope this is Clear I found ITTFBS a pleasant surprise. BTW--I like the music from 2001, but that's about it. It's not a favorite. but I would also give some credit to ray corrigan's acting too. he succeeds in acting quite convincingly best ial. the suit was designed by paul blaisdell who was initially to be in the suit but they went with corrigan who was an actor. the monster is convincing in no small way due to corrigan's performance inside the rubber suit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElCid Posted November 8, 2015 Share Posted November 8, 2015 I watched this and remembered having seen it before. Not a bad 50's SciFi. Real interesting the way the women were serving meals to the men. But, they had to have women in just about all movies in 40's-60's. Always interesting that in SciFi's, the ship always had sufficient oxygen that it could be pumped into large areas for the crew to walk around in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NipkowDisc Posted November 8, 2015 Author Share Posted November 8, 2015 I can't remember seeing this one when I was a kid. Not bad for a low budget 1950s sci-fi flick with a guy in a rubber suit and a model exterior spaceship. But frankly, Alien has this thing beat in every way. they were always showing this one saturday nites when I was a kid on WPIX Channel 11's Chiller Theater back in the 1960s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now