Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

ThrillMessage There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

Phil Hubbs Or in this case the first men, and one woman, in the moon. Bit of a glaring mistake with this adaptation. Why did they alter the source material? I guess director Nathan H. Juran thought his film needed a beautiful damsel in distress angle for the wider audience.The second H.G. Wells story to feature encounters with alien lifeforms after his most famous sci-fi story The War of the Worlds. Obviously a more fantastical story from Wells and this British made film certainly has that outlandish angle that's for sure. Although it seems this film isn't as surreal or fantastical as the original story surprisingly.The whole story is narrated by the main character as an old man. It tells the story of how his eccentric inventor neighbour creates a substance that defies or eliminates gravity thus allowing them to fly to the moon in a homemade space sphere (hexagon). There on the moon they encounter insect-like aliens hungry for knowledge.Interesting to note that this film was of course made before man actually reached the lunar surface (1969). This of course doesn't mean people in 64 thought there were aliens running around up there, but back when the original story was published in 1901 I'm guessing people could of thought it possible. The whole idea that the two main characters in this film use deep sea diving gear on the lunar surface is cute.Whether or not this was an actual belief of the era or just Well's fantasy, I don't know (I'm not even sure if this is accurate with the original source material). I think its fair to say back in the early 1900's the knowledge on resources/materials required for space travel/space crafts in general was probably very limited and underestimated, so what we see in this adaptation could well have been real concepts of the time (maybe not the moon bugs though).Putting aside the real science plot holes (of which there are absolutely tonnes), the film itself is highly enjoyable. This is my first ever viewing of the film and straight away you can see many little sequences which have been homaged by other sci-fi films, mainly 'Mars Attacks'. It seems Mr Burton liked this particular sci-fi film. The big bug idea could also have spawned the likes of 'Starship Troopers', mainly the huge centipede-like insects (space cows) that roam the lunar surface.The alien creatures known as Selenites are bug-like in appearance, bipedal and live underground like ants. These guys are mainly men in rather cheap basic looking rubber suits but some of the main aliens are animated by Ray Harryhausen including the wonderful lunar centipedes.Visually the whole film is very striking offering some lovely matte paintings, sets, models, and that typically dapper Victorian attire that you see in many Wells and Verne adaptations. Even the inside of the space sphere is lined with that diamond shaped patterned leather upholstery effect. I think that concept was started by the 1960 film 'The Time Machine'. The small space flight sequences at the start of the film are a joy to behold, very dated but very effective (not too far from reality either with the flight suits); surely everyone will appreciate them.The only downside to the film for me was the bland characters. Bedford (Edward Judd) has that stereotypical male chauvinistic streak about him coming across as rather unfriendly and rude. He's always shouting at his fiance Kate who does pretty much nothing accept look pretty and shout back. Then you have the main character of Cavor played quite oddly by Lionel Jeffries. His performance was a strange one as it comes across as though he's improvising, it doesn't feel like he's in character or simply he can't act too well. His constant yelling and rather frantic red-faced performance does become tiresome.At the time this film was made, space travel and reaching the moon (the space race) was at its peak with public interest. So to go backwards and make a film so 'medieval' must have been a hard sell, despite being an adaptation. But this film is pure and utter silly fantasy (no further explanations required for that); its not a film for actors and its not really about the characters either. Its a visual spectacle, an effects film, an early 60's blockbuster if you will. Take all the gigantic scientific plot holes and complete lack of realism as part of the fun (as was intended), and you can't fail not to enjoy.

JLRVancouver Given what we now know about the moon (and knew in 1964), a 'true' film version of Wells' "First Men in the Moon" would be a complete fantasy and likely seem ridiculous to most viewers, with men in tweeds and waistcoats wandering around on a plant-covered lunar surface. While the film keeps the story in the Victorian age, some changes were made to make the images more 'realistic' to mid-20th century viewers, such as 'space suits" (modified diving suits) and references to lunar oxygen-manufacturing technology (so the actors are not always talking from a helmet). The film opens with a 'modern' moon landing, during which a tattered Union flag and a letter claiming the moon in the name of H.R.H. Queen Victoria is found. The letter leads investigators to an old man (Bedford) who recounts how he, his fiancée and a scatterbrained inventor named Cavor traveled to the moon in 1899, and what they encountered there. The first third of the movie is tedious: slapstick humour in Cavor's lab, the introduction of the obligatory female (Bedford's fiancée, whose primary purpose is to be threatened or to have things explained to), an irrelevant backstory concerning Bedford's finances, etc. , but things improve when the Cavorite coated sphere bursts though the roof and heads to the Moon. The special effects are a mixed bag. The opening moon-landing is visually well done but the 'realism' is ruined (IMO) by the sound effects, which would not be heard in the vacuum of space or on the lunar surface. Ray Harryhausen's stop motion work on the 'moon-calfs' and on the Selenites is very good (unfortunately, the few animated Selenites serve to emphasise the less effective 'man-in-a-costume' nature of the rest of their kin). Some of the moon surface scenes are excellent (resembling Chesley Bonestell's classic 'space art'), but the images of the Selenites' underground city are less convincing. Much of the film is played for laugh's (especially Cavor's eccentricities, which are usually punctuated with goofy trombone riffs) and the humour has not aged well. The ending is very different from the book (although similar to another of Well's seminal works of science fiction) and seems to trivialize what is in fact a serious concern in interplanetary exploration. Watchable but dated in a number of ways and likely a disappointment to most H.G. Well's fans.

classicsoncall Though the title conjures up a great sense of sci-fi wonder and excitement, the effect viewed today is almost entirely comical. Wells was a visionary writer with a keen imagination for other worldly environs, but the technology of the era wasn't yet capable of achieving the kind of special effects we expect in out entertainment today. When the intrepid crew of Professor Cavor's (Lionel Jeffries) home made space sphere lands on the moon, they are quite unprepared to deal with the inhabitants of 'an empire Caesar never dreamed of'.Still, one can have some fun with the elements introduced in the story, chief among them the idea of 'cavorite', a metallic paste invented by it's namesake that negates the force of gravity and propels the professor, Arnold Bedford (Edward Judd) and his fiancée Kate Callender (Martha Hyer) on their fanciful mission. It's always amazed me how much modern day astronauts resemble men in diving suits; one doesn't automatically connect the idea to real life underwater explorers. Quite conveniently, Cavor and Bedford find quick justification for ditching their helmets so they can move around and communicate more freely. The idea that they wore no gloves seemed a little bizarre, but no more so than what was to follow.At least the Martian landscape and subterranean caves were scenic ones. With some poetic license the film makers produced a colorful environment for the moon's inhabitants, a race of ant-like creatures called Selenites, and replete with lunar monster caterpillars requiring the skill of a Harryhausen to create. Cavor is entirely entranced by this race of creatures to the scorn of his traveling companion, who at one point states "I haven't got your boundless confidence in the insects".With the movie's release preceding the Star Trek television show by a scant three years, there was a comment made by Cavor's lab assistant early in the story that might have resonated with that series' writers. Perhaps foreseeing the future role of Enterprise medical officer Dr. McCoy, assistant Gibbs (Erik Chitty), upon his employer's request to fire up the furnace for the cavorite, remarks "I'm a metal worker, not a stoker". If I wasn't paying attention I would have missed it; that was just a great line that no one at the time would have imagined would be repeated in one form or another a dozen more times in a future TV show.In any event, this is probably one of those early sci-fi films one needs to see at least once, if for nothing more than to better appreciate the humble beginnings of the outer space film genre. Why even the opening credits makes mention of the fact that the picture was filmed in 'Luna Color', so if you don't know what that is, you owe yourself the opportunity to discover what it's all about.

Neil Welch Once Ray Harryhausen hit his stride with Seventh Voyage of Sinbad, he practically never looked back. First Men In The Moon was a bit of a hiccup.It's not an unsuccessful movie as such, but it's not terribly successful as a vehicle for Harryhausen's particular artistry, and this is because there isn't a great deal of opportunity for the type of effects sequence in which he specialised.It is an adaptation of HG Wells' story about an eccentric inventor who invents an anti-gravity substance which he paints on a sphere which becomes the vehicle for his moon trip, framed with a non-Wells (then-)contemporary sequence. Lionel Jeffries plays inventor Cavor very well: it is not his fault that the character, as written, is profoundly irritating. Edward Judd has more luck (but not much) as impetuous everyman Bedford, and Martha Hyer is called upon to stay there where it's safe a lot.Set design is terrific, physical effects are fine, but Harryhausen's work seems a little lacklustre, perhaps due to the technical difficulties encountered in readying effects for the widescreen format used: there are even moments when you notice sub-par registration of different elements in an effects shot.Not a failure, but not wonderful either.