Satellite in the Sky

1956 "The Never-Told Story Of Life On The Roof Of The Earth!"
5.2| 1h25m| NR| en
Details

A bomb dooms the first space satellite, manned by a selfless crew, a stowaway reporter (Lois Maxwell) and a mad scientist (Donald Wolfit).

Director

Producted By

Danziger Productions Ltd.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!
FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.
BallWubba Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.
Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.
MartinHafer "Satellite in the Sky" is a sci-fi film from the UK and since it IS fantasy, you are expected to believe that the Brits were the first folks in space. The plot involves an enormous jet rocket (looking a lot like the one from the great film "When Worlds Collide") and it's carrying the T-1 into space. The T-1 is a bomb meant as a demonstration to the world about the futility of war. In other words, by the Brits demonstrating that they can weaponize space, other countries will just give up war! However, the project is jeopardizes after the launch because a Lois Lane-like female reporter stows away on the craft. No worry that it's Britain's #1 secret project...this feisty (and hot) woman just casually sneaks aboard! In fact, although it's a good film, she is a singularly annoying character...one that make women look really dumb. My wife saw the film with me and was quite annoyed with the way she was written...especially when she ended up being right, in a way, about the T-1 demonstration! What's next? See the film.This war is a film meant to warn us about the effects of the militarization of space and is awfully good for its time. Today its special effects must seem very quaint but back in 1956 it was state of the art--and in full color. Clearly this was NOT a cheap British film and represented their best work. Now that doesn't mean it was a great film--the Professor and lady reporter were very silly and clichéd characters...as well as a bit campy. But it is enjoyable...especially for folks who love 50s sci-fi.By the way, isn't it fortuitous that aboard the jet rocket they just happened to have a jumpsuit that fit the lady PERFECTLY!! Also, if any of you are aviation nuts, you'll get a chance to see some wonderful British planes--such as the Vulcan bomber and the Brits' first jet fighter, the Meteor.
Hitchcoc We can forgive them because it was 1956, but this is a real pedestrian space yarn with a lot of holes in it. It's in the middle of the Cold War and the development of a rocket to the stratosphere is commandeered to test a bomb-to-end-all-bombs. This will create what we in the late 20th Century called detente. Even the crew is ignorant of the whole process, but some government zealots go off half cocked with little regard for the dangers, in order to scare the world out of developing any further weapons, fighting any future wars. Of course, the whole thing has to go off just right, and we know it isn't. Once again we have the obligatory pushy female (a reporter who stows away on the rocket) who pushes everyone's buttons. Just to show you what a progressive time she lives in, she ends up making coffee and sandwiches for the guys. There is the idea that science is advancing too fast. In the end, this is a movie about dealing with the realities of miscalculation. The slipshod methods make this less than it could have been. It does have decent special effects or its time.
Scott_Mercer This is one of those 1950's serious science fiction space travel extravaganzas in color, but one of the only British ones. They predicted a lot of things right, got a few things wrong (we still have not militarized space, thank goodness), but still it is amazing that this film was made in 1956, even prior to Sputnik going up.The model work of the spaceship/rocket is top notch for 1956, even if it doesn't fool one living soul in 2013.We're all here for the action stuff about test flights and launching the rocket, and the (inevitable) Crisis In Outer Space (tm) that all serious science fiction efforts seem to gravitate (har har) toward.We're here less so for the political back story, machinations and intrigue, and philosophical battle about the value of taking risks and the sense of discovery that science provides contrasted with all those other issues that require money down here on li'l old Earth, which goes on between the Space Cadet commander and the Spunky Female Reporter (tm also). Did women have ANY profession other than reporter in a movie made prior to 1967? And we're definitely not here for the limp attempts at delving into some of the characters' love lives.But this is entertaining for its time. There are some slow bits, true, but ultimately they do not forget about what we are all there to see, and we get back to glamour shots of the spaceship eventually.If you're a fan of 1950's science fiction, and you haven't seen it, you could do a lot worse than Satellite in the Sky.
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.