CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Monkeywess This is an astonishing documentary that will wring your heart while it bends your mind

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

daniel-charles2 The Flying Saucer started life as a documentary on Alaska -and indeed some of the B&W photography and scenery are not only spectacular, they are beautiful. Then, according to Hans de Meiss-Teuffen "the Big Brains in Hollywood re-wrote the story and made me, without the loss of a single foot already shot, into a villainous Russian spy". As an aside, Hans de Meiss-Teuffen was one of the great adventurers of the XXth cy, singlehanded-sailor, mining engineer, hotel owner, lion hunter, double-spy... (his "Winds of Adventure", 1953, is a wonderful read) As a grade-B movie of minimal budget, The Flying Saucer is much better than most. Continuity, that some have criticized her, is actually decent for its period (and immensely better than in the famed "Flash Gordon"); and it is much less incredible than John Wayne's "Jet Pilot". Definitely worth seeing.

CCZozo It takes nerve and deserves credit to write,direct and feature as the lead actor in a film.Unfortunately it also needs talent and the financial backing to smooth over weaknesses in plot,acting,props etc.Conrad does his best, but the number of cigarettes he gets through on screen probably indicates his worries on these aspects.The end result is watchable but not deftly paced ,with too many flat scenes of passing landscape that tell us only that they moved the camera out of the studio.Pat Garrison ,as the romantic interest Vee Langley,is fine-worthy of better dialogue- and her trim figure going for a swim presents a nice contrast to the white Alaskan surroundings.Brrrr!

graduatedan I tried to like The Flying saucer...I really did, but this low budget thriller simply didn't work for me. (It didn't "take off", if you will.) For one thing the black and white photography is so bleak and cold that it actually works against the film. The acting ranges from bland to overwrought and the dialog is stilted and lifeless. Here's the thing; all of these shortcomings taken together still might mot torpedo the overall enjoyment of this film, but its' boneheaded polemic (even for 1950) left me flat. I did like the location shooting ( the film is set in Alaska) but that didn't stop me from wanting the movie to be over--soon. The Flying Saucer is disappointing on all levels.

Chris Gaskin The Flying Saucer was the first movie to deal with this subject and was one of the first sci-fi movies of the 1950's. Despite reading a lot of bad reviews about it, this isn't actually too bad.A journalist and his "nurse" are sent to Alaska to investigate strange sightings of flying saucers over there. His "nurse" is with him because as he is undercover, he is in Alaska "recovering from a nervous breakdown". Not surprisingly, he falls in love with her during the movie. They make a hunting lodge as their home during their stay but the man who suppose be helping them to do odd jobs is actually a Russian spy and tries to kill the woman a couple of times. He has something to do with the saucer, which appears eventually. The spies are caught out at the end and one of them takes off in the saucer, which then explodes into thousands of little pieces.There is some nice scenery in The Flying Saucer and the music score is quite good for a low budget movie.The cast is mostly made up of unknowns with Mikel Conrad and Pat Garrison as the too main stars. Conrad also wrote the story and produced. He also appeared in another sci-fi B movie - Untamed Women in 1952.Though not brilliant, The Flying Saucer is worth having in any sci-fi collection. Enjoyable.Rating: 2 and a half stars out of 5.