Not so bad, considering


Okay, it's got the usual W. Lee Wilder trademarks of clunky direction and dialogue, poor camerawork, bad continuity and lapses in logic, and padding out chase scenes to make them repetitive, boring and ineffective.

Yet for all these faults, Phantom From Space has a fairly decent plot, and a climax that's genuinely gripping and even sad. Even its limited effects are all right. Plus, the story brings together disparate kinds of authorities -- communications experts, police, military men, space scientists -- and teams them believably, with no single person having all the answers.

Now, clearly all of this could have been much better handled, and a more skilled producer-director (and a better writer than his son) might have made a minor gem out of this idea. But even so, it's not at all bad, typical of its time and generally enjoyable enough. One just needs to appreciate that this film was made in an era when you could still produce a little movie for not much money and make something reasonably entertaining. So be a little charitable, and just indulge its flaws.

reply

I like this film. Sure it has its problems but I like it anyway. The most annoying thing about it -- for me -- is the barking dog.

The movie was trying to say something and failed to do so just like the spaceman. Yes, they both die trying. I first saw this picture when I was a lad back in the early 60's and thought it was so weird. As a youngster, through the eyes of wonder, I got caught up in the story.

I'm sure I filled in a lot of the gaps and was gracious towards the other shortcomings. And I suppose maybe it was made for youngsters -- have a little fun, make little drawings of the Phantom in his pressure suit and helmet in the margins of school books. As adults, it's like we're sitting in a restaurant on the wrong side of the table and complain that the maze on the paper menu is too easy.

reply

You don't like Venus, listed in the cast simply as "The Barker"? Granted, she ain't nuthin' but a hound dog, but still...Lassie, Rin Tin Tin, Cujo -- she's one of a long, proud line of celebrated movie mutts.

Only SHE can see...The PHANTOM...FROM SPAAAAAAAACE......!

What a (dog)tag line that would have made in '53. Woof!

Someone somewhere drew a slight parallel between this film and The Man From Planet X -- misunderstood aliens menaced by human beings. It has more parallels I think to the same year's It Came From Outer Space, same thing about being misunderstood and menaced, but also here by accident and just trying to get home.

Come to think, E.T. totally sounds like a rip-off of Phantom From Space! A stranded alien, harmless, being chased by authorities, befriended only by an innocent (child, dog, what's the difference?). Except Spielberg had to go and ruin it with a happy ending, vs. the pathos, bathos and athos of P.H. Antom From Space.

Although ET's magic touch could have healed the Antom's several scissor cuts, I'm sure.

On the other hand, ET could survive here on Reese's Pieces and stuff, whereas PH needed his helmet. I always thought that plot point was a gas, but it must have been frustrating that the Antom couldn't come right out and ask for it back, given his reticence as a very "propa" PH.

reply

Listen, I heard that the dog's birth name was Laika and got to be world famous just a few years after this title was released after returning to her homeland.

His wheezing did make the titular Phantom a bit sympathetic. He had a tough choice there: Wear the space suit and breathe and risk the chance of getting caught by the men in hats, or go Full Monty and elude those rude Earth men. He made his choice and died with it.

Ther used to be a synopsis for Phantom from Space that was reprinted for years and Sinister Cinema may have been the originators. It reads: "...No classic, but this is a good, underrated little 'B' sci-fi opus about a group of people that find themselves pitted against an invisible alien in a lonely observatory...."

Even though I had seen this movie as a child, years later when I read the above description, it sounded pretty good and I wanted to see it again.

"...a lonely observatory..." That has a poetic feel to it and is ironic that they search the skies and can't see, can't comprehend a visitor from an unknown star. The Feds were too quick to believe a terrestrial being was the only answer to the puzzling events and their response was to treat him as an enemy and flew off the handle. How else was this poor space sap suppose to act?

(By the way, we kindly indicate SPOILER ALERTS! just so as not to ruin the picture's plot point. I wonder if we shouldn't initiate PUN ALERTS! as well!











reply



(I have tried twice to respond to your note, HOB and both times it has gotten lost in cyber space. I'll have to try again some other time)

reply

Was that the one you finally got through as "Bob Barker"? (Very funny, BTW: espeically given his record as an animal rights activist and serial Price Is Right model rapist. By which I mean he raped models, not that he was a model rapist. Although I guess he was that too. Either way, models or animals, he always said he preferred bitches.)

Laika was a female, too. I think the Soviets were trying to see if a dog could propagate with a bunch of fruitflies. They could, which resulted in The Quatermass Xperiment and its quater-mess blob.

Personally I think the Phantom was just trying to get out of space as it was getting way too weird up there. Things becoming Wilder & Wilder. By Myles.

reply

I didn't know it went through at all, HOB and while it is no great loss for this thread, the first one had some more of my notions but, sail on...sail on.

Now, your observations of The Phantom from Space and ET -- The Extraterrestrial are fair enough, especially given that the orginal concept for ET -- was much darker as you surely must know. OK, that's hardly a smoking gun and this could have been a rip of of The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) just as easily.

But, to your original point, The Phantom from Space was a novel idea though it has been worked many times since.

I can't be too hard on Myles Wilder and, in fact, I'm curious about his work margins. It seems as if he was given a location and an idea.

"Okay, kid. Write a story about a space man in the Griffith Observatory."

And then he had a week or so to bang something out on the Smith-Corona.

His stories seem to be about beings in strange surroundings, eh?

reply

[deleted]

I actually once did that, in a week. (Not on a Smith-Corona, however; I forget the make just now, but still have the typewriter.) But W. Lee Wilder had retired by then, which is why my screenplay never got produced.

But as I said in my OP, I also like the fact that you could once go to Hollywood and make movies and money with very little capital (or talent, if it came to that). Look at AIP. Better yet, look at their favorite director, Roger Corman, whose autobiography was called "How I Made a Hundred Pictures in Hollywood and Never Lost a Dime". (In fact, one of Corman's films did lost money: The Intruder, his 1962 anti-KKK "message" picture, starring William Shatner. But it was good, and is Corman's personal favorite.)

Sad that times have changed.

reply

[deleted]

You know, you could still do it if you put your mind to do it, Lansing54. If only for your own sake, you should get cracking on it.

Joseph Heller took 22 years before he started writing again after Catch 22.

It sounds to me like you stil have the fire in your belly.

reply

[deleted]

I applaud your effort, Lansing54. Getting paid for writing is nice, but write one must if it is in you.

I, for one, would be curious to see how your show comes along. Please stay in touch.

reply

[deleted]

No argument, they can be hard to stay with. Personally, I like to see the effort made and, like the original poster said, it was a novel plot.

I am not familiar with The Big Bluff but will look it up.

reply

I gotta tell you, esc, I really didn't know that the original concept for ET was dark, or more precisely, I had heard vague rumors but never knew any details. Details?

I think Myles needed to get out from under the old man. Now, I always assumed that a 20-year career as a manufacturer of ladies' handbags was more than ample training for becoming a movie director, but W. Lee Wilder disappointed me a bit there. No wonder brother Billy stopped inviting him over to his swimming pool. But obviously Myles managed a long career, mainly on TV, until his death in 2010. I think he finally dropped his helmet, and so, that was that.

(A late friend used to use the expression, "He fell off his perch," to say someone had died. Maybe we should start saying, "He finally dropped his helmet.")

There have been a tiny handful of instances of brothers attempting separate careers as directors in Hollywood, but they usually had very different levels of success. Henry King was a major director with Fox, while brother Louis just limped along with small, if respectable, assignments. William Wyler was hugely successful, but his brother Robert's ambitions were ended by the unimpressed studios early on, which is why William later gave Robert work as his associate producer. Howard Hawks had a major career, but always thought his brother Kenneth would have been even more successful. Unfortunately, we'll never know, as Kenneth was killed in an airplane collision while filming a WWI movie in 1930, but the limited evidence suggests he would not have been anywhere near as good as Howard.

But I've never heard of a pair so disparate, in talent and output, as W. Lee and Billy. When Billy first arrived in America W. Lee was already very successful and living on Long Island (not far from me, in fact). Within a few years the tables had, if not exactly turned (Lee was always well-to-do), then switched their emphasis, as Billy became rich and famous. Well, the next thing you know, the kinfolk said, W. Lee, move away from there, so in 1944 he sold his business, loaded up the truck and moved to Beverly. Swimming pools, movie stars, phantoms, killers, snow creatures, Bluebeard and the lot.

Incidentally, W. Lee's real name was Willy. Originally Wilhelm, diminutive Willi. Billy's real name was Samuel. But his mother, who as a young girl had spent two years in America before inexplicably returning to Austria-Hungary, nicknamed him "Billi" after Buffalo Bill, and used to fill him with tales of the wondrous land across the ocean she had once lived in. Willi went over around 1924, settled in NYC and became very successful, even during the Depression. When Billi fled Nazi Germany ten years later, he first came to New York and spent a month with his brother. (He had a contract to write for Columbia Pictures, who didn't know that their new catch didn't speak a word of English.) Anyway, it was his brother who informed him that, in English, "Billi" was a girl's name, so Billi promptly became Billy. (He also had to learn that his last name was now pronounced "WY-ld-er" and not "VIL-der".) A decade after that, when Willy came to Tinseltown, he realized that it wouldn't sit well if he tried too hard to capitalize on the similarity of the names Billy and Willy, so he altered his screen moniker to what he considered the more distinguished W. Lee Wilder.

On a not-funny note, the boys' mother always talked about going back to America, but even when her sons were successful there and could have brought her over, for some reason she refused to leave Austria. Billy made a last-ditch effort right after the Anschluss, managing to get into what was now the German province of Ostmark and telling his mother he could get her, his sister and his stepfather (his father had died in 1928) out and to the US. But they all declined, preferring to stay where they were. Billy never heard from them again. After the war, he received an officer's commission to go to Germany to work with Army Intelligence, and went to look at the Germans' own records of concentration camp victims. There, not surprisingly, he found the names of all three of his relatives, murdered in Auschwitz.

Compared to that, having an embarrassing brother on the fringes of the film industry was nothing.

I've often wondered why their mother didn't stay in America when she was here, around 1900. (Let alone why she and her family so obstinately refused to leave Germany when they had the chance.) But had she not gone back and met Mr. Wilder, the man she'd marry, we would never have had such films as The Lost Weekend, Sunset Boulevard, Ace in the Hole, Stalag 17, The Apartment...or, for that matter, Phantom From Space.

reply

Thanks, HOB, for the background on Hollywood Brothers. I never thougth much about it.

"I've often wondered why their mother didn't stay in America when she was here, around 1900. (Let alone why she and her family so obstinately refused to leave Germany when they had the chance.)"

Sounds a bit like the plot of Phantom from Space. Must have been too hostile here, could not be understood, felt as if she was invisible.

Now, I have to say I did not readily get "He finally dropped his helmet", and after a moment I snorted and thought it was a good way of putting it. As Ricky Ricardo used to say, I think you might got something there."

reply

From what I've read, I think the boys' mother only returned to Europe because of family considerations, and would have preferred to remain in the US. She wound up staying and marrying Mr. Wilder, whom I don't think she met until after her return. But why she and her family wouldn't seize the chance to get out of Nazi Germany in '38 baffles me. Age, lethargy, and a refusal to believe the worst probably trumped good sense and any survival instinct. But she had had no bad experiences in the US at all -- hence her wish to go back one day, and telling young Billi all the great things about this country. Rather poignant, all around.

Not like the Phantom at all. But I wonder if any correlation ever crossed W. Lee's (or Myles's) minds? Or were the creative juices just too strong, enough to dissolve whatever stray allegorical imagery may have entered their heads?

We shall never know...now that all concerned have finally dropped their helmets.

Oh, and thanks for the "ET" links, in your other post. I shall click 'n' look.

reply

Myles' Big Three concern alienation, loss and the inability to communicate. I wonder if young Mr. Wilder left behind an interview on his work on these pictures. Maybe in Filmfax. I must dig around.

reply

Here's an entry on the Wiki "You Can Stake Your Life On it!" pedia:

"The concept for E.T. was based on an imaginary friend Spielberg created after his parents' divorce in 1960. In 1980, Spielberg met Mathison and developed a new story from the stalled science fiction/horror film project Night Skies*..."

Here's more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Skies

* Not to be confused with the miserable 2006 or 2007 release that I have been threatening to wrie a review about. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460883/

reply

Hey, both you guys (and any invisible 8' tall stranded alien looking in), just catching up with all posts here.

I agree with escalera, Lansing, have at it. I was trained as a journalist and while I was edged into another profession I still keep my hand in. My screenplay effort (at the behest of people connected with the business) years ago just died on the vine, but I did complete a 130-page or so script in a week, and the pros who did see it said I had a great ear for dialogue, good plot, etc....all the ingredients for success except actual success. But ultimately I'm glad I never got into that rat race.

That's why, per our earlier exchange, I have a bit of fondness for the old days when one could get something filmed, with some difficulty perhaps, but for very little money, and -- let's be frank -- where quality didn't always come into play. (As in the life and times of W. Lee Wilder.) We may make fun of his efforts, but we're aware of them -- sixty years on, we're still watching and talking.

In a 1998 interview for his own A&E program Biography, Peter Graves said that after nearly fifty years in the business, appearing in films like Stalag 17 and Airplane! and TV shows like Fury and Mission Impossible, the one thing in his career that he still got the most fan mail about, and that more people mentioned to him when they met him, was -- Killers From Space! (They actually showed clips from it on the show.) By then he could laugh and take it philosophically, but in 1953 (when it was filmed) he was a struggling actor who needed whatever work he could get and took what he figured would be a brief, largely unseen and quickly forgotten role in that movie. How wrong he was in those assumptions!

(Robert Clarke, the actor who starred in low-budget sci-fis like The Man From Planet X, The Hideous Sun Demon and others, wrote in his autobiography that he and others at his level in Hollywood found that it was those small, usually sci-fi or horror films, that people remembered and most talked about, while many of the "bigger" films of the era have been half forgotten, and he was right.)

Anyway, all this is neither here nor there. But I'm glad to see you haven't lost your interest in making something. So go to it, and as escalera said, keep us informed.

By the way, I never had a problem writing -- it was production that I could never manage. But I love the act of writing itself. Hence, my frequently lengthy posts.

Also, I found you guys' discussion of the merits of WLW's three sci-fi opuses -- this, Killers and Snow C -- to be spot on. I too always liked KFS best, and don't think it's anywhere near as bad in concept (or even, with some indulgence, in exectution) as most critics. I like it better than our PFS here, which is dully prolonged in stretches, and TSC, which just lumbers along, much like the guy in the icy parka -- oops, I mean, the Yeti -- himself. Plus I love all the "Tibetans" speaking Japanese. I guess W. Lee figured, hey, they're all Orientals, no one will know the difference.

But did you guys ever notice W. Lee's slap at his brother Billy in The Snow Creature? Remember, both Phantom and Snow were made after Billy's Stalag 17. First, Lee swipes Stalag bad guy Peter Graves to be the star of KFS. Then he makes TSC, with one of its heroes an L.A. police officer called "Lieutenant Dunbar". Remember the name of the officer in 17 whom the POWs spring at the end, using "Security" -- Graves -- as their decoy? If you guessed "Lieutanant Dunbar", then, as William Holden said in the film, give that man a cupie doll!

reply

I sure would like to take a peek at that yellowed script of yours, HOB. It sounds good the way you wrote about it.

Now, as you may well remember, I was digging around the inter-net for any interview with Myles Wilder and came across this subperb site (maybe you know about it): http://thethunderchild.com/TableofContents.html

and wrote to the site creator, Barbara*, and she responded quickly with a hopeful note. She wrote later and said:

Hi, George

Unfortunately, looks like there are no interviews. He didn't appear to care for his genre work.

http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/30690/Myles-Wilder- writer-producer

Sorry!


So, unless there is some obscure printing or recording there is no trace.


*Not Bestar.

(Well, we've managed to bloat this thread to over 20 entries!)


reply

[deleted]

Lansing54, it sounds to me that you did all right. You don't sound like some of the nuts that write on the IMDb that are apparently young enough still to do what you are talking about, but find it easier to tear down the work of others.

And your love of movies still lives -- not a bad thing. We all have our regrets and check Craigslist and e-Bay for that elusive Time Machine but laugh at ourselves knowing that we won't find one and smile wistfully to ourselves as we sign-ff.

But, "Where there's life, there's hope." You just may be the Harlan Sanders of the movie world.

You know, there was a desperation with those old film makers -- and I do mean "film" -- because the footage was so dear, time was a real concern, often the "name" actor was only available for a day or two and his or her stuff had to be shot first and right away. I doubt there was much left on the cutting room floor, just about everything was a "Print" and made it to the screen.

Ther are probably still some would-be Paul and Jackie Blaisdells out there that are passed over in favor of super-fine-hot-to-trot CGI.

It used to be seat of the pants, guerilla film-making.

Ah, well. Those days are gone. But the dreams live on in Old Men and if there is a tomorrow...who knows?

Thanks for the tip on Gangbusters, I would be curious to see his work.

reply

Too bad about the lack of input by Myles re his so-called "genre" work.

Did the lady Barbara use that term herself? If so, I wonder why some people insist on referring to efforts (and I do mean efforts!) such as Phantom From Space, Killers From Space, The Snow Creature and the like as "genre" pictures. As opposed to what? Westerns? War movies? Comedies? None of these constitutes a "genre"?

Bigots!

I go back to Robert Clarke's 1995 autobio, To 'B' Or Not to 'B', in which he amusingly describes his life as a middle-level actor who had to take what he was offered. If either of you guys can find a copy, get it. It tells a lot about what it was like to work for people such as Roger Corman, Ronnie Ashcroft (The Astounding She Monster), Jerry Warren (The Incredible Petrified World, Man-Beast, Invasion of the Animal People) and their ilk, as well as the pitfalls and pratfalls involved in bottom-budget filmmaking, 1950s style. Including about times when it worked, as with Edgar G. Ulmer's The Man From Planet X, one of my absolute faves. Even Captive Women!

Clarke didn't work with all these guys or on all these films, but he gives you a great understanding of what went on on that side of Hollywood, the costs, shooting schedules, how they got a crew, etc. It's also interesting to read what he got paid for such films -- $215 for Planet X, $700 for She-Monster...though he writes that Ashcroft actually delivered on a promise to him for a percentage of the profits on that one, which ultimately netted Clarke an extra $3000.

Imagine Ulmer making Detour in four days for $22,000?! Chicken feed, even in '45. Now it's on the Library of Congress's list of American films to be preserved. So is Planet X -- six days, $41,000.

Maybe Myles Wilder was too tough on himself, trying to escape his past. Dollars to space helmets, the things he'll be remembered for are Phantom, Killers and the estimable Snow Creature. Is that really so bad?

reply

[deleted]

Larry Buchanan. Now there's dull, with a capital Duh. One of the few people who could make this kind of stuff boring, which is not an easy task.

I gather Jerry Warren was a loud, unpleasant jerk as well as a thoroughly untalented man who didn't give a damn about his movies. One look and all this is obvious. He gave low-budget movie-making a bad rap. Everyone who worked for him apparently hated the guy, including his wife, who eventually divorced him.

I tend to agree that PFS is somewhat different in tone from the other two. It's a bit less sensational in at least some of its plot development. I think it was also the last of the three that I saw, though probably only a couple of years after the others. I was a kid when I first saw them all, and I think Phantom struck me as the least fun or interesting. I appreciate it more now than I did back then.

reply

[deleted]

Well, Larry B. to me is boring, period. Mars Needs Women is slow as sexy molasses, despite some good-looking girls. Zontar the Thing From Venus is a bad rip-off of the much superior It Conquered the Wolrd. Can't think of some of his other work off hand but nothing of his I ever saw worked.

Still, I'll grant you he seems to have liked filmmaking. He just wasn't any good at it. No sense of the camera, lighting, direction, pacing, acting, you name it.

Of course, all I know of Warren the man is quotes from people who worked with him that I've read, and they all said he was unpleasant. However, in his case his contempt for his work and his audience is self-evident. He couldn't write, direct, produce or even make a coherent scene. Mindless, confused, convoluted gobbledygook. Plus, much of his output was simply taking other people's work and screwing it up: his Mexican mummy movies, and worst of all, Invasion of the Animal People, a horrific, incoherent mishmash of a good film, Terror in the Midnight Sun/Rymdinvasion i Lapland. The original is pretty decent. Warren's lousy rehash is utterly senseless. In my view his only halfway decent flick is Man Beast, with his non-existent "leading man", Rock Madison. The Incredible Petrified World is fair, on a bottom-feeding level, but none of Warren's movies demonstrates that he cared anything for his work. He was a talentless quick-buck artist, which is an insult to the word artist.

I do admire people who can get a film made and distributed, especially a no-budget little number, and many such films are great. But that admiration doesn't extend to giving them credit for doing a lousy job or being in the game just for money, without any care for their work. To cite a classic example, Ed Wood was a poor filmmaker, but he clearly loved his work and cared about what he was doing. Unfortunately, like Buchanan and some others, he just didn't have the talent to do anything good. However, Wood was never dull, and that's the one cinematic sin I can't forgive. Phil Tucker was one of the worst movie-makers ever, but not boring -- two words: Robot Monster!

Obviously (perhaps) I can't at all agree with your list of allegedly boring directors. Those guys made some of the best films we've ever seen. Of course, that doesn't mean they didn't make poor movies too, even dull ones. But that certainly was not their norm. (The closest I'd come to agreeing with your list is Kubrick. I had a furious, near-psychotic name-calling fest about him, on the site of one of Hitchcock's films -- can't recall which one. God, are Kubrickites psychopathically defensive of their cherished genius! You can't utter a word of criticism about him and not have the nuts descend on you for having the temerity to say that he could produce something less than perfect. As to dull, I'd certainly put much of Kubrick's work in that category -- Lolita, A Clockwork Orange, Eyes Wide Shut, the second half of Full Metal Jacket, and parts of 2001, for instance. But The Killing, Paths of Glory, Spartacus, Dr. Strangelove are all excellent. Unfortunately Kubrick believed longer and draggier was better. He had talent, but he got too weird.)

reply

[deleted]

Take that, IMDb!!

reply

[deleted]

I've heard of, but never seen, Oswald and Pretty Boy, but didn't know that Buchanan did them.

My problem with Larry isn't the kind of movies he may have been compelled to do. It's that I think he's a poor filmmaker. This has nothing to do with having little money, or that some of his movies were remakes. Lots of directors have labored under restricted resources and turned out some very good films. But the Buchanan films I've seen are uniformly badly done, turgid and boring. Now, it may be that the films you mentioned above are better, and I'll try to catch them when I can. Meantime, I guess we'll just have to disagree about the relative talents of Larry B...without being disagreeable, I trust!



Although, I wouldn't have minded had he ever done a remake of PFS. With color and a different look, it might have been an interesting curio. Not that I have any problem with Phantom -- I like it just fine the way it is. But it's the sort of film one can imagine being redone by somebody. Heck, even It! The Terror From Beyond Space was remade as Alien.

PS: I had just finished this reply when my computer disconnected me from the internet, and the post was lost. IMDb wasn't the culprit this time, but I can understand your angst about such losses! The above is a rough reconstruction.

Say, maybe this is a cursed exchange. The ghost of Larry Buchanan?

reply

[deleted]

That sounds like a fun read, HOB, and I will look for it. I had read the Roger Corman book you referred to previously and while hardly a thorough look at his work and workings, it sure makes the reader wish he had been there.

All those "B" movies you mention are fun and people speak of them with either anger or humor and the fact that they elicit some feeling is all what a film could hope for. As you have pointed out, people are STILL talking about the today. They have not been ignored.

No, indeed, it is not really so bad.

(The very kind and thoughtful Barbara did indeed refer to Wilder's early work as "genre", and that is the popular term for it now so I get it and I'm sure you do, too, HOB, although your point is well taken. The brief statement by Tom Weaver that she included with her note was very interesting. I suspect there were many critics that blasted his stories and soured him towards his own work. A pity.)

Holy cow! -- a copy of Robert Clarke's book is presently on e-Bay going for a whopping 85 bones!







reply

Wow! I think Clarke's tome cost me around $12 or $15 back when. I'll check when I get home. (I'm in the UK now with my English wife.)

HOLD EVERYTHING, ESC!! I just checked Amazon and the book is available in a 2009 reprint for $25, direct from them. New and used start at $19-something and $14-something, respectively. So srcew eBay and check out Amazon. (When I typed the in title I got several thousand responses, but narrowing it down to "entertainment" on the left of the page yielded the book in the #2 spot.)

Incidentally, come to think of it, a few months ago I ordered Region 2 copies (in the UK) of both Phantom and Killers, wondering whether they were any better than most US releases. Although the company label is different in each case, both used the exact same prints as Alpha Video. But we watched them. After seeing PFS a few days ago, my wife went around the house saying, "Poor Phantom!" She felt very sorry for the guy. Hence, this thread, as a tribute.

Napalm Wilder. Took a moment. Very good!

reply

[deleted]

When my wife wants a little background noise for her Sunday afternoon naps, I'll throw on Phantom from 10,000 Leagues (1955), but if she only wants to sleep an hour or so, I'll play Phantom from Space because once the dog starts yapping in the observatory, that's quite enough to annoy anyone awake!

reply

[deleted]

Sounds like a good woman, Lansing54. Probably sticks with those pot-boilers only to be with you. My wife will do the same but I can see her eyes glaze over sometimes with some titles so I break it off and let her go wash the dishes or something she finds more interesting.

She is a lot more down to Earth I suppose.



reply

[deleted]

So, the story works. Your wife actually felt sorry for the strange visitor from another planet and his unforunate demise only one flight closer to his home. That is high praise!

Now, you're quite the detective, HOB, going to a lot of time and expense to compare the two issues. I wonder if the sensibilities are differnt back there and tha tmakes me wonder what the reception was like when Phantom from Space opened there. Is there anything like Variety or The Hollywood Reporter ("The Jolly Good Reporter" ?) that can be researched for a review? Since you have already gone so far.

Thanks for the tip on Amazon, I'll surely look it up. It makes me wonder if maybe that high priced spread wasn't autographed. I'll look at the e-Bay listing again.

reply

(With apologies to Jimmy Cagney....)

Just perused you guys' back-and-forth and thought I'd chime in afterward.

Interesting to hear about the wives' responses to our favorite 50s classics. Now, my wife loves this stuff, which either means I married the right woman or I have a budding ax-murderer sleeping beside me each night. If I ever stop replying to these posts, you'll know which.

Lansing, I was interested to know which "big-budget" (relatively speaking) but b&w 50s sci-fi movies your wife does tolerate. How many such films were there? I mean, major-studio big, but in b&w. I can immediately think of Them!, and I guess you could add The Thing, but I don't know muich else that would constitute fairly generously budgeted stuff in black & white. There's other good stuff that's not low-budget, like much of Universal's output (It Came From Outer Space, Tarantula, The Incredible Shrinking Man, etc.), but neither would I quite call these big budget. George Pal's films were always in color, as was the biggest of them all from the 50s, Forbidden Planet.

Me, I love almost all this stuff. We grew up on it. A few films are bad or boring, but most are lovely, and many downright excellent.

Escalera, as often, you give me way too much credit. It didn't take much to compare the US & UK DVDs of PFS, nor was the expense great. What alarms me about all this is that I actually recognized the same print of this film! Even more so with Killers From Space. When I've gotten in that deep, I know I've finally come to terms with my life's mission: grading 1950s sci-fi movies.

And to think, I once wanted to be President. This is better. Plus you meet nicer people.

Glad you didn't take the eBay offer on RC's book. The cover of the 2009 reprint is different from the original, all in color and really cool looking. Recommended!

Going to bed now, it's five hours later here than in The East, eight from Lansing's AZ. See you two on the morrow!

No, not Jo Morrow. (The Three Worlds of Gulliver.)



Oh, wait, I just remembered a PS: One of the Region 2 DVDs I got here in England is a widescreen version of Colossus The Forbin Project. Universal has inexplicably and inexcusably refused to release the film in its proper 2.35:1 format in the States, but has done so in the UK. Guess which is better? Thank God for Region 0 DVD players for when I get back to Region 1.

Okay, now to bed.

reply

[deleted]

Damn, I really almost mentioned The Monolith Monsters in that post. Yes, obviously, The Day the Earth Stood Still was a major b&w film.

But like you I like the low-budget flicks as much or better. It was fun reading that you and your wife keep separate DVD racks. Good sense to have an "Ours" group from which to choose a mutual film. Maybe you can slip the PFS disc into the cover of Singin' in the Rain or some "Ours" title, then shrug your shoulders and shake your head in that innocent "I-don't-know-how-that-happened" reaction.

reply

Strange, escalera, how the guy or clone responding to yer talk about this untruly fabulous flick, has decided to delete all their messages and vanish into the Holland Tunnel or was it the LA River cistern of giant ants. Anyway, they are gone, gone, gone.

Reference is inscrutable because there is nothing to scrute.

reply

The Phantom exit! Brilliant, lansing54!

reply

Even stranger that it was an administrator who took them all out. I wonder what was nasty in them.

Reference is inscrutable because there is nothing to scrute.

reply

Curious. There was nothing objectionable in them. Not a thing.

This is not my world.

reply

If it is not yours, whose is it?

Reference is inscrutable because there is nothing to scrute.

reply

It was Lansing54.

reply

What? I know that, but why hide??

Reference is inscrutable because there is nothing to scrute.

reply