MovieChat Forums > Master of the World Discussion > Stinkeroo!

Stinkeroo!

posted 15 years ago by vawlkee_2000
15 replies | jump to latest

I'm a longtime fan of Jules Verne and "B" actioneer director William Whitney...Sadly neither of them shine in this pathetic opus......A wasted cast, a great music score, but a sad inept little film.
The screenplay combines two of Verne's stories: Master of the World and Robur the Conqueror. "Robur" was the story of the Albatross by-the-way.....It would have been impossible to have made a sequel considering that both stories were combined into one big mess.
Cheesy spfx abound here......Despite the beautiful model of the Albatross....The lighting was pathetic as was the camerawork, making the miniature shots look like they were done by 8th graders in their dad's garage.
The overuse of lifted footage from other films further dooms this tripe to the slag heap it deserves.
In the summer of 1961 I was with my parents at our beach house in Newport Ca. My mom asked me if I wanted to go see a film and I said "sure".......I looked through the paper and it was a tossup between "Master" and "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea".........I went to the latter and never regretted it.......I finally saw "Master" on TV four years later and was bitterly disappointed.
In '63 I purchased the original soundtrack from the bargain bin. I'd really hoped the film would have stood up to the quality of the music and artwork as shown on the record jacket - it didn't.
One can only imagine (as I have many times) if this film had had a decent budget for special effects and sets, not to mention decent writing, it could've been a pretty slick film.
The acting? Overdone! Price hams and mugs it up throughout the film, Bronson just walks through his part, Frankham is more boorish than Winchester on M.A.S.H.....and Hull is as corny as they come! The only one that clicks is Vito Scotti's "Topage".
What a waste!

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 15 years ago

For someone who claims to love William Whitney this is a trash wallow review like most I have never read. I am also a conosewer of B movies, serials and rubbish beyond endurance. You and I shall not meet on that Stygian shore, but if we chanced to, I'd have a copy of this much maligned artifact dangling from my rear appendage!

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

[–] casperdelmondo 15 years ago

What a crappingly hilarious response!

(Bonus points for movie-empathetic Steampunk persona)

[–] neon_suntan 15 years ago

Bad SFX don't always ruin a movie, but this film seems hurried and cheap, and is compounded by the weird over-acting from Frankham and the decidedly wooden Bronson.

More pecualiar still is the pervasive discordant campness, especially Roburs deep affection for his often half-naked crew...

[–] scotbpens 15 years ago

Actually, for American International Pictures, which had previously been known for low-budget black-and-white drive-in fare, Master of the World was a fairly elaborate production. The Albatross model shots were well executed for the most part. But the producers cut corners with cheap, cardboard-looking interior sets and excessive use of stock footage -- including an aerial view of a miniature sixteenth-century London (taken from Laurence Olivier's 1944 film of Shakespeare's Henry V) in a story set in 1868!

All the universe . . . or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?

[–] rockmail 14 years ago

If you're looking to AIP movies for great production values, you're going to be sorely disappointed in general. They were KINGS of the schlock, and were in it for the money, not awards or critical praise. "Slick films" were expensive with no guarantee of box office return, and it was easy to make money with crappy films, so why not do it?

Remember the entertainment alternatives at the time:

1. Go outside and play.
2. Go to one of the few major studios releases of the time, of which many were westerns and musicals, so if you didn't like those genres, you were S.O.L. most of the year.
3. Watch one of the THREE major television networks. Or a crappy local UHF station with local programming or ancient syndicated stuff like "Little Rascals".
4. Go to the Circus (when in town) or a locally produced play.

That's about it. No cable/satellite TV, no DVDs, no video games, no online chat, no SMS texting, no cell phones (still had party lines in many areas), no dozens of independent studios churning out hundreds of movie releases every year.

So basically anything that ran a couple hours and was cheap, fit the bill.

You had best look for "quality" from someone else.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vawlkee_2000 14 years ago

Look chum, I didn't just fall off the frikkin' turnip truck! I'm sure I'm older than you and perhaps just a bit more knowledgeable than you about most everything, especially vintage film and TV.
I was watching AIP stuff in the early 60's - were you? I'll bet you weren't even born yet! I saw "Attack if the Crab Monsters" on TV in '62.......
Point is slim, I know more about AIP, it's positives as well as it's negatives, than you'll ever know!
Don't preach to the choir!
Master of the World was a piece of crap and that's that!

[–] babyfir77 14 years ago

I agree. I'll never watch this one again. Had to watch it for Price and Bronson. Boring. I even agree with your pick of Vito Scotti. What a delight to see him.....I knew him the minute I heard his voice!

[–] vawlkee_2000 14 years ago

Thanks for your input.
It's a pity that Wah Chang's cool little model of the Albatross was basically wasted with the positively awful process shots.
Here's a guy to look up: Karel Zeemen. He did some amazing stuff during the same era. Try looking up his "Fabulous World of Jules Verne" (American Title). It wasn't meant to be "realistic" but it sure as hell works better then "MOW".
What a shame too, William Whitney was an outstanding action director. Pity he was saddled with this pathetic mess.
At least Les Baxter's outstanding score almost makes it worthwhile.

[–] PotassiumMan 13 years ago

This is a film that is fun to watch if you're a Jules Verne fan and you enjoy watching a very young Charles Bronson. But there's nothing else to recommend this film. The special effects are so shoddy, they look like they were made in someone's bathroom.

[–] Barbara-4 13 years ago

A movie's sceenplay should be a steak, the special effects only the salt - the seasoning.

So you have to take the special effects with a grain of salt, big deal. Its a fun film. Better then "Knocked Up" or "Dumb and Dumber"

The Thunder Child ezine
http://thethunderchild.com

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 13 years ago

Attention Butt Farmers of the Universe! All these cheap shot reviews mean absolutely NOTHING as the film is 50 years old and so what? Come and gone and made its money and that's that.

Let it be unsaid: insignificance is the locus of true increpation.

[–] stimpy25 13 years ago

actually i like this film. true it's NOT near his best film. "Vincent Price" i mean. but it's to me a fun watch. when i watch an AIP film which i love doing.

special effects really aren't my concern. they've done pretty bad films. but they've also done some VERY good films. & this is one of my favorites of theirs.

i wasn't around in (1961) but i think the acting is actually pretty good in this film. it's better than some of the films they made in the 50's that's for damn sure. "The Pit & The Pendulam" is my favorite "Vincent Price" film & some people i've read online think he over acted in that one too.

actually i think it's his best performance but than it's my favorite film of his. so that's why i think that i guess. he he

[–] Bob-45 11 years ago

I WAS around in 1961 and the effects in this movie are on par for middling budget films at the time, such as MGM's "Atlantis: the The Lost Continent". My biggest problem with the effects were the scenes where Bronson was hanging beneath the Albatross with really obvious backscreen projection and the aforementioned scenes in Black and White involving the ships being destroyed. I really had much more trouble with the use of Black and White than the perspective incongruity, as many films do this to give the viewer a better perspective of what is happening. There is a similar scene to this in "Walt Disney's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" and I don not recall anyone complaining about it. However, it galls me AIP would not spin an "extra nickel" to obtain color sea battle footage, as plenty was available from films such as Warner Bros. "The Crimson Pirate" or "John Paul Jones".

"The Albatross" is as beautiful a model as ever constructed for a motion picture up to that time,including the magnificent "Nautilus" from "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" and "The Nautilus". I would certainly love to own models of both; though,as far as I know, none have ever been offered as a plastic model kit. I did, however,see a home made one in a modeling magazine and it was absolutely beautiful and richly detailed.

On a side note, one of the great bits of "Verne technology" is the "paper hull," now that bicycles are being constructed completely from cardboard.

I though Price was perfect in the part, but Bronson was a "block of wood". Since Bronson was not one AIPs "repertory players" and "John Strock" was of indeterminate age, I've always wondered why AIP did not use Dick Miller or Jack Nicholson,

[–] CanadianBill 11 years ago

Bronson was a block of wood because Bronson is too cool for for this film. And far too tough. He should have won an award for allowing himself to be 'knocked out' in two punches from his wimpy co-star during the escape scene. He could have eaten that guy alive IRL.

Bronson!

______________________
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! THIS IS THE WAR ROOM!"