MovieChat Forums > Panic in Year Zero! (1962) Discussion > Beatniks really harmed this film

Beatniks really harmed this film

posted 16 years ago by nigelfans
23 replies | jump to latest

I saw this movie a few years ago and I still consider it one of my favorites but the beatniks who managed to find this family TWICE really killed it for me.

It starts off great, and then they meet those beatniks the first time when theyre trying to run the family off the road. I dont recall how the father dealt with this, but I do remember thinking "why didnt he just shoot them?". However it was resolved, I remember it being pretty far-fetched and illogical. But I was able to look past it.

What I couldnt get over is how these beatniks could AGAIN meet up with this family. In the middle of the woods. In what was apparently a secluded area that (basically) only the family knew about. Because they spent vacations there or whatever.

Its completely insane. And how did the beatniks get there so much earlier than the family? I remember the father did something to them in the original encounter...something that should have hindered their progress.

Its just ridiculous. The film was convincing and interesting and realistic up to that point. Ive never been more disappointed in a movie after that second beatnik enounter.

I mean...for one thing, its never even explained how they got there. But also this is something that could have been resolved really easily. Just get DIFFERENT beatniks on that farm, for example. I would have been ok with that. But the SAME beatniks? Its just not possible.

Also, all the stock footage was terrible.

[–] seanspotatobusiness 16 years ago

Why are you commenting on a movie that you can barely remember? And, possibly related to that fact, why are you calling them beatniks?! What made them beatniks?

I'm guessing that the man didn't shoot the "beatniks" the first time around because he didn't want his wife/daughter to see it, knew his wife would object strongly and had his own moral restraints. I personally would have shot them as a service to the next poor sods they would otherwise come across but this was the 60s and maybe suburban values were different.

[–] lrcdmnhd72 16 years ago

Actually, one of these punks was shot but not seriously wounded by Frankie Avalon(son). The only reason Avalon didn't kill this punk is that his mother bumped the shotgun when he fired. Ray Milland, the father, regained control of the situition and was tempted to shoot all three, but backed down, possibly because of his wife's objection.

I got a hold of a DVD copy of this movie last year form MOVIES UNLIMITED.com. The picture quality is quite good.

[–] gary_overman 16 years ago

<Actually, one of these punks was shot but not seriously wounded by Frankie Avalon(son). The only reason Avalon didn't kill this punk is that his mother bumped the shotgun when he fired. Ray Milland, the father, regained control of the situition and was tempted to shoot all three, but backed down, possibly because of his wife's objection.>

This is quite so. And look what the wife's restraint got them later on in the film. His wife's 'restraint' cost three innocent people heavily.

[–] lrcdmnhd72 16 years ago

Agreed! Dog eats dog.

[–] MrPie7 15 years ago

Actually, even MORE than three, Gary. Marilyn (raped) parents killed. Johnson & wife killed. Daughter (raped) and son shot, maybe fatally. (I assume Frankie survives, but the film really doesn't tell us. Thats seven!

[–] gary_overman 15 years ago

<Actually, even MORE than three, Gary. Marilyn (raped) parents killed. Johnson & wife killed. Daughter (raped) and son shot, maybe fatally. (I assume Frankie survives, but the film really doesn't tell us. Thats seven!>

Excellent point, MrPie!! It has been a while since I had posted that but I must have just been thinking of the Johnson's and Karen, the Baldwin's daughter.

[–] layton59 15 years ago

QUOTE:

This is quite so. And look what the wife's restraint got them later on in the film. His wife's 'restraint' cost three innocent people heavily.

Do not be so hard on the mom.

She is not watching a movie with the dynamics of knowing it is a "civilization gone mad" movie like you are watching.

Just imagine how people close to you would react in a real-life situation like this. Some would recognize the deadly situation, while others would be slow to see it for what it is or be in denial.

The mom did shoot at the 2 guys when her daugther was being attacked. Some movies would have had the mom play weak for the entire movie.

************************************************
Ye Olde Sig Line:

Liberals kill with ABORTION.
Conservatives kill with the DEATH PENALTY.
I kill with THOSE and WORDS.

[–] gary_overman 15 years ago

<Just imagine how people close to you would react in a real-life situation like this. Some would recognize the deadly situation, while others would be slow to see it for what it is or be in denial.>

Actually, I think that it is very fair to say that for the first two thirds or so of the film, that Ann Baldwin is in denial.

[–] DonaldKnouse 15 years ago

Ann Baldwin was Cleopatra the Queen of Denial for 2/3 of the film. I was born in 1956, but what I remember later growing up her reactions in the movie would have been real for many real women, if this actually happened. Now, no chance that sort a character would work.

The OP on this thread mentions Beatniks? How old is this person, 90? Those 3 were just punks, and if this ever happened in real life those people would be the #3 hazard after the Bomb itself and the radiation.

And why do people whine about the quality of special effects in a black and white B Movie from 1962? Are the studios supposed to go back now and reshoot all of the F/X scenes in every movie ever made?

[–] MrPie7 15 years ago

The FX work for ME!

[–] shootr2 14 years ago

Re: Original poster's "beatniks" references...

Probably someone in their early 20's rather than 90's. Anyone old enough to remember that time knows beatniks were the flower children of their day - completely non-violent, and interested in higher levels of knowledge and enlightenment (those coffee-shop readings were the most, man...ya dig?). Those guys in the film were more like "Blackboard Jungle" street kids, or even worse, gang-type reprobates.

[–] MrPie7 15 years ago

"Ann Baldwin is in denial."

To the point of no common sense attoll! :)

[–] connorarroyo-1 15 years ago

You really have a bizarre definition for beatniks. Those guys were punks, why are you calling them beatniks? Was there a poetry reading scene involving them I don't remember?

[–] Niki_Catalina 15 years ago

I don't recall any of the Punks looking like Maynard G. Krebs:)

"When people run in circles its a very very - Mad World"

[–] heyuactor 14 years ago

Whatever they were, I agree with the OP that their second appearance (being at the farm) was contrived and far-fetched to the point it hurt the film, imo, and should have been 3 other punks. Nevertheless the drama of this movie is strong and the issues it raises are very important. Should be shown more, and I was glad TCM showed it just a couple of days ago.

"Did you make coffee...? Make it!"--Cheyenne.

[–] Ironman54 11 years ago

"WORK ... !!!"

IIRC, this sort was more commonly known as 'hoods' back in the day. The one kid, the one who shot Frankie Avalon, had the typical 'hood' look/attitude from that time period, along with actor Vic Morrow. He played the same role in a few 50s/60s flicks IIRC.

'Greasers' kinda had the same 'look' but were more into breaking the motor vehicle laws rather than what your average hood was up to (petty theft, robberies, drugs etc)

[–] mobocracy 10 years ago

I think they were greasers, but at the first scene where we introduced to them the one that looks like Dennis Leary says "Someone dropped the bomb, crazy kick!"

It kind of has a beatnik ring to it, but the characters don't really have any of the other beatnik qualities about them. They don't even look like the typical thugs of the era, they look like refugees from a J. Crew catalog.

[–] jkholman 14 years ago

First of all, the three guys were not beatniks. lrcdmnhd72 rightfully refers to them as punks. As to the mother interferring with the Rick's aiming and firing the shotgun, I offer a quote:

"If you are going to shoot, shoot. If you are going to talk, then talk."

Some of our Clint Eastwood fans may recall the quote [more accurately] from one of his spaghetti westerns.

- JKHolman

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] donofthedial 13 years ago

Yes - not beatniks! These were "juvenile delinquents" aka JD's. JD's are in lots of movies of the era. JD's and hot-rods. As in HOT RODS TO HELL.
------------------------

[–] the_expeditersd 11 years ago

Beatniks?? What Cave have You been living in?? Calling them Beatniks is akin to calling Micheal Jackson the Great White Hope!

[–] ck1-5 11 years ago

The very fact that the wife wanted to go back to L.A. to "check on Mother" should have been a good indication that she wasn't a big fan of logic.

[–] colagada 9 years ago

Beatniks were peace-loving types, the forerunner of "love children" a.k.a. hippies. These were just your typical punk hoods. Sort of like the forerunner of "The Fonz" character only bad-natured instead of good-natured.