Cast:
Vincent Price (Robur), Charles Bronson (John Strock), Henry Hull (Prudent), Mary Webster (Dorothy Prudent), David Frankham (Philip Evans), Richard Harrison (Helmsman Alistair), Vito Scotti (Airship Chef Topage), Wally Campo (First Mate Turner), and Ken Terrell (Crewman Shanks) Directed by William Witney.
Review:
Oh sure, an American International Pictures production that isn't just about horror, what could go wrong? The movie is loosely adapted from the works on Jules Verne, specifically the novels Robur the Conqueror (written in 1886) and Master of the World (written in 1904), as screenwriter Richard Matheson (in his second screenplay for an AIP film, as this was released between House of Usher [1960] and The Pit and the Pendulum [1961]) combined elements for this hodgepodge. But hey, we (yes, I include you) are here for the entertainment value in whatever is being cooked up on an "efficient" budget and maybe even in its cast. And this seems especially apparent here with Vincent Price being the star. Believe it or not, there were rumblings of making a follow-up feature, despite the way the actual film ended (an explosion!), complete with drawings, although these plans were scrapped pretty quickly. Witney was an experienced director dating back to the 1930s, which included films such as Adventures of Captain Marvel (1941) along with plenty of television; he directed until he was in his late sixties.
Really this is a curious movie, because you get a little adventure in color with Price trying to thread the needle of adversary that doesn't require fey qualities to go with Bronson getting a chance of a leading man as opposed to the early heavy stuff (such as Machine-Gun Kelly, if you remember) to go with a few others that either will keep your interest or have the effect of a puddle. 102 minutes is probably decent enough to command the attention of a movie that has pretty routine filmmaking to go with occasional goofy comic-strip moments. So yes, you get the triangle of conflict between the obviously cool adversary in Price (no bias detected), a bullish Hull, and "ambiguity" (nicest word possible) in Bronson. Well, and a bit of hammy old-man acting from Frankham and window-aisle stuff in Webster, but you get the idea. Price seems to be having quite the ball here, playing the angle that arises in pacifism taken to a certain type of notch when it comes to trying to force it down on everyone from the clouds to go with occasional spouting of the Bible. Price isn't playing it for camp, but he makes it fascinating, nonetheless. Bronson and his dryness might not compare to, say, The Magnificent Seven (1960), but it probably does reflect well to see his casual observation at the difference between ideals and methods, particularly with how leaden one finds Hull or Webster (set in the 19th century or not, wondering what is fit for a "gentleman" is not interesting in the slightest for someone like me). Interestingly, this is a movie made for about a million dollars that still manages to look a bit cheap, particularly if you like to wonder just what is made of stock footage and what is not (the opening at least is obvious because hey, "flight'!). Sometimes the aerial view is a bit silly (those familiar with rear projection might have a guess), which is especially true with the rope sequence. At a certain point, one just has to wonder where the low bar is but considering certain other AIP features past and present in terms of trying one's patience (such as here and here), I was fine with it here just enough. I can at least dig the climax for giving one a good sendoff in terms of unsettling ideas. Those with the fortitude to enjoy an AIP film for what it is in goofy entertainment will find something fine here, while others might recognize an even more hammier AIP film than usual. I went with the flow because it went with my expectations of a fairly decent time, which I suppose made it a winner that I could recommend for those with the fortitude to enjoy a goofy film from old yesteryear with one worthwhile performance to follow along with in the usual tradition.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
