From the Earth to the Moon (1958) User Reviews

Verne's Columbiad - reduced in effect.

[theowinthrop · 5/10 · 19 September 2005]

After TWENTY THOUSAND LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA and AROUND THE WORLD IN EIGHTY DAYS it is most likely that the most popular of Jules Verne's titles (the ones that most people are familiar with) is his 1865 novel FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON, together with it's first sequel, the 1870 novel AROUND THE MOON. What fascinates everyone is that for all the errors we now know of Verne's huge cannon idea (it would crush and vaporize the space travelers before they left the cannon's mouth) he was on target on so many points. He felt the Americans would do it first (we did - though barely); It would be sent from Florida (near where Cape Kennedy is located, by the way); Texas would be important in the project (in the novel Texas wants the honor of being the site of the cannon, but in reality Nasa's central space tracking center is in Houston); The capsule would be bullet shaped (not quite correct, but look at the rockets we used); The capsule would return to the earth and land in the Atlantic, to be recovered by an American battleship. Nice guesswork (or homework) Jules! To be fair to Verne, even his cannon idea was not a bad one - it was more plausible than Cyrano de Bergerac's bottles of morning dew (which his poetic fancy said would lift the traveler) or Poe's free flying balloon in HANS PFALL. But what is not noticed by most readers (due to translations) is Verne's social and political satire. He liked Americans, but he recognized our bellicosity, self-image building (we always did it better than anyone else) and our economic and political expansionism. Verne, like many Frenchmen, supported Lincoln and the North in the Civil War, especially after the Emancipation Proclamation. In 1887 he wrote a two volume novel NORTH AND SOUTH, in which the Confederates are the villains. But he saw American enterprise as haphazard and not well planned. He was very critical of it in THE FLOATING ISLAND, where greed by American millionaires destroys a remarkable artificial island. Even in his first published novel, FIVE WEEKS IN A BALLOON, at a philosophical moment one of the characters says that if the world ever is destroyed an American will have a hand in it.

So in the novel, the Baltimore Gun Club members are all leading engineers who helped the Northern cause by building better guns and cannon. Most of them are missing limbs as a result. The President of the club, J.P. Barbicane (in some versions his name is "Impey" Barbicane) has his limbs. His closest associate, the club's secretary, J.T. Maston, has most of his body, but has one hook for a hand. They are the only members with "in tact" bodies. The club is seeking something to do with it's time, after the Confederacy collapses. Barbicane suggests building the "Columbiad" (which, by the way, is the cannon, not the projectile) to travel or communicate with the moon. The plan is barely presented when Maston suggests using the cannon instead to annex Mexico! See - Verne has our bellicosity down quite pat.

Barbicane has a wartime rival, one Captain Nicholl. Nicholl specialized in better and better armor. Barbicane specialized in better and better shells to pierce the armor. Nicholl will soon become the leading critic of the scheme.

Verne (in real life) was a friend of the prominent aeronaut and photographer, Nadar. Nadar became the model for the French adventurer Michel Ardan (note the anagram last name for "Nadar") who proposes traveling in the projectile to the moon. Barbicane and Nicholl end up joining him (while Maston will be in charge of carefully following their travel by powerful telescope). The flight actually had great accuracy in detailing the length of the trip (four days) and in showing the amazing effect of weightlessness (Verne noted that by leaving the gravity field of earth this would result). The capsule never lands on the moon (it couldn't, because if it had it would not have been capable of getting back. Verne explains that there is a miscalculation in the calculations of the trajectory. This enables the moon to help send the capsule back to earth.

Nadar/Ardan is not in the movie. Nicholl does not become so completely involved and willing to work with Barbicane as the novel shows. George Sanders' Stuyvesant Nicholl ("Stuyvesant"?) remains hostile to Joseph Cotton's Victor Barbicane (what happened to "Impey") up to a few minutes before the conclusion. There is no power X in the novel - no new energy source. The movie was made in the 1950s, so the public had to think that Verne was thinking in terms of atomic power. Actually he never did. There is no romance between the children of Sanders and Cotton. These changes in the film help weaken the film in comparison to the novel (which still reads well - try to get the translation by Walter Miller that is the best in English).

This was not the only film version of the novel. The classic early film by George Melies, A TRIP TO THE MOON, has a period charm that makes one forget it's cardboard backgrounds (and it's projectile in the eye of the man in the moon is a classic moment of cinema). And then there was the film ROCKET TO THE MOON which turned the story into an all-star comedy with Burl Ives, Terry-Thomas, Lionel Jeffries, and Dennis Price.

Verne was not finished with his travelers either, after AROUND THE MOON. In 1889 he wrote THE PURCHASE OF THE NORTH POLE, where the Gun Club decides to use the Columbiad to alter the tilt of the globe. Ardan does not reappear, but Barbicane, Nicholl, and Marston do. It is not as good a novel as the first two.

"Victor Barbicane is one of the most brilliant men on the face of this planet....and incontestably the most wicked."

[utgard14 · 6/10 · 7 January 2015]

After the Civil War, arms inventor Victor Barbicane (Joseph Cotten) creates a super explosive he calls Power X. But he faces public opposition from steel manufacturer Stuyvesant Nicholl (George Sanders), a supporter of the Confederacy who has an irrational hatred of Barbicane. After being forbidden from using his formula by President Ulysses S. Grant, Barbicane turns to building a spaceship that will be shot to the moon by a cannon. And he needs his arch-rival Nicholl's help to do it.

I'm perplexed as to why this one is so hated on here. At first I thought maybe it was Mystery Science Theater 3000, which is often to blame when you see an older movie on IMDb with a lot of negative reviews and a lower than deserved score. But it doesn't appear this was featured on that show. Many of the reasons given in the reviews I've read here could fit a dozen other respected sci-fi films from the same era. Complaining that the movie has dated special effects? Really? The only reason I don't rate it higher myself is because it's basically 100 minutes of the rivalry and reluctant partnership between these two men with nothing much in the way of sci-fi spectacle that you expect from a movie based on a Jules Verne novel. But those men are Joseph Cotten and George Sanders, who both give charismatic performances. This wasn't challenging stuff for either actor, and both have certainly done better, but they do very well with what they're given here. Debra Paget (with dyed blonde hair) is largely wasted. Fantastic job by Morris Ankrum in his one scene as President Grant. There isn't much in the way of effects but the little bit there is has the kind of quaint charm to it that I enjoy about period sci-fi films. Like I said, I don't get the fervent hatred of this movie. It's not one of the great sci-fi films from the Golden Age, nor is it the best Verne adaptation brought to the screen, but it's not a terrible film. It's actually quite enjoyable and a good way to pass the time. Love that final corny scene. It's a good corny, in my opinion.

Not as bad as all that

[billpollock183 · 6/10 · 19 August 2008]

I feel tvholic's views are a bit harsh. It mustn't be forgotten that Verne wrote this in 1865 some thirty years before Wells wrote 'War of the Worlds". It must also be remembered that RKO was going broke at the time so special effects were not what they should have been. Stars Joseph Cotten and George Sanders did well with the script they had. Where this will not go down as a great sci fi movie, it is still an interesting one if for no other reason than the interplay between Cotten and Sanders.

Stories like War of the Worlds, 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea and Around the World in 80 Days have lent themselves to the use of special effects and unfortunately for this film, the film production company did not have the wherewithal to have effects in the same class as the aforementioned three.

Jules Verne wouldn't like it!

[Bruce_Cook · 2 March 2002]

A scientist (Joseph Cotton) and a millionaire arms dealer (George Sanders) team up on the construction of a rocket to blast themselves to the Moon. This movie was based on a Jules Verne classic -- but it completely lacks the charm and the quality of `Journey to the Center of the Earth' and `20,000 Leagues Under the Sea'.

Even though the cast includes Morris Ankrum (the Grand Old Man of vintage sci-fi) to provide dignity, and Debra Paget to provide scenery (watch `Princess of the Nile' and go quietly insane), it wasn't enough to save this numbingly slow and unappealing film.

Some of the special effects are astoundingly bad, considering the fair production standards. In the scenes of the blast-off, the supporting bar which holds up the rocket model is clearly visible! Fans of `Forbidden Planet' will notice the heavy use of the `electronic tonalities' borrowed from that classic. Directed by Byron Haskins, who did both `War of the Worlds' and `The Conquest of Space'.

A complete travesty

[pascal_jacquemain · 1/10 · 20 March 2005]

I just don't get it. Most Jules Verne books, which I adore, are written like movie scripts. It is just so easy to figure out what a film faithful to a Verne book would look like. Just get a few good actors and a good director, a few special effects and there you go.

But not with this and most adaptations from Jules Verne books. 2 long books are utterly betrayed. Everything is changed, from the type of aircraft, from what happens to it, from the characters that end up in it, from why people decided to get into such a canon ball in the first place when, in the original story, nobody was supposed to fly in it. The witty and amusing Michel Ardan is gone and replaced by a woman stowaway...

Utter drivel. Just read the original and do the film in your head, it is so much better.

Was This Trip Really Necessary?

[henri sauvage · 2/10 · 15 May 2003]

If you have a lifetime goal of viewing every sci-fi film ever made, then watch this movie -- if you can -- once, just so you can say you've seen it. But if you don't have this kind of masochistic streak, change the channel or go do something more interesting, like watching paint dry.

Despite the presence of undeniable talents like George Sanders and Joseph Cotton, everything about this movie is lackluster; the script manages to jettison every last bit of charm in Jules Verne's original story, including his broadly satirical take on post-Civil-War America and its industrial magnates. Besides the tepid romantic interest, in an attempt to be more contemporary the filmmakers added another plot element in the guise of a super-explosive called "Power X", and then proceed to beat you over the head with the obvious parallels to atomic power and nuclear weapons. Yawn.

While the sets don't achieve the stark cheesiness of, say, a "Queen Of Outer Space", they're not that great, either. There's even an fx shot in which you can clearly see the armature attached to the model projectile. (Shades of "Robot Monster" although at least there's no hand in the frame, too.)

They also have these mildly interesting (but ultimately silly) props called "acceleration tubes" which -- besides looking extremely uncomfortable for the actors -- are supposed to protect them against the terrific g-force of being shot out of an enormous cannon. (I think the tubes are a sort of lame homage to the deceleration sequence in "Forbidden Planet".) But then Nichol's daughter stows away simply by hiding in a space suit hanging from a rack. That is, she endures the launch standing up and suffers no ill effects. So why did they need the tubes in the first place?

I guess she was made of sterner stuff.

Since the producers were also apparently too cheap to spring for the wire work involved in simulating the effects of free-fall, they turn Verne's cannon shell into a rocket ship with a constant 1-G acceleration. But if they had rocket engines that efficient, why bother with the cannon?

I know the last place you're likely to encounter accurate science is in a science-fiction film, but still ...

To me, though, the worst offense this movie commits is its appropriation of Louis and Bebe Barron's electronic "tonalities" from "Forbidden Planet" as sound effects for the spaceship. Far from lending a touch of borrowed class, they're simply jarring. More than anything else, it throws the sloppiness, the utter shabbiness of this awful film into sharp relief.

Even the similarly cheapjack "Master Of The World" -- the last gasp of the Verne cycle that began in the 1950s -- is far more entertaining than this gobbler.

A Cast At the End of Their Useful Careers

[aimless-46 · 4/10 · 15 May 2006]

This 1959 movie adaptation of Jules Verne's "From the Earth to the Moon" is the graveyard of declining actors. Joseph Cotton and George Sanders were at the end of fairly successful film careers and about to be relegated to guest appearances on a variety of television shows; the most notable being Sander's Mr. Freeze on "Batman". Debra Paget was in her late twenties; she had lost her glow and was used up by Hollywood standards. The change to an unflattering "strawberry" blonde look exacerbated the problem as few actresses have ever been less suited to a light hair color.

On the plus side, the movie itself is a fairly accurate adaptation of Verne's story; at least the book's illustrations appear to have been used as models for the rocket and the cannon. Verne's 19th century take on space travel turned out to be more accurate than most of the speculation during the first half of the 20th century.

The adaptation's biggest problem was altering Verne's story by inserting a topical theme about the post WWII arms race. In Verne's 1865 novel, the Baltimore Gun Club itself set about building a rocket to go to the Moon. In the adaptation a munitions manufacturer (think "Destination Moon") concocts the scheme to demonstrate his powerful new explosive. With a lot of discussion about science, weapons, and peace the movie dances around the subject extensively yet never makes a coherent point about its position (regarding the nuclear arms race), as if simply inserting the theme is somehow sufficient.

The movie is a cross between "Destination Moon" and "Rocketship X-M", combining the former's good science and bad political message with the latter's dismal sets and comical special effects. The acting in all three films is equally sad.

The premise has munitions manufacturer Victor Barbicane (Cotton) discovering an explosive (Power X) capable of firing a shell-like projectile to the moon. His plan is opposed for philosophical/religious reasons by Stuyvesant Nicholl (Sanders), another manufacturer. Although these philosophical differences play an important part in the story, they are never convincingly elaborated on, which undermines the basic storyline.

President Grant orders Barbicane to abandon the project because it is considered an act of war by other nations. While this is unconvincing it does serve as Barbicane's inspiration to change the project to a manned space flight. Nicholl then agrees to manufacture the ceramic coating needed for re-entry and to accompany Barbicane on a flight to the moon. Paget plays Nicholl's daughter who hides inside the rocket just prior to take-off.

"From the Earth to the Moon" is often confused with "First Men in the Moon" which was made five years later. Probably because both are set in the 19th century and both feature a female stowaway (played by Martha Hyer in the later film). "First Men in the Moon" (while not a great film) is superior in virtually every detail to "From the Earth to the Moon". Rather ironically it was adapted from a story by "H.G. Wells", an early science fiction writer often compared to Verne.

Movie adaptations of Verne's books were a big thing in the 1950's and early 1960's. Among the good ones were "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" (1954), "Around the World in 80 Days" (1956), "Journey to the Center of the Earth"(1959), "Mysterious Island" (1961), and "Master of the World" (1961). Unfortunately "From the Earth to the Moon" is simply not in the same league as these examples.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

The budget really hurt this one...

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 27 September 2017]

The first half of this movie was surprisingly close to Jules Verne's novel of the same name. However, once the projectile begins heading to the moon, the plot changes significantly--and you can only assume it was because the studio was broke and keeping everyone in the sabotaged ship was a cost-savings measure. Ultimately, this RKO film was released by Warner Brothers because of the bankruptcy.

The story is set about 1870 in the United States. Mr. Barbicane (Joseph Cotten) is a munitions magnet who announces he's developed a super-explosive. His rival, Styvesant Nicholl (George Sanders) isn't impressed and says his metal plate can withstand anything...and soon after Barbicane blows the plate to pieces. So what is Barbicane going to do with the new formula, Power-X? He intends to use it to blast a projectile to the moon and back! Foolishly, Barbicane brings along his rival...not realizing Nicholl is a bit of a maniac!

For a going out of business film, it is surprising that one was made in color and actually looks good. It also has some decent actors in the script. But the film does suffer a bit here and there due to some lulls and the movie sadly just abandoned Verne's script halfway through the film. Decent and watchable but it could have been much more...especially if they'd geared up for a sequel as Verne had a follow-up book that continued the story.

Utterly tedious

[Kwp · 3/10 · 30 June 2005]

As a longtime science fiction fan, I thought watching a movie version of "From the Earth to the Moon" would be entertaining. My mistake, at least in this instance. This is a long-drawn-out, story-weak exercise in patience. The director seemed to be stuck on establishing shots and irrelevant scenes, to the point where I began fast-forwarding past any scene that didn't appear to be advancing the story. This got me through the second half-hour in about five minutes. What story there is has only a vague resemblance to Verne's original, and one waits forever for the rocket to finally take off.

Even minor matters like the background music become annoying: instead of an original score, for the most part what plays in the background are snippets of patriotic American music, and often one wonders what this has to do with the scene.

All in all, if you want to see a screen adaption of Jules Verne, watch the classic Disney "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" or "Around the World in 80 Days", and avoid this outing.

Cheesy yes but creative and storytelling in the early age of color...

[catacomber · 7/10 · 16 January 2016]

Certainly the effects of this film are no where near what we are used to today, but the inventiveness to even attempt to portray Vernes' rich imagination are secondary to the effort to bring such imagination from the page to the visual arts. There are inventive approaches to pre-real space travel, and the scientific accuracy (or real lack thereof) are secondary to the underlying Drama and dilemma presented about technological advances and the impact they have by affecting Man's commission of War upon his fellow man. So when watching this movie enjoy the players and do not cast aside because of reality fallacies and liberties taken in order to bring a book to visual life.

Total waste of time

[TVholic · 2/10 · 13 January 2000]

Dull, dull, dull. Did I mention it was dull?

I've seen many an old science fiction movie made in the 50s and 60s, and I can't remember one more boring than this. Bad acting, bad plot, bad effects, bad music, horrid science. Hard to believe this was made years after "The War of the Worlds" and "Forbidden Planet." In fact, the only SF movie I can recall that was comparable in deathly dullness was "Quatermass and the Pit" aka "Five Million Years to Earth." This was RKO Picture Corporation's last release, and if it wasn't solely responsible for RKO's demise, it was the final nail (and a big one) in RKO's coffin. What a difference from the miniseries of the same name released in 1998. Even 1964's "First Men in the Moon," based on a similar H.G. Wells story, was far superior. That, at least, tried to inject a bit of fun and humor into the story here and there, not to mention having good, old-fashioned Ray Harryhausen special effects. If you do want to watch something based on the Jules Verne story, go for "Those Fantastic Flying Fools" from 1967, also known as "Rocket to the Moon." Similar, but much better, not that that's difficult. It had a better cast, better writing and didn't take itself seriously.

Jules Verne must have been spinning in his grave faster than the supposed astronauts here in their acceleration tubes. SF movies have come a long way since this, and we should thank the stars.

Classic Science Fiction Fantasy Adventure!

[Dejael · 8/10 · 9 November 2002]

A lavish, colorful production, with a marvelous cast of seasoned professionals made this a sure-fire box-office winner on its first release. Lots of gadgets and gimmicks, all set in the Victorian era, so many vintage period-piece antiques abound to give the audience a lot to look at. Special visual effects are terrific, heighten the action. The three-chamber rotating centrifuge in the rocket is a unique idea; it's unclear what real scientific purpose it would serve, but it looks great in the movie; also the neon added around the rocket engine is an intriguing touch, but there's no real reason for it to be there. The script is the only real departure from the original story by Jules Verne; like Wells' FIRST MEN IN THE MOON (1964), the filmmakers felt they had to add in a love interest in the story where there were none in the original novels. Otherwise, very beautifully done. Cotten is good, Sanders hams it up, and Paget is lovely. It's interesting that Jules Verne, setting his story in the year 1869, was 100 years exactly before the real historic event of the Apollo 11 Moon landing on July 20, 1969; and Verne correctly selected Florida as a good place to launch rockets from. Highly recommended.

"I deal almost exclusively with the incredible".

[classicsoncall · 6/10 · 17 March 2016]

If I were designing a space ship, some of the things I'd probably overlook are a couch, writing desk, dining room table complete with place settings, a wall clock and carpeting - but they're all here on the Columbiad!?!? That could be why one of the characters in the story stated "Something very odd's happening here". You would think they'd be talking about a flight to the moon.

Even with that said, I was surprised at the amount and intensity of negative comments for the picture on this board. Granted, it does little to enhance the reputation of the original novel's author Jules Verne, but I didn't think it was as bad as some of the other sci-fi coming out of the era. There's plenty of dreck out there like "The First Spaceship on Venus" if you only care to look for it.

What really did blow my mind here was the character of Stuyvesant Nicholl (George Sanders) in his total hatred of Victor Barbicane (Joseph Cotten). Nicholl wanted to destroy the man's reputation so bad he went aboard the first space flight so he could sabotage it and in effect, prove that 'Power X' was a complete fraud. All because Barbicane proved he could put a dent in Nicholl's impervious, world's strongest metal.

The story takes place in 1868 and if you want to get technical, the real first landing on the moon didn't take place exactly a hundred years later, it was a hundred one. But you have to wonder how much of Man's significant accomplishments started out as words on the printed page from some author's futuristic vision, and given life in science fiction fantasy films like this one. Who knows, maybe one day we'll be watching movies on the moon. Beam me up, Scotty.

Ugh

[gajdude · 1/10 · 14 June 2005]

Awful awful awful.

I kept wondering if this movie wasn't made in 1928, not 1958.

War of the Worlds was made in 1953 and is like Star Wars compared to this movie.

I could make this movie in my backyard with a camcorder and a $1000 budget. Okay, maybe not.

Sound editing was crappy, special effects (if you can call them that) were bad, acting was pretty bland. The storyline was bad.

The costumes were okay, that's about it.

I saw it on Turner Classic Movies, but I still want my money back.

A wonderful film that relies on more then 21st century special effects...

[Mikel3 · 27 April 2006]

To bad many of the comments here seem to be from jaded action film viewers. They can't seem to appreciate this films many merits including the fact it's a showcase for Cotton's and Sander's enormous talents. Talents to rarely used after their heydays in Hollywood. They both do a marvelous job here, especially Cotton. Yeah, compared to the action packed plot less junk we have today this may seem "slow" in comparison. But there is much more to this film then the gun fights, explosions, and "cool" space battles people seem to require these days. The colorful sets and the acting are a joy to see. And if you look just below the surface you'll find this a refreshing variation on the typical "horrors of atomic energy" films so popular in the 50s.

If you have an open mind and love sci-fi films that dare to be different for their time, you should enjoy this.

Really pathetic special effects; an overall silly and forgettable film

[MovieAddict2016 · 5/10 · 5 November 2005]

It's the late 1880s and Victor Barbicane (Joseph Cotton) has invented a new power source called "Power X." He realizes it has the potential to boost a rocket into outer space (or, more specifically, to the moon).

After some initial flubs he manages to embark on his journey along with his assistant (Don Dubbins), semi-villain Stuyvesant Nicholl (George Sanders), and Nicholl's daughter Virginia (Debra Pagent).

Nicholl thinks that Victor's Power X is sacrilege and sabotages their entire journey -- will they be able to get back to earth? This was presented on TCM as the least successful adaptation of Welles' material and it shows in every frame. The special effects are really pathetic - even for a 1958 film - and the acting is subpar. The great character actor Joseph Cotten looks utterly bored and disgusted at the fact that he's even remotely close to starring in this film - he basically just stumbles and mumbles through the entire project, and I truly felt sorry for him after seeing such superior films as "Citizen Kane," "Shadow of a Doubt," "The Magnificent Andersons" and of course "The Third Man." If you want to laugh, this is a good choice. If you're looking for something worthwhile (at least in terms of artistic merit) - look elsewhere!

Some Interesting Reflections But A Weak Story And A Cheap Look

[sddavis63 · 4/10 · 29 August 2019]

There are some things (more philosophical points than anything having to do with the actual production of the movie) that I liked about this film. The opening scenes were thought-provoking and disturbing. They depicted a group of arms merchants sitting around a table lamenting that with the end of the America Civil War their profits were down. This calm and matter of fact and very practical approach to warfare strikes me as something arms manufacturers of every place and age would share. The group was gathered to hear a proposal from industrialist/scientist Victor Barbicane (Joseph Cotten) about a new type of explosive he had invented and a proposal that the explosive could be used to launch a rocket to the moon - in 1868! Since there was potential profit involved (and because countries all over the world would want to buy the explosive to protect themselves from each other) they all signed on to the project. That, of course, was a prophetic reference to the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) - a phrase which was coined several years after this movie's release. And Barbicane's new explosive is obviously intended to remind people of the atomic bomb. So there's a combination of typical 50's sci-fi with the paranoia that existed at the time about the bomb. There was some interesting enough material to reflect on.

Unfortunately ... yes, there's an "unfortunately." The actual story is about as dry as can be. It plods along with very little happening that's really all that interesting. The special effects are virtually non-existent - which is especially noticeable once the rocket takes off with Barbicane and some associates aboard. Somehow the rocket has gravity and the shots of the rocket are cheap looking - as is the very bare bones interior of the ship. I also wondered why they were worried that the rocket would heat up and burn as it landed on the moon? There's no atmosphere on the moon. There's nothing to heat it up? The ending of the story was very abrupt and seemed to leave an awful lot hanging. And there was one historical anomaly that puzzled me. As I understand the story it's set in 1868. But when Barbicane is asked to meet with the president, it's obvious that the president is Ulysses Grant. But Grant became president in 1869. In 1868 the president was Andrew Johnson. Although I don't recall a specific date being mentioned in the movie - but most of what I've read about the movie says that it's set in 1868. That puzzled me.

Personally, I thought that even as 50's sci-fi (which is full of cheap and cheesy movies) goes, this was one of the weaker examples I've seen. (4/10)

Classic Actors

[whpratt1 · 5/10 · 8 March 2006]

This is not a bad film to view considering it was produced in 1958 and was advance in its theory about going to the Moon. However, we must consider the famous author who wrote this story and gets all the credit. Joseph Cotton,(Victor Barbicone),"The Survivor",'81, was the scientist in this story who creates this space ship and recruits wealthy business men to finance his ventures. Henry Daniell,(Morgana),"The Body Snatchers",'45 gives a great supporting role and manages to play a good role instead of a killer or Nazi like he did in the 1940's. George Sanders,(Stuyvesant Nicholl),"Doomwatch",'72 gives the performance of a person despised by everyone, including his daughter,(Debra Paget),Virginia Nicholl, "The Haunted Palace",'63. Virginia had a boyfriend she does not want to leave and there are some romantic scenes. If you like an ancient film about going to the moon, this is the film for YOU.

early dream of going to the moon

[ksf-2 · 7/10 · 2 October 2017]

SPOILERS *** As the title indicates, this was an awesome Jules Verne book, about a trip TO the Moon. In the original story, as someone else has pointed out, it was about sending just a rocket TO THE MOON. Obviously, with the lack of a power source on the moon itself, how could anyone possibly come back?? Stars the amazing Joseph Cotton and George Sanders. Scientist Victor Barbicane (Cotton), accompanied by villain Nicholl (George Sanders), they attempt to make their way to the moon. In spite of numerous plot-holes and a tiny budget, Cotton and Sanders give it their all, and it is reasonably entertaining, as long as you buy into all the shortcomings. Jules Verne croaked in 1905, so he had written out this story YEARS prior to anyone on earth actually going to the moon. and this film was made ten years before the US actually WENT to the moon, so it was still pretty novel to talk about humans actually GOING to the moon in 1958. Debra Paget plays Nicholl's daughter, and at the end, they discuss the trip with "Jules Verne", played by Carl Esmond. Director Haskin had gotten his start in Special Effects, so that may be why he was chosen to direct this. Showing on Turner Classic now and then. IMDb claims there is a two hour version, but I have only seen the 100 minute version.

Whether He's On The Moon or Dead, He'd Know What To Do....

[verbusen · 5/10 · 15 May 2006]

Yes, you can hear those words of wisdom, along with Virginia asking a dozen times "What does it mean?" if you watch "From the Earth to the Moon". I was ready to rip this flick a new one until I just read the trivia on IMDb and it kind of stole all my thunder (so read this first before you go there, lol). Anyway, it starts out like a serious sci fi flick and since I'm a 30's-60's sci fi fan, I was getting into it. But then like the trivia part says it runs out of steam (powered by power X) BIG TIME! The point where this movie "jumps the shark" is right around the moon launch time, I loved the wood paneling and shag carpet in the vessel though. The moon shot time is also when you hear the Forbidden Planet sound effects, and as distinctive as they sound, you immediately notice them, along with the sound of someone turning a cooking timer to the point that's its really annoying. The damn trivia also stole my thunder about the boom holding the spacecraft in full view (I paused and rewound that because I couldn't believe it was so blatant). This would have been a good MST3K movie to lampoon. The blonde who stows aboard, Virginia, is in full hormone bloom and she delivers some classic lines and moments that are just calling for an ad lib. She is in this one scene and starts saying "Well, if we're all going to die...." you can put your own ad lib in there, mine was "lets all go out with a real bang, gang!" She also says while they are lost in space to her heart-throb referring to when they will die, "Will you come to me?" If you replace the word to with in, I think was what she was really thinking, lol. Anyway, the trivia explained why this movie while never really was all that great in the beginning went totally downhill after that, RKO announced they were closing down! I'm just wondering what the target audience would have been for this movie anyway, it starts out to mature for kids (they'd be either running all over the place or asleep), and I don't see any women appeal, or for that matter many guys. I guess there was a "geek" element in the 50's because that's the only target audience I see. Well I admit I have geeky ways to myself so they got me to watch, the ad libbing I did with Virginia made the last part tolerable, otherwise your not missing much. A Japanese guy in a rubber monster suit is much more fun to watch.

The prophetic prognosticators at the always eponymous Warner Bros. . . .

[oscaralbert · 6/10 · 18 March 2019]

. . . foresee more than 60 years into the future with FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON (1958), picturing an America STILL rife with monuments to the Treasonous Confederate Traitors, STILL dominated by Anti-Science Anti-Logic Anti-Common Sense Fundamentalist Know-Nothings, and STILL at the mercy of wildfire-like Conspiracy Theories flashing through the media at lightning speed. FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON novelist "Jules Verne" makes a cameo appearance here to get in the final word in which he concedes that Warner Bros.' warnings of imminent doom trump anything he ever was able to concoct. Even "Ike," one of the heartless ringleaders of "Herbie Hoover's" massacre of heroic U.S. World War One veterans (along with their wives and kiddies) at a Washington, DC "Hoover-Ville," would plagiarize FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOOM shortly after its release for his farewell Oval Office rant against the "Military\Industrial Complex." Warner uses this flick to warn us that NO ONE will be safe in America as long as there are "Daughters of the Confederacy" running around loose among We True Blue Loyal Patriot Progressive Union Label Normal People stirring up Trouble. They and their Satanic Verses-Thumping cousins MUST be stripped of citizenship, ill-gotten assets, and bloomers and deported ASAP to Russia, Antarctica, the Moon, or any other far-off place IF the USA is to have ANY chance for survival!

Dreadful

[fwdixon · 1/10 · 13 April 2013]

A tedious exercise in cinematic boredom featuring Joseph Cotten and George Sanders.

Unusual in that it had no protagonist - Cotten is an insanely greedy arms merchant and Sanders is a self-righteous, bible-thumping madman.

The film plods along interminably with brief patches of action separating the endless preachy talk, talk, talk.

Ultimately I found myself hoping for both of them to die along with the sappy couple of Debra Paget and Don Dubbins, just to bring this train wreck of a film to an end.

There is no earthly (or lunar) reason to watch this dreadful film.

Like reading a book

[tonycollums · 8/10 · 8 March 2020]

This is what we miss in today's movies or listening to radio classics. You have to use your imagination. Today's movies are about computer generated graphics and multimillion dollar budgets. I've been watching sci-fi movies for 50+ years and my favorites are still the B movies with good stories and cheap budgets. Normal people trying extraordinary things.

From the Earth to the Moon - Brilliant Imagination

[arthur_tafero · 7/10 · 22 April 2024]

Jules Verne and HG were the two greatest science-fiction writers in the history of the genre; no one else is even remotely close to these two individuals. There have been subsequent very good sci-fi writers (Asimov, Garland), but none in the same category as Verne and Wells.

I found the film to be profoundly prophetic and extremely entertaining for the most part. There were some scientific missteps (as in being fired out of a cannon and a few others But there were many more accuracies than inaccuracies about the scientific principles and items that would not be invented for another eighty years by men like Einstein and Oppenheimer. What a briiliant imagination Verne had! How anyone could give ANY of his works (either in film or in literature) less than a very high rating, is well beyond my understanding. Did they expect the film to be scientifically precise by 21st century standards, when it was written in the 19th century? Please.

Did Jack Warner Get Stuck?

[bkoganbing · 3/10 · 30 December 2008]

Forgetting that this film version of From The Earth To The Moon is nowhere near the spirit of the original tale Jules Verne was trying to tell, usually his work requires a big budget and a ton of good special effects. This film got neither.

Looking at the credits tonight I noted it was an RKO production released by Warner Brothers. My guess is that the film was finished and in the can when RKO went under and was sold to Warner Brothers to distribute. Also the fact that it was produced by Benedict Bogeaus who was a producer of B films of varying quality tells me why it did not get the budget for decent special effects.

Bogeaus was not the guy for this kind of film. Take a look at his list of credits. He did several westerns with John Payne, noir films with George Raft and some of them pretty good. He was out of his element doing science fiction.

Verne's original novel had a bit of humor in it. But someone at RKO drained every bit of it. They even added a stowaway love interest in Debra Paget who does not make the trip in the book. She's paired opposite Don Dubbins who is scientist Joseph Cotten's assistant in creating the rocket.

So instead of humor we get a lot of high falutin' claptrap coming from the mouths of Joseph Cotten and George Sanders the armaments manufacturer who is jealous of Cotten. Sanders especially looked ill at some of the dialog he was required to speak. He came across as a pouty kid and George knew it.

I do wonder if Jack Warner looked at this thing before he bought it for Warner Brothers.