No Blade of Grass

...Panic in Year Zero. A realistic examination of how quickly civilization can devolve and asks if one can preserve morality and civility in a world turned savage. The situations feel gritty and genuine. The way different personalities react and try to cope feels very authentic. However, it does get a bit long winded and quirky. It almost has a touch of Dr Who of the same era including the sound track. Panic in Year Zero is a bit tighter of a film and fits into it's decade (1950s) quite well with the backdrop of nuclear war. This film is set more in it's present day but in the future sort of. It's a decent B movie and has its moments. Just don't expect high budget effects or zombies.

A bleak and uncompromising straight-laced minor b-grade apocalyptic sci-fi survival tale that's crudely made, but is grippingly constructed (despite a heavy-handed script and typically projected characters) and with committed acting led by the likes of a hardened Nigel Davenport, exuberant Jean Wallace and an unforgettably concentrated Anthony May.

John Custance, his family and friend decide to leave London to stay at his brother's farm in the Lake District, as just like the rest of the world Britain is plagued by a destructive virus caused by pollution that's destroying earth's crops and causing unstoppable panic. On their journey they pick up another couple Pirrie and Clara, but also come across a lot of obstacles and anarchy that would change the way they see things.

I wouldn't call it great, as it's an interestingly uneven production and somewhat cautionary tale that has its moments, but there are some problems evident that stop it being better than what it could have been. The two things that do stand out is the use of quick, fragmented flash forward sequences that take away any real sense of building upon surprises and suspense, to only confuse. Secondly it could have been a little more powerful in it theories of civilised society falling apart, as no one is better than anyone else in their primitive state to keep alive. What it feels like is over-the-top melodramatics and struggles, which aren't boring or emotionally forced but could have used a bit more weight. However what director Cornel Wilde develops is an effective apocalyptic vision of a dying world of dreary images (dead corpses --- humans and animals, decaying plant life and destruction of civilisation) covering brooding forlorn landscapes. Even what should be a peacefully desolated countryside, still provides looming threats outside the chaotic cities. Strangely moments had me thinking of M. Night Shyamalan's 2008 eco-thriller "The Happening". The violence has that exploitative, gritty touch with moments of relentless surges and unsettling intensity. It's not graphic, but it doesn't hold out. Wilde does use some odd, if static filming techniques that show its low budget but add to the moodiness, so does the haunting title song. The score can be harrowing when complementing the visuals, but could find it clunky and overdone. The performances are reasonably brought across, even with the black and white shadings.

What a daring, and visionary topic, not at all desuet, as some reviews say. I fell in love with this film made by Cornel Wilde, some kind of Mel Gibson before its time. Both were - are - directors as actors, both directed movies emphasizing on cruelty and violence: NAKED PREY, BEACH RED, LANCELOT AND GENUIEVRE for Wilde and BRAVEHEART, PASSION OF THE CHRIST, APOCALYPTO, HACKSAW RIDGE; don't you see any parallels, more or less same topics (medieval, war films, or a man hunt scheme )...Same tendancies to make what they wish to show to audiences.... I though admit that MAD MAX lead has not made any ecological film yet as this one.... Anyway, this feature was a great surprise for me. I nearly prefer it to SOYLENT GREEN. It is only a shame that it is not as widely known. You are dealing here with a non Hollywoodian film, violent, gloomy but after all in the right mood of the early seventies. It may be shocking for many audiences. That's why I love it. One of Cornel Wilde's best, besides LANCELOT...and NAKED PREY. As I said in this review tite, I would have perfectly imagined zombies plague in this story, to be totally adequate to today's movies tendancies...

I was a mere child, albeit a precocious fifteen-year-old one, the first time I saw this film on a first date with a young man who, despite the film, continued to see me for a few more years. Perhaps remembering the excitement of the date, or maybe recalling the timeliness of the film's subject, I recommended this film to a more mature young man several years later when it was playing in my college town. His sister was in town, and we dragged her along,too. I'll never forget how embarrassed I was to realize how truly wretched the production values were--surpassed only by remarkably overdrawn performances replete with grotesque vignettes that made me grimace. Naturally, the young man lost all respect for me, and who could blame him. Chris Drouhard, if you're out there anywhere, I'm sorry about this film.

On the other hand, those people who embrace profoundly bad cinema that may take itself a tad too seriously, should definitely consider "No Blade of Grass".

I haven't read the original story, though a friend of mine who watched it with me who had read the book said that this film adaptation was fairly close to what happened in the book.

The story is an intriguing one, and fascinating as to how is constantly seem to show no hope, no promise. There are some powerful scenes here. Unfortunately, director Cornel Wilde was not the right choice here. Yes, he does get some powerful scenes, but there are a number of annoyances. He shows endless shots of polluted rivers, garbage, dead animals, etc. - this isn't really what the story is about! I know there was a big ecology kick going on at the time, but that's no excuse.

Also, there are a number of flash-forwards that spoil events that happen later in the movie. What was the point of ruining these plot turns for us? Couldn't we have been taken by surprise?

Also, some scenes go by at a rapid-fire pace, or seem to have been cut before they completely played out.

So it's not a great film. However, the story is what's interesting, and what will probably make the movie worth watching to viewers, provided they have patience. (If they can find it - it's not on video, unfortunately.) Plus, even though it's a little corny, it'll be hard for me to shake that haunting title song out of my head.