Conquest of Space

Not George Pal's best,but at least he had us farther along then we are now.His unflagging optimism was all up there on the screen.As a kid who built space ship models I loved this stuff.The film drags a little now,but the dead astronaut's body tagging along for the ride till his "at sea" burial,kept me awake all night at age 8.movie trivia moment:character actor William Redfield who washed out of the mission crew got to pilot the miniaturized sub in "Fantastic Voyage".Talk about perseverance!

I just bought the DVD of this film, since this was the first George Pal sci-fi film in cinemascope, and I thought it would look pretty good in the letterbox format. The quality was slightly better than the television versions I'd seen in the past, but not incredibly so. The DVD was pretty cheap, so I'm not that disappointed. This film has always interested me because I've always been able to pinpoint when a film was made just by its look, and this one stumped me as a kid. When I first saw this in the seventies on TV I thought, "gee, this is either a very good scifi film from the fifties , or a cheap, bad scifi film from the sixties"....since the effects were elaborate, but hokey, and virtually all the actors were from, or in the case of this film, about to be, familiar TV faces,,,,,with some actors terribly miscast, such as Phil Foster (Laverne DeFazios dad)as a master electrician, and Mickey O'shawnessey as the general's lapdog.....of course, once I realized this was made in 1955, and was a George Pal production, I knew the science would be relatively accurate for the era , and was. In fact its straight out of Von Braun's blueprints, which were eventually altered quite a bit when we actually went to the moon.

What really hurts the film for me, is the silly script which propels the "plot" such as it is. I mean, can you actually believe that the commander of the space station would assemble an enormous spacecraft and only question its design and "whats it for" after it is finished. Then , be told by the designer that it was made to travel to Mars and not the moon, as everyone had expected......and you leave, tomorrow!.....right, just like that, just hop in and go.... Then, as in George Pal's Destination Moon, you constantly have the dumb astronaut (in this case,Foster) asking stupid questions, so that the "audience" can get some accurate scientific explanation for why they can or cannot do something in space. For example , Foster is afraid to go outside the ship (going 20,000 mph)because he thinks he'll fall off and be left behind, but is assured that hes going as fast as the ship and there's no wind friction to blow him off. I mean, would you let someone that clueless go outside the ship to make repairs? Then there's the scene where the Foster is informed they wont be able to take off for a year, the next time the earth aligns with mars......gee, I kinda would like to know those little things before I volunteered for that mission......I kinda understand that its hard to relate all the scientific facts to the audience without sounding academic, but springing it on them in dialogue where the characters should reasonably already know the score.......reminds me of something Kubrick said when he was making 2001: a Space Odyssey....he never wanted to have a scientist in his space movie have to explain scientific principles to the audience....like Mr . Wizard,,,"well, Jimmy , it works like this",,,,,I paraphrase, of course....

Ambitious in scope, undeniably action-packed: George Pal's third 1950s sci-fi film is loaded with glorious, Technicolor special effects that rival `2001: A Space Odyssey' (supervised by John P. Fulton). The basic plot (the first manned mission Mars) can be criticized for being little more than a rehash of `Destination Moon' -- but it's a theme no one really minds repeating.

Unfortunately, the movie suffers mightily from the embarrassing performances of some of its stars. The script contains several ethnic stereo-types which are just short of tasteless ethnic jokes. Perhaps the film's worst flaw is its choice of `villains' -- a mission commander who goes crazy from reading the Bible too much. The message isn't really anti-religious, but it can easily be misinterpreted as such.

However, if you're able to get around this particular flaw, `The Conquest of Space' is a wonderful science fiction adventure. Impressive sets and props by art directors Hal Pereira and Joseph MacMillan Johnson. Excellent music by Van Cleave (`The Space Children', `The Colossus of New York'). The story is based on a book by Willy Ley and Chesley Bonestell (who also provided the great space art which the matte shots are based on).

When you watch this film, remember that the plans for the first satellite -- much less the first Mars mission -- were years away. All in all, they did pretty good. And my class of fourth grade students agree.

Producer George Pal was a man of vision and accurate imagination. The one thing that he can be given undeniable credit for is how accurately he portrayed the surface of Mars. The Mars Explorer photographs when we had them revealed a world not unlike what we see in Conquest Of Space. Of course a lot of credit is also due to scientist Willy Ley whose books are the basis of the film.

Conquest In Space is a future world concept from 1955 where we now have a World Space Organization where the USA is taking the lead in space exploration. An international space station is constructed and people live there months at a time. It's under the command of General Walter Brooke who is concerned with the psychological problems of being too long in space. So he wants a handpicked crew for the exploration of the moon.

But the authorities on earth are shooting for bigger game. Kind of unrealistically they decide to forget the moon and aim for Mars. Brooke is in command and his eventual crew is his own son Captain Eric Fleming, Sgts. Mickey Shaughnessy, Benson Fong, and Phil Foster. In this future world no blacks or women are on the space station. The presence of the latter might well have cured at least some of the problems the guys were having.

On the way there Brooke develops some space problems of his own as he gets downright metaphysical, wondering if God meant for us to leave the planet earth that He bequeathed as a domain for man. Those issues cause all kinds of problems for the rest of the Mars expedition that are the basis for the plot of the film.

Conquest Of Space is imaginative but also intelligent. No hostile Mars creatures are found at least not in the corner of Mars they land. It was a realistic assessment of man surviving in a hostile environment and one of the better science fiction films of the Fifties.

This movie recently came out on DVD so I rented it from Netflix. I'm reasonably familiar with the plot and the work of Bonestell, Pal, and Willey Ley, so I don't think I had unreasonable expectations for this movie. Sadly my expectations were still to high, as I didn't enjoy this movie despite the interesting visuals done up by Chesley Bonestell and George Pal.

Compare this movie to the 1956 movie Forbidden Planet, and think about which one gives you a better 'futuristic' portrayal of how mankind has advanced in 'the future'. Even allowing for the un-PC aspects of the 1950's (which I find amusing/enjoyable, not offensive), the plot devices of Conquest of Space are absurd. There's no way that a mission to mars wouldn't catch the mental problems inherent in one of the main characters, which is the primary plot device for causing peril in the mission.

Buy/rent this movie for the visuals of the space vehicles and Mars, and for the place in sci-fi history this movie occupies, not because you expect this to be a 'good' movie. The basic premises of the plot are pretty heavily flawed and therefore annoying.