Blogcritics Comments on Reviews: Earth vs. The Flying Saucers & 20 Million Miles to Earth

Comment by Alonzo Mosley (FBI) on Reviews: Earth vs. The Flying Saucers & 20 Million Miles to Earth

Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:34:24 EDT

I meant no offense with the term. If it is indeed a grossly inaccurate term to use for these particular films, then I do apologize for using it. ]]>

Comment by Matt Paprocki on Reviews: Earth vs. The Flying Saucers & 20 Million Miles to Earth

Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:20:14 EDT

Being cheesy and being enjoyable are not mutually exclusive concepts, as far as I know. If anyone knows that, it's me. I understand that, but calling Harryhausen's stuff cheesy is just wrong. Given the era, this is high quality stuff, right up there with the best the era has to offer. If you want cheesy, look at Radar Men from the Moon or the Giant Gila Monster (*shudder*). The specific history of that term was for smaller, cheaply produced genre films with lesser known stars that would be shown as the second part of a double feature. These two films could very well fall into that category, which is why I used it. I know what a B movie is, but definitely not a B for 20 Million. Earth Vs... I'm not sure. That was one of Harryhausen's lower budgeted pieces. It Came from Beneath the Sea is in the latters realm too. I've tried to find some online stuff about 20 Million, then I checked my laserdisc copy. It opened in July 1957. The jacket nor the included trailer make any mention of it opening with another film. That's the best proof I can get for you. ]]>

Comment by Alonzo Mosley (FBI) on Reviews: Earth vs. The Flying Saucers & 20 Million Miles to Earth

Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:08:22 EDT

To Matt Paprocki: Being cheesy and being enjoyable are not mutually exclusive concepts, as far as I know. As for the specifics of my description, they did both come out of the fifties. As for the "B-Movie" monicker, no, I never meant to imply that just because something is old, makes it a B-Movie. The specific history of that term was for smaller, cheaply produced genre films with lesser known stars that would be shown as the second part of a double feature. These two films could very well fall into that category, which is why I used it. If you want to go into specifics as to whether these two films took "B List" billing to other "A List" films and were, therefore, literally "B Films" I can't debate you on that point. I have no resource that I can consult that gives their designations when shown in theaters. And if you know of one available for free online, then please let me know. I'm still in the process of builidng (gratuitous plug alert) a web directory! My description was never meant to be a cheap shot. I enjoyed both films when I first watched them (ideally enough) on a Saturday afternoon last September. It's all good stuff. ]]>

Comment by Victor Plenty on Reviews: Earth vs. The Flying Saucers & 20 Million Miles to Earth

Tue, 9 Aug 2005 17:06:33 EDT

"A bowl of popcorn and ice cold cola"? Wouldn't your popcorn get soggy? Or was this high-tech '50s popcorn that stayed crispy in cola, but was later banned after it was linked to cancer in lab rats? Sorry, I can never resist the inadvertent absurdities of language. Informative reviews of influential classics, overall. ]]>

Comment by Matt Paprocki on Reviews: Earth vs. The Flying Saucers & 20 Million Miles to Earth

Tue, 9 Aug 2005 16:58:37 EDT

You start off calling them 50s B-movies (when 20 Million was not), then praise and analyze them later, even after calling them cheesy. I'm lost. 20 Million is one of my faves from the era, right up there with Beast from 20,000 and Them. To call it a B-movie is a cheap shot at the films. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's a B flick. ]]>

Comment by Phillip Winn on Reviews: Earth vs. The Flying Saucers & 20 Million Miles to Earth

Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:24:40 EDT

Near Sicily? What a missed opportunity? They could have had the ship crash near Venice! It would have been an epic struggle: Venusian vs Venetian. Great review! ]]>