Die letzten Fünf

i first saw five on the late show when i was in highschool in the mid-60's and i never forgot it, images from it stayed with me--i saw it again in the late 70's or so and then, the last time, in the early 90's on tnt (and taped it and loaned it to someone and never saw it again)--the last time i watched it i was astonished at how visually perfect it is, in many ways too perfectly staged--often the light is coming directly from the horizon like a maxfield parrish painting and i've often wondered if the actors and crew had day jobs and the whole thing was done early in the morning or late in the evening--leonard maltin likes it and comments negatively on its "purple prose", which is true, but i'm a noir fan and it's fun--i can't believe this isn't available on tape or dvd--obler's frank lloyd wright house is a treat too.

I 'd never heard of this movie, so I was surprised at how good it was, shoestring budget or not. The acting isn't that bad, although James Anderson (Eric) has one of the strangest accents I've ever heard (It's somewhere between London, Bombay and Berlin). One fascinating 6th surivivor in the movie is the house itself that most of the scenes take place in. It is a cliff house designed by the great American Architect , Frank Lloyd Wright. Somehow the house and scenery add an extra sense of elegance to the movie that would have been lost if it was set in another setting. The characters are frequently filmed against the spectacular views from the house's large glass windows, emphasizing their loneliness in a world now so large and unpopulated. The pacing is glacial and seems to dwell on the (frequently depressed) moods of the characters, bringing to mind Bergman films like Persona (although Arch Oboler is no Igmar Bergman). The most likeable character is Charles, played by Charles Lampkin, who would go on to appear in films as varied as 'The Man', 'Islands in the Stream' and 'Coccoon' as well as a semi-regular character 'Ralph' on Mayberry RFD. He has a sweetness and naturalness that makes his paraphrasing of the beginning of Genesis one of the high points of the movie. It's a pity that he wasn't born later, or we would have seen more of him than the string of uncredited appearances in movies throughout the 60s and 70s.

Enjoyed viewing this black and white film from 1951 dealing with a few people who were able to survive a nuclear war which killed millions of Americans. William Phipps, (Michael) lived in New York City and witnessed the entire city's population killed and he traveled to the West and was able to find a town where he could obtain food and shelter. As the film develops he meets up with a young woman named Roseanne Rogers, (Susan Douglas Rubes) who is pregnant and Michael takes her under his wing and tries to comfort her and he begins to fall in love with her. However, Roseanne wants to find her husband in the city and keeps her distance. There is three men and one woman who remain alive in this film and all these people begin to get on each other's nerves and this story takes on some very mysterious twists and turns.

In authoritative books about science fiction in the movies, Five is generally dismissed as crude and simplistic. There is justification for this, but somehow I found the picture interesting anyway. The fact that it was shot on a shoestring may even have helped. Being forced to use only five actors and a single ready-made set--his own Frank Llloyd Wright house in the California hills--director Arch Oboler created an intimate self-contained world.

This narrow focus increases the intensity of the drama, which, as an end-of-the-world story, has its own inherent interest.

The plot doesn't bear much looking into. The way these five people--out of the entire world population--came to be together amounts to wild coincidence. There is a certain amount of sermonizing of the why-can't-we-all-get-along variety. And so on--it's hardly a great movie.

But it's interesting nonetheless and worth looking into.

A bit overwrought and florid, but very enjoyable. Several reviewers pick on it because they seem to think that the characters are walking around in a totally depressed state throughout the movie. I don't see this at all. In fact, I perceive them as incredibly upbeat and positive about their situation, all things considered. One of the aspects of this film that I enjoy the most is the pure villainy of the bad guy. It's rare nowadays to see such an uncompromising and ungrateful jerk written into a script. He's human and believable, but he has no redeeming qualities at all. Also, he accomplishes this without the aid of technology, secret weapons, or even any sort of clever scheming or evil plans.

The cinematography is pretty good, with some startling shots and quite a bit of hand-held camera.

Finally, and I simply can't pass on this, the title is numerically correct for the majority of the movie. A couple other reviewers have stated that it is incorrect and I'm not sure if they're numerically challenged or what.