The Space Children

I've seen a lot of weird things on IMDb, but the rating for The Space Children is as puzzling to me as any I've run across. 2.1?!?! I couldn't disagree any more. 2.1 is getting close to Manos territory. The Space Children may not be the best movie I've ever seen, but it doesn't deserve a 2.1. Why the low rating? I blame MST3K. I enjoy the show, but as I've argued any number of times, some of the movies that they lampooned didn't deserve it. Take a look at the reviews on IMDb. You can split them into two wildly divergent groups - those users who appear to only know The Space Children because of MST3K and those who have seen it on its own. The comments from the MST3K crowd always seem to mention Uncle Fester (Jackie Coogan) in a bathing suit as if it's one of the most important moments in the film. In contrast, many of the comments from non-MST3K viewers reminisce about seeing The Space Children during their childhood. Maybe it's not just an MST3K thing but an overall generational thing as well. Whatever, I tend to side with those who enjoy the movie for what it is.

And what is it? The Space Children is a nice little cautionary 50s sci-fi film that speaks to the dangers of nuclear proliferation. Jack Arnold, one of the best genre directors of the 50s, does his usual workmanlike job with the movie. It's not flashy, but it certainly looks good. The Space Children obviously was made on a limited budget. As a result, the special effects are also limited and Arnold focuses more on the people. A lot of what happens is implied. But that's not necessarily a weakness. Too often, low-budget sci-fi films from this period look ridiculous because of the desire for elaborate special effects (i.e. monster and aliens) that outstripped the funding it would require. The acting, while not outstanding, is solid. Even the kids, who can be annoying at times in this kind of movie, come off looking pretty good. The cast will be familiar to many who grew up watching television in the 60s. Overall I've got no big complaints with The Space Children. Not a bad way to spend just over an hour.

While not Arnold's best film, IMHO (I find it a bit preachy and badly hampered by the rubbery silliness of the Big Alien Brain), this is still a memorable film. Though set in a beachfront area it happens mostly at night, using Arnold's typically haunting black-and-white compositions to set an appropriate tone of strangeness and isolation. The children, alienated from their preoccupied and overworked parents, are almost adopted by the space creature, which takes them under its protection (a drunken and abusive father is disposed of soon after the brain's arrival) even as it enlists them in its pacifist mission. At first fairly typical kids, they quickly develop an air of gravity and wisdom that remains after the alien departs, suggesting a lasting, even evolutionary effect. The film's title is perfect: the kids do become Space Children, more in tune with alien than human thought.

Somewhere on the California coast, midway between San Francisco and Los Angeles, a small group of scientists, engineers and technicians working in a secured base are preparing to test-launch a six-stage rocket carrying a satellite with a nuclear warhead: The Thunderer. The satellite is designed to be an immediate-response strike against enemy aggression, anywhere in the world. It is supposed that other nations are preparing similar satellites and weapons....

Unbeknownst to the powers that be, other minds have reason to want to see the project fail, and utilize an unsuspected resource to carry out their plans...

This small but effective little sci-fi tale is long on atmosphere, novel in viewpoint and execution, and well worth a couple of viewings for fans of the '50's sci-fi genre.

More than a few familiar cast members, and an impressive band of juvenile performers, under Jack Arnold's sure and spare directorial hand, give this a fresh and simple feel, and don't spend a lot of time hammering home its message (rare for the immediate post-Sputnik years).

Last year I watched TCMs documentary WATCH THE SKIES. Seeing the clips from this movie, I vaguely remembered seeing it but wasn't quite sure. Since Steven Spielberg gushed about it I thought I would search for a copy. I finally found a copy and watched it with my twin brother and a childhood friend of mine. Having seen it, I realize that I did see this movie. My brother and friend also remembered it and we agree that it was probably in the very early sixties. I was at most six years old at the time. When your six you don't concern yourself with the BIG MESSAGE. What I really liked was monsters and aliens. This movie does not feature any exciting encounters with either. I guess the reason I liked it at the time was because kids were the main stars of the picture. They really don't do much, in fact nobody really does much in this picture, but that really doesn't matter. Seeing it again as an adult, I am tempted to roast this movie for it's lack of production values, obvious low budget, lack of action and highly unrealistic storyline. I agree with another reviewer, what is an unemployed drunk doing at a top secret missile facility. Why are children allowed to run all over the place? But why bother? It doesn't really matter. There is a message here no matter how clumsily conveyed. The movie has good nostalgia value and that is probably the real reason I like it.

What can you say about a film that features Uncle Fester, Mr. Drysdale, the Professor, Mark McCain and the re-occurring "ornery lady" (Peggy Webber) featured in so many episodes of Dragnet? Well... I really enjoyed it! Russell Johnson is great as a mean, drunken, stepfather and, in a departure from her many roles on Dragnet, Peggy Webber's character is very personable. I think the picture is a great commentary on the type of science fiction that was popular after Sputnik but before the US manned space missions. Is it a "good" movie? Probably not. Is it enjoyable? It was to me! Reminded me of the typical Saturday afternoon movies I enjoyed as a child on TV during the 60s. Had I seen none of those types of movies, my commentary would probably be less favorable. It's not the acting, directing, production quality or even the plot of this picture that I liked - it's merely the nostalgic effect it has. This means, it's not a picture for everyone. It's a short film, so there's little to lose in watching it, which I'll probably do again someday!