Terre Brûlée

The ubiquitous success of the zombie horror genre is, I believe, not due to the zombies as much as the depiction of societal breakdown and collapse, and the struggles of modern man to survive in a once-again savage, primordial world. That struggle is the focus of this environmental catastrophe tale, co-written and directed by Cornel Wilde.

In a near-future UK, a family decides to leave London and head north when a spreading virus has decimated the worlds crops, leading to rampant starvation and outbreaks of anarchy. The family hopes to reach the safety and security of an uncle's secluded farm. Along the way they run into the usual apocalyptic obstacles: scarcity of supplies, violent hooligan teens, rape-gangs, motorcycle savages, seemingly normal townsfolk turned murderous in the face of privation. Can the family make it to safety with both mind and body intact?

Even making allowances for the film's age, this is pretty goofy. The acting is passable at best. The script has all of the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the cranium, with repeated scenes of pollution and nature despoiled. Wilde also made the poor decision to place several flashes of future events throughout the film, which only serves to spoil said events when they eventually occur in the progression of the story. The soundtrack features a corny theme song by Roger Whittaker and a lot of bad acid rock instrumentals.

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.

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".

At least to me it does. True, this film is a little dated. True as well, most randomly inserted footage of polluted rivers/dead animals & flashback are annoying at best, not really providing any insight or contributing to the overall atmosphere of the movie ; but then, it cut the monotony of the roaming band, allowing a smoother transition for the following "action" scenes.

So indeed, this movie is not without its flaws, but I hardly understand some of the harsh comments regarding the acting or the scenario ; the casting is excellent and the storyline somewhat believable. Without giving too much clues, if you consider what they go through before getting to the countryside, I wasn't really shocked by the general "shot first and ask questions later" attitude of the "hero", nor did I find the relatively short span of time before the collapse of organized society surprising. (Just look at what a panicked mob can do today and just imagine that there was actually such a dramatic event as portrayed in the story...)

So overall, I'd highly recommend this movie for any amateurs of "end-of-the-world" movies, providing you can get past the pseudo-ecological message and the general feeling of age. (which shouldn't be a problem if like me, you love B movies from the 70's - 80's.) A great late-night movie to which I would really like to see a remake made.

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.