Terre Brûlée

Producer / director Cornel Wilde ("The Naked Prey"), working from an adaptation by Sean Forestal & himself of the John Christopher novel, fashions this material into a decent exploitation-message film. Ultimately, it's a retread of earlier films like "Panic in Year Zero", but it's generally well done. It's certainly well acted, and Wilde does come up with ways to make the film visually striking. (Such as the countryside littered with animal corpses.) He gives the story a polished presentation, complete with some harsh and uncompromising moments.

The idea is that humans have finally contaminated their home planet so badly that a virus has emerged that affects things like grass, wheat and rice. London descends into a state of utter chaos, and amid this societal breakdown, the Custance family makes the very long trek up North to where John Custance (Nigel Davenport) has a brother (Patrick Holt) with a farm. The Custance family acquires numerous other travelling companions along the way.

The deliberately stylized "flash forward" shots are a little disconcerting, but mostly Wilde sticks to the meat and potatoes of the tale. He's not afraid to show things getting grim, showing us that, in the end, survival can be a pretty ruthless business. And basically good people like the Custances can make alliances with a somewhat shady individual named Pirrie (Anthony May).

Wilde lays on the message a little thick with the opening minutes of stock footage, but soon draws us into the story proper, thanks to an effective, time-honoured premise and generally good acting. Davenport is solid as a no-nonsense, take-charge kind of guy, with the real-life Mrs. Wilde, Jean Wallace, cast as his wife. John Hamill, Lynne Frederick, Anthony Sharp, George Coulouris, Wendy Richard, Nigel Rathbone, Christopher Lofthouse, Ross Allan, and Christopher Neame comprise a very fine supporting cast.

Overall, a respectable effort that also works because the Custances and their followers do create a strong sense of community.

Seven out of 10.

What a daring, and visionary topic, not at all desuet, as some reviews say. I fell in love with this film made by Cornel Wilde, some kind of Mel Gibson before its time. Both were - are - directors as actors, both directed movies emphasizing on cruelty and violence: NAKED PREY, BEACH RED, LANCELOT AND GENUIEVRE for Wilde and BRAVEHEART, PASSION OF THE CHRIST, APOCALYPTO, HACKSAW RIDGE; don't you see any parallels, more or less same topics (medieval, war films, or a man hunt scheme )...Same tendancies to make what they wish to show to audiences.... I though admit that MAD MAX lead has not made any ecological film yet as this one.... Anyway, this feature was a great surprise for me. I nearly prefer it to SOYLENT GREEN. It is only a shame that it is not as widely known. You are dealing here with a non Hollywoodian film, violent, gloomy but after all in the right mood of the early seventies. It may be shocking for many audiences. That's why I love it. One of Cornel Wilde's best, besides LANCELOT...and NAKED PREY. As I said in this review tite, I would have perfectly imagined zombies plague in this story, to be totally adequate to today's movies tendancies...

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.

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.

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".