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.

...Panic in Year Zero. A realistic examination of how quickly civilization can devolve and asks if one can preserve morality and civility in a world turned savage. The situations feel gritty and genuine. The way different personalities react and try to cope feels very authentic. However, it does get a bit long winded and quirky. It almost has a touch of Dr Who of the same era including the sound track. Panic in Year Zero is a bit tighter of a film and fits into it's decade (1950s) quite well with the backdrop of nuclear war. This film is set more in it's present day but in the future sort of. It's a decent B movie and has its moments. Just don't expect high budget effects or zombies.

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".

I saw this movie only once years ago and have never forgotten it. I remember nothing about the direction. I only remember how horrified I was by the movie. With today's headlines of global warming, war (is it a war yet?)in the Middle East, horrible crimes against humanity worldwide, famine, ecological disasters, you name it... this movie pops into my head all too frequently. I wish it would come out on DVD. Certainly there are equally badly directed movies on the market today. I think this movie would strike a note today (even if it is snickering or guffawing at it's overall horridness). It may not be as good as Shawn of the Dead, but it has certainly stuck in my mind over all these years as one of the best consuming ecological disaster movies I've ever seen.

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.