No Blade of Grass

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.

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 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.

In case there ever had existed a special type of award entitled: "best movie to make its audience feel guilty about their stupidity and reckless behavior", the price undoubtedly should go to Cornel Wilde's "No Blade of Grass"! Particularly during the opening sequences, but in fact also non-stop throughout the rest of the film, we are confronted with endless shots of pollution and starved animals. A stern voice- over also repeatedly states that only humanity is to be blamed for the destruction of our planet. I've never seen "An Inconvenient Truth" but I'm pretty sure it can't be as preachy as this one. Heck, I even started to feel very guilty and responsible for all the pollution, and I wasn't even born yet when "No Blade of Grass" was released! The first 10-15 minutes of the film solely exist of montages of factory chimneys producing thick clouds of orange smoke, airplanes spraying pesticides, overpopulation, oil spills, deforestation, enormous traffic jams, close-up of cars' gasses, nuclear testing and industries dumping waste into the sewers. Then the eerie voice-over suddenly states: "Then, one day, the polluted earth could take no more…" So, in case it wasn't clear yet, due to continuous pollution, a still unidentified virus destroyed all the earth's crops and the world's cities are rapidly becoming extinct. John Custance wants to lead his wife and daughter to safety, and together with his befriended scientist Roger Burnham, they sneak out of London and head towards Scotland where his brother David has a farming estate. The journey is long and – as they quickly discover – full of danger. They must confront villainous biker gangs that want to rape and murder them, but also regular and once- civilized people like themselves that are prepared to do whatever it takes to survive. "No Blade of Grass" constantly balances between vicious post-apocalypse exploitation and genuine human melodrama. Director Cornel Wilde clearly wants for his film to be a more intelligent and thought-provoking end-of- civilization drama, but it's actually one of the meanest and most violent ones of its kind. The title song is simultaneously powerful and depressing, but unfortunately there are also quite a few dull and unnecessarily slow-paced moments as well as shallow dialogues and stereotypical characters. "No Blade of Grass" is certainly a must-see for fans of bleak apocalyptic cinema, but in all honesty I still expected more from it.