A criação dos Humanoides

Maybe I just like robots too much, but having only just seen this, I happen to quite like it. The ideas are familiar by now, the production values make Star Trek look extremely flashy, and the characters tend towards wooden, but somehow it's better than all the expensive monster movies that pass for sci-fi lately. Fans of Blade Runner might appreciate this one. There are lots of little dialogue details worth paying attention to, which add a lot of context. Some older comments suggested this was one of the worst films the viewer had ever seen. I don't think it's even in that contest. It stands head and shoulders above dozens of sci-fi movies I've seen, some of them old and some of them new. Watch it if you can find it. :)

I saw this movie years ago and it left quite an impression on me. What a brilliant story and premise. It is basically a story of prejudice - long before its time (1962). The production, acting and directing was awful, but if you can get past that you will be rewarded. This is a story that needs to be considered for a new production which is more professional. There is no need to repeat the story since another reviewer has done an admirable job. In this story the "mad" doctor has a heart and is really a good guy. It is the flesh and blooders vs. the clickers. But you can substitute any other racial conflict such as the race riots in the U.S. and others throughout the world. I have never read the book, but am anxious to find it.

In a world after nuclear war destroyed 92% of the human population, humanity uses blue-skinned humanoid robots called Clickers as servants and workers. As the Clickers become more sophisticated and humanlike, an anti-robot watchdog group called the Order of Flesh and Blood rises in power. When the Order discovers Clickers are creating robots that are identical to humans and one of them has killed a man, conflict between the humans and Clickers seems inevitable.

One of the smartest and most original sci-fi films of its time. Unfortunately, its talkiness and static direction prevent many from recognizing its worth. In my view the smart script, relatively short runtime, and steady pace balance out the criticisms. I don't even see a problem with the low budget since they do remarkably well with what they have. It's a movie full of ideas and great dialogue that gives you a lot to think about and still holds relevance to topical issues of today. It's what sci-fi is, at its best, all about. Creepy electronic music score is a plus. Also one of the last films of legendary makeup artist Jack Pierce.

I see other reviewers crying for a remake. What a waste of everybody's time that would be. First, the ideas presented and explored here were revolutionary for sci-fi films of the early 1960s. That wouldn't be the case today so it would hold little impact as a modern film. What seems thoughtful for that time would be just another preachy message movie made today. Second, and we all know this is true, they would attempt to fix the original's technical flaws by having tons of shitty CGI and ridiculous action sequences. It doesn't need to be remade. It's an excellent and underrated science fiction film from the later part of the golden era of sci-fi. People need to learn to appreciate movies that are older and have a lot to offer, instead of just trying to update them to today's often crass and ostentatious "standards." Make new stuff for today and stop mining the past for ideas, please.

Even in the realm of the weird there is nothing else quite like "The

Creation Of The Hummaniods." Sure it's cheap, and it's got Dudley

Manlove(too small a role), but this dense, futuristic drama is miles

from Ed Wood and explored ideas (yes, "Blade Runner") that would be

judged profound coming out of a film with a budget.

The movie has about as many camera set-ups as "Rope"; but

a million times more story. Sure, it has unintentional humor, and

the most interesting thing about it; in the end, is it's an

unintentional exploration of boredom(hence, I think, the tie to Warhol).

It is moralistic, but avoids easy morality. Pax is a victim, but

also a seducer. Those who embrace the wave of robots are are hopeless as

those who attempt to enslave them.

This is a one of a kind film, and should be seen. Ten out of ten.

Sixty years after it was originally shot this unique movie continues to divide the still tiny number of people that have actually seen it from Susan Sontag to Andy Warhol - the latter quoted by David Bourdon in the 5 December 1964 edition of 'The Village Voice as calling it "the best movie he has ever seen" - to Leonard Maltin, who gives it a 'BOMB' rating.

Obviously screenwriter Jay Simms knew his sci-fi, and it remains one of the very few sci-fi movies accurately to reflect fifties magazine fiction and visually to evoke the cover art of the era. With expressionistic sets stylishly lit by veteran cameraman Hal Mohr, it resembles one of the preachier episodes of 'The Twilight Zone' or 'Out of the Unknown' with it's allegory of bigotry (which anticipates later more prestigious productions like 'Guess Whose Coming to Dinner' and 'Blade Runner'), and manages to compress an enormous ammount of allusion into just an hour and a quarter. The League of Flesh & Blood, for example, wear Confederate-style uniforms and are pointedly dismissed by the sister "in rapport with a Clicker" in language that could easily apply to the Klan ("You hold meetings. Wear ridiculous clothes. You tell each other how superior you are to the robots. Because you know we're not!"). Meanwhile accusations of electoral fraud are still arousing passion sixty years after Kennedy's highly questionable election victory over Nixon in 1960.

The wonderful dialogue is regularly remarked upon, my personal favourite being "the only crime that can be committed against a robot is vandalism"!