Cinq survivants

This is one of those cases where the flaws of the film in question are undeniable, and yet...there's something about this earnest little effort that gets to me. Perhaps there is something about the 50's look and feel and sound that I find winning; the actors do their best by the overripe but affecting script; and there is also the fact that, however primitively, the movie does attack prejudice and bigotry as the disgusting things they are. The strong background score by Henry Russell is really quite beautiful in spots, terrifying in others -- the slow orchestral buildup in the scene where Roseanne finds her husband gives me the shivers whenever I hear it. Personally, I don't find the film boring; once you ease into its rhythm it plays quite well. And the ending...well, yes, you can see it coming a mile away; but keep a handkerchief ready just in case.

This movie starts off with a mushroom cloud and pictures of what were the greatest cities on earth. It then shows a young woman named "Roseanne Rogers" (Susan Douglas) in a disheveled condition walking down a lonely road in a state of shock and disbelief. She happens to see a cabin perched upon a mountain top and decides to take shelter there. Once inside she meets a man named "Michael Rogan" (William Phipps) who is as startled to see her as she is to see him. They think they are the last two people on earth. Until two more men show up and then a third. One of these men, "Eric" (James Anderson), believes that they have developed an immunity to the radiation and that they should drive to a city a few days away to look for more survivors. Michael believes that the city is dangerous due to high levels of radiation and unsafe. Now, rather than give the entire plot away I will just say that this is a surprisingly good movie for its time and it is rich in drama and tragedy. Definitely worth a watch for those who enjoy dystopian films of this nature.

A bit overwrought and florid, but very enjoyable. Several reviewers pick on it because they seem to think that the characters are walking around in a totally depressed state throughout the movie. I don't see this at all. In fact, I perceive them as incredibly upbeat and positive about their situation, all things considered. One of the aspects of this film that I enjoy the most is the pure villainy of the bad guy. It's rare nowadays to see such an uncompromising and ungrateful jerk written into a script. He's human and believable, but he has no redeeming qualities at all. Also, he accomplishes this without the aid of technology, secret weapons, or even any sort of clever scheming or evil plans.

The cinematography is pretty good, with some startling shots and quite a bit of hand-held camera.

Finally, and I simply can't pass on this, the title is numerically correct for the majority of the movie. A couple other reviewers have stated that it is incorrect and I'm not sure if they're numerically challenged or what.

In authoritative books about science fiction in the movies, Five is generally dismissed as crude and simplistic. There is justification for this, but somehow I found the picture interesting anyway. The fact that it was shot on a shoestring may even have helped. Being forced to use only five actors and a single ready-made set--his own Frank Llloyd Wright house in the California hills--director Arch Oboler created an intimate self-contained world.

This narrow focus increases the intensity of the drama, which, as an end-of-the-world story, has its own inherent interest.

The plot doesn't bear much looking into. The way these five people--out of the entire world population--came to be together amounts to wild coincidence. There is a certain amount of sermonizing of the why-can't-we-all-get-along variety. And so on--it's hardly a great movie.

But it's interesting nonetheless and worth looking into.

I 'd never heard of this movie, so I was surprised at how good it was, shoestring budget or not. The acting isn't that bad, although James Anderson (Eric) has one of the strangest accents I've ever heard (It's somewhere between London, Bombay and Berlin). One fascinating 6th surivivor in the movie is the house itself that most of the scenes take place in. It is a cliff house designed by the great American Architect , Frank Lloyd Wright. Somehow the house and scenery add an extra sense of elegance to the movie that would have been lost if it was set in another setting. The characters are frequently filmed against the spectacular views from the house's large glass windows, emphasizing their loneliness in a world now so large and unpopulated. The pacing is glacial and seems to dwell on the (frequently depressed) moods of the characters, bringing to mind Bergman films like Persona (although Arch Oboler is no Igmar Bergman). The most likeable character is Charles, played by Charles Lampkin, who would go on to appear in films as varied as 'The Man', 'Islands in the Stream' and 'Coccoon' as well as a semi-regular character 'Ralph' on Mayberry RFD. He has a sweetness and naturalness that makes his paraphrasing of the beginning of Genesis one of the high points of the movie. It's a pity that he wasn't born later, or we would have seen more of him than the string of uncredited appearances in movies throughout the 60s and 70s.