Under-appreciated.
After viewing this film I wonder why it is only given a stingy 1.6/10 ?! Surely it deserves atl east a mere 4/10?!
For a film of the late 1960's, it is not as bad as people seem to say it is! Not lacking in either story or acting, it is to say the least entertaining! Perhaps the special effects weren't up to a Cameron or Speilberg standard, but that's what the 1960's did to special effects in motion pictures!
I urge those who have seen it and didn't enjoy it to re-view it and give it another chance. And for those who have not seen it, if you've got a spare three hours somewhere, GIVE IT A GO.
For a film of the late 1960's, it is not as bad as people seem to say it is! Not lacking in either story or acting, it is to say the least entertaining! Perhaps the special effects weren't up to a Cameron or Speilberg standard, but that's what the 1960's did to special effects in motion pictures!
I urge those who have seen it and didn't enjoy it to re-view it and give it another chance. And for those who have not seen it, if you've got a spare three hours somewhere, GIVE IT A GO.
- MaRX-4
- Dec 14, 1999