Flight To Mars (1951) via Film Detective (1 Viewer)

[Johnny Angell]

Ya like what ya like, but when a movie is so boring that the guy they got to do commentary for it spends most of his time ripping it, that's a bad sign!

You ever listen to the commentary track for Spartacus on the Criterion DVD? It’s a group effort and one of the participants is the author of the novel and his name escapes me at the moment. He was hired to write the screenplay but was relieved of his duties. He frequently berates Douglas as a bad actor and really comes off as a snob. Then there’s the commentary on “The Hidden”. The director states he was mystified why Michael Nouri wasn’t a big star, till he worked with him and discovered he was an asshole. He probably didn’t use that word.

Besides, I don’t think anyone is claiming this a top notch movie, just that they like it.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

You ever listen to the commentary track for Spartacus on the Criterion DVD? It’s a group effort and one of the participants is the author of the novel and his name escapes me at the moment. He was hired to write the screenplay but was relieved of his duties. He frequently berates Douglas as a bad actor and really comes off as a snob. Then there’s the commentary on “The Hidden”. The director states he was mystified why Michael Nouri wasn’t a big star, till he worked with him and discovered he was an asshole. He probably didn’t use that word.

Besides, I don’t think anyone is claiming this a top notch movie, just that they like it.

Sure - it's still unusual to get a film historian commentary where the film historian in question seems so completely unenthusiastic about the movie.

Humphreys desperately tries to find reasons to praise the movie but usually comes up short!

 

[smithbrad]

Ya like what ya like, but when a movie is so boring that the guy they got to do commentary for it spends most of his time ripping it, that's a bad sign!

As you say, like what you like, which means I could care less if the gentleman doing the commentary enjoyed it or not, or someone else found it to be boring. I'm just freely providing my opinion as others have for anyone interested in reading.

 

[Bryan^H]

Ya like what ya like, but when a movie is so boring that the guy they got to do commentary for it spends most of his time ripping it, that's a bad sign!

Yup a serious pet peeve of mine. If people are going to do commentary of a film, it is ok to talk about strengths and weaknesses (any film) but spending majority of the time cracking on it...seriously get a life. This isn't Mystery Science Theater. One of the reasons I hate the commentary for the Arrow Gamera films.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Yup a serious pet peeve of mine. If people are going to do commentary of a film, it is ok to talk about strengths and weaknesses (any film) but spending majority of the time cracking on it...seriously get a life. This isn't Mystery Science Theater. One of the reasons I hate the commentary for the Arrow Gamera films.

To be clear: Humphreys doesn't "crack" on the film at all - this isn't a track where he gleefully mocks the movie.

As I mentioned, he works overtime to try to find elements to praise, and he occasionally does.

Humphreys views the movie as neither a strong entry in its genre or a "so bad it's good" camp classic, which makes his job more difficult.

Humphreys simply recognizes that "Flight" was a very inexpensive movie made on a very short schedule that lacks much imagination. There's little tension or drama and a whole lotta yakkin'.

I appreciated that he didn't attempt to build up "Flight" as some neglected classic. He criticizes the film in an appropriate manner and tries to bring out the positives but there just aren't that many to find...

 

[RBailey]

FLIGHT TO MARS did provide future stock footage for WORLD WITHOUT END and QUEEN OF OUTER SPACE.

 

[smithbrad]

To be clear: Humphreys doesn't "crack" on the film at all - this isn't a track where he gleefully mocks the movie.

As I mentioned, he works overtime to try to find elements to praise, and he occasionally does.

Humphreys views the movie as neither a strong entry in its genre or a "so bad it's good" camp classic, which makes his job more difficult.

Humphreys simply recognizes that "Flight" was a very inexpensive movie made on a very short schedule that lacks much imagination. There's little tension or drama and a whole lotta yakkin'.

I appreciated that he didn't attempt to build up "Flight" as some neglected classic. He criticizes the film in an appropriate manner and tries to bring out the positives but there just aren't that many to find...

Yes, we understand your opinion of the movie. It has been stated several times now. However, it is not one shared by all. Maybe its time to move on.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I listened to half the commentary yesterday and I did not get the sense that the commentator was putting down the film in any way. Rather, I think he was simply putting the film into context for both the time it was made and the studio that made it. For instance, there was a moment early on when he pointed out that the film’s beginning section had extraneous footage of people walking through hallways and mentioned that this was an easy way for b-movie producers to pad out the running time and stretch the budget further. I didn’t take those comments as being negative or put downs, but just explanations for how the production realities of the film shaped it’s content.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I listened to half the commentary yesterday and I did not get the sense that the commentator was putting down the film in any way. Rather, I think he was simply putting the film into context for both the time it was made and the studio that made it. For instance, there was a moment early on when he pointed out that the film’s beginning section had extraneous footage of people walking through hallways and mentioned that this was an easy way for b-movie producers to pad out the running time and stretch the budget further. I didn’t take those comments as being negative or put downs, but just explanations for how the production realities of the film shaped it’s content.

Humphreys becomes more negative as he goes - and he becomes more conscious of that tone as well.

 

[Bryan^H]

To be clear: Humphreys doesn't "crack" on the film at all - this isn't a track where he gleefully mocks the movie.

As I mentioned, he works overtime to try to find elements to praise, and he occasionally does.

Humphreys views the movie as neither a strong entry in its genre or a "so bad it's good" camp classic, which makes his job more difficult.

Humphreys simply recognizes that "Flight" was a very inexpensive movie made on a very short schedule that lacks much imagination. There's little tension or drama and a whole lotta yakkin'.

I appreciated that he didn't attempt to build up "Flight" as some neglected classic. He criticizes the film in an appropriate manner and tries to bring out the positives but there just aren't that many to find...

Well you said the commentator spends most of the time "ripping it", which I took for insulting the production. Glad to know that isn't the case. Seems old giant monster movies are most at risk for this stupid practice. Both 'Godzilla's Revenge' from Classic Media, and 'Gamera Super Monster' from Arrow were done in an insulting manner of commentary that I found to be absurd. Considering both were geared toward young children to start with.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Well you said the commentator spends most of the time "ripping it", which I took for insulting the production. Glad to know that isn't the case.

"Ripping it" just meant making critical comments about it. Sorry for the confusion.

I don't think Humphreys is ever disrespectful or mocking - indeed, he seems apologetic at times.

This definitely isn't a track where the commentator attacks the movie!