- Joined
- Jul 3, 1997
- Messages
- 66,748
- Real Name
- Ronald Epstein
The link below will take you directly to the product on Amazon. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.
Last edited by a moderator:
I have fond but dim memories of this movie. Liked it as a kid, so that's in it's favor. I do remember the incredibly hokey spider.
I have read before that spider made multiple appearances. You know budgets are tiny when they reuse poor props.Yeah, that cheapened the film a bit (although quite cool for this young kid watching it on Million Dollar Movie, it hasn't aged well). That, or a similar spider, was also used in MISSILE TO THE MOON, CAT WOMEN OF THE MOON, QUEEN OF OUTER SPACE, and probably countless others, quite a feat since there is no oxygen on the moon or on Venus to support arachnids, let alone buxom women (although we didn't know that in 1958). Aside from that, the ten-dollar sets, five dollar costumes and mediocre effects hurt the film due to what was likely an impossibly tiny budget. But the film's concept and some of the performances are good, and the film remains memorable as one of my childhood faves. It's better than a mere "guilty pleasure." Thank you, Warner Archives!
I have fond but dim memories of this movie. Liked it as a kid, so that's in it's favor. I do remember the incredibly hokey spider.
Yeah, that cheapened the film a bit (although quite cool for this young kid watching it on Million Dollar Movie, it hasn't aged well). That, or a similar spider, was also used in MISSILE TO THE MOON, CAT WOMEN OF THE MOON, QUEEN OF OUTER SPACE, and probably countless others, quite a feat since there is no oxygen on the moon or on Venus to support arachnids, let alone buxom women (although we didn't know that in 1958). Aside from that, the ten-dollar sets, five dollar costumes and mediocre effects hurt the film due to what was likely an impossibly tiny budget. But the film's concept and some of the performances are good, and the film remains memorable as one of my childhood faves. It's better than a mere "guilty pleasure." Thank you, Warner Archives!
I have read before that spider made multiple appearances. You know budgets are tiny when they reuse poor props.
Count me in under the first group as being very disappointed.Also noted the disappointment of (straight) males (and LGBT ladies) after the Apollo moon landings that there was no underground lunar civilization of Miss America beauty pageant contestants for us to discover.
So pre-ordered using Ron's link.
Brad here. I first saw clips from these hokey 50s SciFiComedy at the SciFi Dine-In Theater at Disney Hollywood Studios (Disney World).
Also noted the disappointment of (straight) males (and LGBT ladies) after the Apollo moon landings found that there was no underground lunar civilization of Miss America beauty pageant contestants for us to discover.
.
It's worth noting that WORLD WITHOUT END was originally released theatrically in three-channel Perspecta Stereophonic sound.
View attachment 36798
It's worth noting that WORLD WITHOUT END was originally released theatrically in three-channel Perspecta Stereophonic sound.
View attachment 36798
It’s 2.55:1. You can even measure the AR for yourself from the screen captures at Blu-ray.com or DVD Beaver.Can anyone confirm the aspect ratio of this title? Package states 2.35:1, but it seems from a copy I borrowed from a friend, it is actually 2.55:1, in comparing it with some other 2.35 movies. I'm guessing maybe it is a misprint from WAC? Anyway, if there is anyone who has actually watched their copy of World Without End, can you confirm the aspect ratio as well...thanks.