trimmerb1234
This 1961 film did not lack classic grand fantasy predecessors, most relevantly Disney's "20,000 Leagues under the Sea". Not everything that followed reached that standard but nothing prepared me for this cheap* and ineffective effort. The economy nature of the sets - the flying craft itself- resembles the standard of children's television of the era. Even the great Vincent Price appears diminished appearing as he does in the reduced circumstances of this film.This is B feature stuff in comparison with which the original Flash Gordon serials appear mightily impressive and certainly effective. Given the established high standards of Hollywood feature films and the skill at making low budgets for B features go a long way, it is unaccountable that something so comprehensively second rate in all departments could be released. Other reviewers complain about the weakness of the story. I couldn't summon up the interest to watch long enough to judge this.*The budget for "20,000 Leagues" was $5m in 1954, the budget for "Master of the World" was $500,000 in 1961
Sleep_Eat_Stare
The theme is similar to Verne's "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea." An unusually intelligent and industrious man who thinks war is terrible nevertheless wages his own private attacks on military vessels. It's Captain Robur in this story and Captain Nemo in the other. Verne is worth following because he, in a manner similar to H.G. Wells, pioneered science fiction. You might recall Well's "anti-war" story "War of the Worlds." That was long before the tape recorders and analog electric meters that characterized the "science fiction" written for early television and movies. Verne has an excusable innocence of later scientific discoveries. His scientific foresight was engaging and adventurous. It is the sort of imagination that makes the basis for a good story. The characters are as interesting as the wonders of science they encounter. Vincent Price as Captain Robur might be confusing as the character is not as sinister as the sort Price usually plays.
Wizard-8
One might wonder after first hearing about "Master of the World" is how the filmmakers were able to pull off this Jules Verne adaptation with one of American-International Pictures' B movie budgets. Well, the interiors of the flying craft look okay, and I guess the model of the flying craft itself is okay. But otherwise, the low budget shows, with ample use of stock footage and a lot of shoddy special effect sequences. The screenplay has some holes as well, such as the fact that it's never revealed how the villain managed to construct his flying craft in the first place. And it's really weird seeing tough guy Charles Bronson in a movie that's essentially a fantasy. But despite these problems, the movie is kind of fun if you approach it the right way. It's goofy, but naive in a way that makes the movie kind of charming. And except for the lengthy black and white opening sequence, the movie never gets boring; you'll be curious about how things will be wrapped up in the end. If you are in a kind of silly mood when sitting down to watch the movie, there's a good chance you'll be entertained.
LeonLouisRicci
A Movie that is a Constant Reminder of its Limitations. While Simultaneously Looking Charming and Cheap it Plods along with a Strong Character in Robur (Vincent Price) and an even Stronger Premise (Anti-War). Jules Verne was Somewhat of a Rage in Hollywood at the Time, but most of the Movies are Fairly Forgettable Today. They are Somewhat Anachronistic Costume Cinema going for a Youth Audience mostly, but were, for the Majority, rather Flat and only Mildly Interesting Considering the Fantastic Subject Matter.This one is Colorful and Occasionally Entertaining but Never Compelling. It is Forever Hampered by its only Mid-Range Budget and Flat Storytelling. Some Scenes are Worth a Look for some Retro-Retention. Using a lot of Back Projection and Stock Footage the Movie is Lackluster but not without its Energetic Half-Hearted Attempt at some Thrills.If Screened Back to Back with Harryhausen's Mysterious Island (made the same year), this one Stands Still and it Pales in Comparison. Not without some Viewing Interest it Remains as it was in 1961. Disappointing.
AD
