Hitchcoc Hardly worth the time to write this. Flying saucer sightings have been going on, making the headlines of major newspapers. A playboy and his girlfriend are sent to investigate. Mostly, we look at stock footage of Alaska (quite beautiful) as he tries to figure out what's with these devices. When we finally see one, it's all lumpy and disfigured, like it was hand made by some prop man. The plot really involves the Russians, who are going to use this saucer to attack the West (I guess). On the one hand, they are ruthless spies; on the other, they let people live, giving them opportunities to foil (aluminum foil) their plans. Since they are capable of killing, why tromp around a glacier when bodies could have been so easily disposed of? But that would have involved some intelligence on their part. Don't even bother to watch this.

jvance83 I just love 1950s B-grade science fiction movies, but I can't open my heart to this one. Mikel Conrad walking, Mikel Conrad smoking, Mikel Conrad standing around, Mikel Conrad riding in a boat, Mikel Conrad...well, you surely have the drift of my opinion by now. For the life of me I can't figure out what anyone had in mind when they financed this turkey of a film, which has some of the worst acting and dialogue I've ever laid eyes or ears on. Even the "action-filled" fight scenes have all the realism one might expect from a grade school production. The flying saucer? Well it appears they saved a bit on the budget by purchasing the item from the pages of a schlock comic book of the era ("Genuine Spaceship!! Holds 2 crewman!! Only $3.99 plus shipping!!!"). Nope, not even my odd obsession with giant irradiated bugs, spooky invaders and evil scientists can brook this piece of garbage.

keith-moyes As the first 'flying saucer' feature film, this was a must-see movie for a Fifties SF nut like me. Well, I have seen! I can do no better than paraphrase Michael Caine:"If I had my life to live all over again, I would do everything exactly the same - except I wouldn't see The Flying Saucer."This looks like a vanity project for its 'star', Mikel Conrad.At considerable expense, he took his cast and crew on location in Alaska and shot a lot of footage of the admittedly spectacular scenery. It must have used up most of the slim budget and boy was he determined to get value for money! At one point the 'nurse' is trying to find the hero. We follow her around a fishing village asking questions. I counted 12 different camera set ups for a sequence that ends in her not finding him at all. It seemed madness at the time, but later appears a model of concise film-making.The hero learns that the flying saucer is is hidden in a shack 'on the other side of the glacier'. He hires a sea plane to take him there. He takes off and flies over the glacier, looking around him. He spots the shack and lands. That simple little 30-second narrative bridge takes 6 minutes and at least 60 separate shots. I tried to count them (well, someone had to) but eventually gave up. He finds the saucer, returns home, is captured by the Russian agents and is immediately taken back to the hut again! This second trip takes a further 3 minutes and another dozen or so shots.As a result of all this padding, a 25 minute story is strung out to a numbing 75 minutes.I can only assume that Conrad went on location without a shooting script and just tailored the story to all the landscape footage he was accumulating. This is not movie-making.If, like me, you feel obligated to see every movie of this type ever made, then be my guest.But if you actually have a life, trust me - this is not for you.

bux Special effects and action are tediously absent from this early entry in the 'saucer' genre. Movie does seem to embrace much of today's UFO lore;CIA coverups,Canadian connections, Russkie hoaxes,etc. Bit part by Erl(Earle)Lyon is probably his film debut. No sitting on the edge of your chair here.