mark.waltz What seems to be Red Planet Mars is actually Venus in all her pre-historic glory where dinosaurs, large lizards (looking like sleeztacks from "Land of the Lost") and Venus Flytraps the size of a cow are able to survive on a planet that science has determined is way too hot for anything to flourish on let alone earthlings. But in the mind of some filmmaker with great dramatic license, that's all hogwash and men can not only go there, they can drive around in a souped-up sports car that can fly several feet off the ground without the benefit of wheels. The drive-in crowd may have loved this sort of thing, but they could also find other things to occupy their time with during boring sequences. Sillier than even Ed Wood's most hideous "Z" graders, this will make you laugh at the total ridiculousness of it, especially the obvious stock footage and the hairstyle that Howard Hughes' former protégée, Faith Domergue, must wear, which resembles an out-of-shape Viking helmet that was spray painted black. Basil Rathbone is also on for a few meaningless scenes. Poorly photographed with hollow sound, this film's acting highlight is by the creatures who thanks to a lack of dialog give better performances than the human actors.

Chase_Witherspoon A pair of cosmonauts aided by a robot crash lands on Venus prompting their support crew to make a treacherous search and recovery effort. Both crews discover that Venus is inhabited by unwelcoming lizard-like creatures, and the constant vocal apparition of a woman, prompting them to search for signs of a prehistoric life above and below its surface.Re-edited Russian film features Rathbone and Domergue in unconnected footage as space station transmittance, while the original Russian cast do all the grunt work on the surface of Venus, aided by the "Robbie the Robot" esque "John". There's a couple of reasonable action sequences with prehistoric lizard beasts, some impressive scenery and moment or two of genuine intrigue as the cosmonauts are haunted by the possibility of life existing on the planet, but unable to make substantive contact.The film's climax and conclusion fit the somewhat sombre tone and while potentially not an audience-pleaser, is still passable. The original Russian movie "Planet of Storms" looks to be a competent sci-fi film in itself (forgiving some crude special effects, e.g. the aquarium footage), the US-shot inserts of Rathbone and Domergue, while adding some marquee quality, aren't really needed to bolster the original format. A bit ponderous at times with the laboured 'are we alone' dialogue, it's more coherent than its second revision, Peter Bogdanovich's abysmal "Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women" a second attempt to re-edit the original, and an abject mess.

johnstonjames this film should probably be taken more seriously than it is usually taken. it is way ahead of it's time in terms of thinking and in special effects and sci fi photography. it's robot is way advanced for that time period and even pre-dates that Val Kilmer sci fi film about the Red Planet.this film is one of the more vivid memories from my childhood. along with the creepy finger hats from '5,000 fingers', the memory of the robot stuck in the river of lava has always been a image that made a indented impression on me. i hadn't seen the movie in over three and a half decades and was curious to see if it would still hold up. i was surprised to find out it was better than i remembered and that the outstanding horror director Curtis Harrington was involved. who would have thought since this doesn't really seem typical of Harrington's type of thing.people who fancy themselves to be great know it alls forget that part of the art of critical sensibility is understanding something about origin and where technique started. uh, that's called history or something. everything has it. it makes for better learning if you truly try to study it. to make a better critic and to have better understanding of the truth it's good to note the origin of things and where they began and how they got started. so many people are into pointing out limitations in movies like this without ever realizing the advancements that were made in cinema at the time. in many ways even 'Forbidden Planet' feels somewhat clichéd and typical in comparison to what this movie did at the time.as far as fun goes, this film certainly delivers. a lot of it, attacking dinos, man eating plants, bikini clad prehistoric girlies, is pure retro, kitschy fun, other things, like the hovercraft and the robot are pretty good science speculation. whatever, fact or fiction, this movie delivers interesting imagery.don't listen to the naysayers on this one. they didn't stop to think. a lot of this movie is probably a lot more plausible than the sci fi silliness of a over blown junkie fix like 'Avatar'.

drystyx This movie plodded along more like a modern movie than one of the action packed old time sci fi movies of the fifties and sixties.It involves astronauts finding "prehistoric" life on Venus. So even at the time, it wasn't meant to be taken too seriously. It was an avenue for some excellent photography and camera work. We are treated to visual artistry, which is one of the main reason for producing an action oriented movie.It does do the Raymond Burr bit, though not as obvious as "Godzilla". Still, it becomes apparent about the American add ins. They don't detract from the movie, and work much better than Steve Martin in "Godzilla." It gives the movie the balance needed between scenery and science, giving what is known as "atmosphere." Though it starts very slow and plodding, the last half is full of some well written banter, which includes showing a sense of humor and humanity among the astronauts.Not as fast paced or exciting as most sci fi movies from that era, but that should go well with fans of the dull plodding science fiction of today.Between hard to swallow science and scientist, the dull start,and the postives-the banter, atmosphere, and scenery, I gave this a 4, but see this as a film people will usually rate anywhere from 2 through 7.