Maidgethma Wonderfully offbeat film!

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

2freensel I saw this movie before reading any reviews, and I thought it was very funny. I was very surprised to see the overwhelmingly negative reviews this film received from critics.

Married Baby Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Matthew Kresal By the late 1950s, the works of Jules Verne had proved a rich ground for filmmakers. The decade had seen two highly successful films based on Verne's best known works including the Disney adaptation of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea and the Oscar winning Around The World In Eighty Days. So it was no surprise that the years that followed saw a number of films based, to a greater or lesser extent, on Verne's many works. One of the more notable is this 1961 film starring Vincent Price and Charles Bronson from a script by another master of science fiction, Richard Matheson. The results are intriguing and watchable if at times frustratingly lacking.Vincent Price was at the height of his career when Master Of The World was made and he is without doubt the star of the film. Despite not coming on screen until about fifteen minutes or so into the film, Price owns the film from that moment onwards. Looking at the film, it's hard not to see echoes of Nemo in Robur and more especially the version played by James Mason. Both are mysterious inventors and captains of vessels very much out of their time who seem bent on a mission that is in some admirable if not misguided in their methods. Price has considerable screen presence which he uses to great effect throughout from moments of crazed anger to quieter moments where he tries to convince his captive passengers of his mission. It's a solid performance and one of the film's highlights.Besides Price, the real star of the film is the script. Richard Matheson, author of the oft-filmed I Am Legend and writer of some of the most memorable episodes of The Twilight Zone, was a natural choice to adapt not one but two of Verne's works for the screen (1886's Robur the Conqueror as well as the 1904 work that shares the film's title). Matheson's script draws on elements and characters from both works to create a composite of them that works surprisingly well so that the seems never show. The result is an early example of steampunk that, as the Disney 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea did a few years earlier, creates a fairly believable but fantastic adventure story set in the Victorian era. Despite being well thought and developing its characters rather nicely as the film progresses, Matheson is guilty of delving into the occasional cliché at times, especially in regards to how it handles the film's sole female character and her relationships with the younger male characters. On the whole though, Matheson does an excellent job and it's a shame that other aspects of the film don't quite match its standard.Move beyond Price and Matheson's script and the rest of the film is a combination of mixed results. The supporting cast is with Henry Hull as arms manufacture Prudent and Charles Bronson as square jawed US government agent John Strock being particular highlights (Matheson considered Bronson mis-cast in the role though he's perfectly acceptable and excels in the film's action sequences). Another highlight of the supporting cast is Vitto Scotti as the the chef Topage in a role that is entirely comic relief and calls to mind Cantinflas as Passepartout in the earlier Around The World In Eighty Days. Other roles go from satisfactory (Wally Campo as Robur's First Mate Turner and Mary Webster as Prudent's daughter Dorothy) to cringe-worthy (David Frankham as Philip Evans, Dorothy's fiancé). The cast though is just part of the mixed bag that makes up the larger part of the film.Nothing helps nor hinders the film more than its production values. The influence of the Disney 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea is clear watching the film as it centers around its vehicle of choice (the giant airship The Albatross) in much the same way that the earlier film centered on the Nautilus submarine. The Albatross, both as an exterior model and as interior sets, is a triumph and can lay as much claim as the Nautlius to inspiring steampunk fashions and designs. Yet, for those triumphs, the magnificent model is let down by poorly realized model shots that are almost entirely made up of the Albatross being superimposed over stock footage (or in several cases, scenes from other films including the 1944 Laurence Olivier Henry V) that is entirely unconvincing. Another place where effects let the film down is in the aerial keelhauling sequence which, while intriguing, is let down by the simple fact that Bronson and Frankham are suspended on ropes in front of stock footage while also at one point trying to dodge a couple of fake tree limbs. Combined with pedestrian direction from William Witney, the results let down both Matheson's script and Price's performance. Given how much previous Verne based films are on it (including a prologue showing the evolution of flight ala the prologue of Around The World In Eighty Days) it's sad at times to see how much a lack of budget hampers the film.The result then is that Master Of The World is a perfectly watchable piece of work. Price's performance , Matheson's solid script and the design work all see to that. Yet looking at how much the film is let down by poor special effects and uninterested direction, it's hard not to wonder what might have been if the film had been given both a larger budget and a different director. As it stands, it's a decent and memorable movie but it leaves you wondering what might have been...

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.

estabansmythe I remember seeing this escapist gem, "Master of the World" (1961)after Sunday School one morning when I was 10 or 11. I loved it! AIP's Big Gun, Vincent Price is a thoughtful & gentlemanly, I'll call him, anti-hero rather than bad guy or madman. This is because while he does indeed blow up ships, killing countless men, he's on a quest to end war and thus, the only people he kills are those who make war.Thinking back, this film's presentation of its writer, Jules Verne's, anti-war philosophy may have made a rather large impression upon me as I started reading about our war in a far-off place called Vietnam, circa 1965 or 1965. Who knows? Anyway, this is a rare motion picture: a serious American International Picture (AIP) film with a serious message.The film provides Charles Bronson with one of his earliest leading man/hero roles. He handles the role perfectly.Director William Whitney, who began his career directing Republic cliffhanger serials; and legendary horror/sci-fi/fantasy writer/screenwriter Richard Matheson and their cast play it seriously - as it should be played, the exception coming via Vito Scotti's fun, harried cook. AIP's in-house music director Les Baxter's score is also appropriate for the action.The special effects team (Tim Baar, Wah Chang, Pat Dinga,Gene Warren) do very nicely working within AIP's usual '60s budget constraints.The movie flows, it entertains, it even makes you think. This is a good movie!

gavin6942 A sleepy Pennsylvania town is awakened in 1868 when Captain Robur (Vincent Price) comes sailing in on his airship. A few of the city locals join him, curious about this new way to fly, and eager to stop him when they think he has had a bit too much power for his own good.Let me start by saying that I absolutely loved the prologue, which was perfect for this film. The montage of various flying devices that did not work. Some of this footage has become classic, but it fit the theme perfectly here: a world where the only way to fly is with balloons suddenly seeing a new method in disbelief.Vincent Price is great as Captain Robur, but when is he not? He would go on to declare this one of his favorite roles. Charles Bronson plays the other lead, John Strock, and may surprise fans of Bronson. (Some have said he was miscast, but I do not see any problem with it.) We also have Henry Hull as Prudent, more or less representing the "old ways" (which are quite old by now, given the story takes place just after the Civil War).David Frankham is also great, and interestingly came on board thanks to Vincent Price. His role was already filled by AIP regular Mark Damon, but Damon skipped out to film another project. Price suggested Frankham because they had worked on "Return of the Fly" together. Frankham is not as well known as Damon, but he is a valuable resource because he has provided multiple commentaries in recent years.Richard Matheson wrote the script, based on two Jules Verne stories. Matheson has consistently been a great writer, particularly in conjunction with Vincent Price and AIP. Jules Verne is not a source used often enough -- beyond "Around the World in 80 Days" and "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea", his work remains largely untouched. This film proves that more can be done -- and also that you can get around the world in ten days. Interestingly, the plot revolves around a man who thinks he can end war by using the threat of invincibility. While the idea of having a war on war is admirable, one has to wonder if Matheson had in mind the nuclear bomb when writing the script -- surely the bomb's creation was thought to end war as we knew it, but only encouraged others to acquire nuclear bombs. Likewise, one assumes that governments would push to build Robur-style airships.Vincent Price (or Charles Bronson) fans should check this one out. It is not a horror film, not by any means. It is typically classified as science fiction, though I would put it more in fantasy. Price still has a bit of the villain inside him here, but it is not the murderous, insane type... it is a misunderstood, misguided antihero. As always, the definitive edition is on Scream Factory's Vincent Price Collection (Volume 3). We have an incredible audio commentary with David Frankham and a moderator named Jonathan -- Frankham is very knowledgeable about Les Baxter, and even offers a slight diversion to discuss "Werewolf of London". Few people alive today know the AIP of the 1960s like Frankham. The disc also includes the full-length documentary "Richard Matheson: Storyteller", which is priceless and will be covered in its own review.