Assignment: Outer Space (1960)

Thanks for the memories!

Sadly Over-hyped

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

I only read the first line of the summary and it's completely false but what do you expect from IMDb?At one point a guy says "Do you think you're back in the 21st century?"That means this didn't take place in that century. Anyway, a reporter is sent into space for reasons that are never explained.He fears he won't be accepted by the astronauts and of course he's not and that's 50% of the story. After talking to the only female in space for 1 minute,they fall in love because that's realistic. At only 70 minutes there's not much time to fill yet the whole movie is filler.At least 1/3 of the movie is spent watching people move in slow motion because they are in space.Apparently low gravity makes you stay on the floor but you have to bend over to walk painfully slow.They even turn their heads in slow motion yet the low gravity doesn't affect their mouths,they have no problem talking at regular speed.All the inside scenes are tight shots of way too many people and all the outside shots are the same toy rocket moving very unnaturally. I could explain how stupid this movie is all day but I won't. If you can find a plot or anything that makes sense in this movie, I'll eat my hat.

I was quite impressed when this movie opened with the character of a black astronaut engineer named Al and played by Archie Savage. Where this movie "Assignment: Outer space" (also known as "Space Men")had serious crazy plot issues, Savage's portrayal of a White haired black astronaut engineer really stole the show. I was astounded considering this was a 1960 movie. His was the only performance which wasn't wooden and was really the central character we noticed the most from the very first scene even though they gave higher billing to Nutter & the commander.Savage gave credence, character & realistic believability to the movie. When Savage was not in the scenes, the movie trailed into the doldrums and only held our interest when Savage reappeared. The plot, however, was downright crazy going from one ridiculous inane event to another. But the technical scenes & Archie Savage's character were the key features worth watching. The quality of this movie was quite impressive for a 60's space flick as was the film quality & sound considering this was an Italian film which are usually quite poor. The color has definitely faded. If they could fix the plot problems, it might be worth restoring the color. The Audio track was excellent. Crystal clear & exceptional enunciation. Better than most recent new movies.This movie is actually better produced than some in the past 15 years.There is no doubt the movie drags on slowly but nothing could be slower & more painful than the movie 2001. Thank goodness for fast forwarding. Sometimes reality of slowness of space in movies like 2001, Marooned, stranded & Gravity go too far for patience sake. Same with those long laser sword battles of Star Wars not to mention gruesome amputations. I have no patience for slow dragging scenes, extended battles, fistfight scenes or drawn out rescue scenes where they spend half the movie trudging from point A to B... such as Armageddon, Voyage to the prehistoric planet (planet of prehistoric Women), Red Planet and a dozen others which have the actors trudging over miles of tedious wasteland for rescues or wasting endless time on boring battles.What made Star Trek unique was the interpersonal relationships between the characters & their experiences & new civilization encounters, technologies & differences. Not battles, fistfights or drawn out ordeals & endangerment. Oblivion was a breath of fresh air as was Moon, Robinson Crusoe on Mars & Capricorn One. Enemy Mine was also excellent due to the interpersonal interactions between the characters.Hollywood still does not understand what makes sci-fi work. It is character relationships where the audience invests their emotions, new technology, adventure to see new alien societies & civilizations & building on those interactions. We rarely get to see alien planets & civilizations or successful, thriving human colonies. How many were PO'ed about not seeing the alien planet & civilization on Prometheus? Or how "one note" Ridley Scott used the same formula in every Alien & Prometheus film. Always a loudmouth, cigar smoking bully black man in charge (who the heck would smoke on a spacecraft?), an android, 2 greedy scum prospectors, a male & female throw away victims, a lone surviving female heroine, the alien which never dies and the corrupt Company employer. The exact same format in every film Ridley made. Yet people rave about his films. Clearly they failed to compare them.But don't take advice from these post Xgen kids Commentaries. Ignore the plot issues & screwups of this film and take notice of the character Al, played by Archie Savage & it makes this movie worth watching. His performance will surprise you. He never would have had such a prominent role in a US produced 60's film. Thank the director for his foresight. And the producer for the film & audio quality. However, the scriptwriter should have been drawn & quartered. Everything else in this movie pales by comparison to Savage's role.Surprisingly refreshing & quality condition for a 60's sci-fi. You can find it on those 100 pack Sci-fi film sets.

Set on board a space ship in the year 2116, this movie has a number of problems that have to be overcome if you're going to enjoy it at all. First and foremost is the completely wooden and often lifeless acting, which the actors try to compensate for by trying (and failing) to make every scene seem as if it's the most important scene in the movie. There are also some pretty significant plot problems. First, there really is no story until about halfway through the movie. Originally, our intrepid group of explorers are heading to "Galaxy M-12," then they're heading to Mars for some mysterious reason, then they're suddenly diverted to Venus by order of "the High Command." Finally, upon the diversion to Venus, we're told that unless this ship can do something about it, the earth is going to be destroyed by some sort of rogue spaceship. I wasn't entirely clear, though, on why the earth was going to be destroyed. I was a little confused as well about why, half-way into the movie, Ray says "it's Christmas, Lucy." The line just hung there. It came out of nowhere and nothing came from it. So, both the story and the acting are a bit ridiculous. However ...There are some good points here. Gene Roddenberry is usually given credit for introducing minorities in command positions on "Star Trek," but I thought it was interesting that the engineer on this ship was black (played by Archie Savage, who had previously had minor roles in such movies as "South Pacific" and "The Ten Commandments") - and he was no token. He had important things to do, including a noble act of self-sacrifice. More thought was put into the conditions of outer space and weightlessness than a lot of low-budget sci-fi movies of that era worried about, and the on-board effects were not bad, as the crew clomped about the ship in their magnetic boots. The set was also fairly futuristic looking. Unfortunately, some of the animated space travel was rather poorly done. Once the crisis was introduced, there was a moderate amount of suspense about whether or not the earth could be saved. You know what? This isn't good, but it really isn't as bad as some people say it is. 5/10

OK, bad FX but given it was 1960 don't be too harsh in that judgment. Not having seen all SF films from that era it's hard to say whether it was below standard or not. Star Trek didn't get so much better by 1967, substituting flashing lights for analog gauges and completely rewriting/ignoring physics. I liked some of the techno babble here - the multi-stage rocket, the sleep chamber, the arched trusses inside the space station, weightlessness, hydrazine, the paramilitary dialogue. Tossing objects out to detect the beams and stay in the middle seems reasonable and inventive for a mere reporter. "Pecking the lobe" is an electronic way to do the same thing against enemy radar in modern warfare. There was a story here but things got compromised, as usual in movies time and space (ie distances), are ignored in order to cut to the chase (see Armageddon, 1997). The guy waxing philosophical during his space walk has been done in almost every space movie since, and even Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, et al spoke that way once on earth. Anyhow, good for a laugh.