Boring

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

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

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Uneven sci-fi that fails to achieve much impact despite unconventional ending. What's needed is more snap. Too bad lead actor Fredericks walks through his role in unemotional fashion despite Capt. Chapman's surreal plight. Then too, director Marshall seems uninterested in playing up the dramatic points. Instead, he simply shoots the script without apparent engagement. Thus there's little suspense or tension despite the perilous predicaments There're lots of special effects-- some good (the control booths), some not (the space flights and a space ship that looks like a candied dart). On the other hand, the indie production gets good economical use from the planet's unusual stony sets. However, I could have done without all the scientific gobeldy-gook that appears to do little more than pad the script. Anyhow, I'm soon blasting off to the phantom planet, hoping to meet up with either Liara or Zetha, the Elizabeth Taylor look-alike. Plus there's all those scantily clad "jurors" who could revolutionize the whole idea of a "trial". Just goes to show that Hollywood is always Hollywood regardless of where we are in space. Anyway, enough of my glandular reactions. Overall, the indie flick fails to work its positive points into anything beyond drive-in mediocre.(In passing- Catch fine A-picture actress Coleen Gray as Liara; too bad she's largely wasted here. Also, there's Anthony Dexter as Herron; his career was launched in 1951 as silent star Valentino but quickly petered out. And, of course, Francis X. Bushman, a giant of the silent era as Sessom. Such 'name' players are worth noting, I think, for an indie production.)

The Phantom Planet is one of the most boring, pointless movies I've ever seen. Pathetic even by the standard of 1950's B-grade sci-fi, Planet has less action than 2001 A Space Odyssey, with none of that film's originality, vision, or sense of wonderment. Angry Red Planet and This Island Earth are hot stuff compared to this.Like so many other sci-fi schlock-fests, this one begins with endless narration about the wonders of the universe, what man may find as he travels farther from earth, and all those other generalities that sound impressive to kids who haven't heard the same spiel in a dozen other movies. Then we're treated to a boring scene of a rocket crashing into an asteroid that looks suspiciously like a piece of fried chicken, which explodes into the film's title. From there an expedition is sent in search of the lost ship, and the crew's sole survivor finds himself trapped on the titular planet, where he experiences tedious adventures that you will have to see for yourself (or hopefully not).Phantom Planet contains nothing interesting, nothing original, and nothing well done. The plot is nonsensical and shoestring thin, even with a tacked on romantic subplot. All the characters and dialog are off the shelf, and all acting is wooden. I doubt the actors could have shown less emotion or been less believable if they'd been reading their lines off a sheet of paper. And no expense was taken on the special effects, which would have been underwhelming twenty years before this was made. The monster is on par with Ro-Man from Robot Monster, the flaming meteors appear to be flaming wads of newspaper, and the spaceships are clearly children's toys.As a result of these shortcomings, none of the scenes generate any excitement; not the asteroid field scene, not the first encounter with the tiny natives of the mysterious planet, and certainly not the ridiculous Duel of Raytar. Even the hallucinations are boring. The only part that provides any amusement is the explanation of the Phantom Planet's scientific phenomenon, and then only for the sheer incredulousness it generates. Even Flash Gordon had better science than this.So the whole movie is a meaningless snooze fest that couldn't entertain anyone with the intellectual capacity to read this review. At the very end, as the narrator intones, we see the words 'The Beginning' appear on screen. I think we can all be thankful that this prediction did not come true, and that nothing was ever heard of the asteroid/planet/fried chicken piece again.

Dean Fredericks (Captain Frank Chapman) and Richard Weber (Lt Makonnen) are sent into space to search for the previous rocket and occupants that seems to have disappeared. They go into the unknown where they come across a meteor shower that damages their ship but only Fredericks survives the repair mission that they undergo, before he and his ship are sucked into the gravitational pull of a large meteorite. Or is it a planet inhabited by tiny people? The majority of the film plays out on this meteorite/planet before Fredericks is picked up by a rescue mission. Has it all been a dream? The cast are pretty wooden but so what. The film has a nice idea that leaves you thinking at the end. The effects are funny but still entertaining - watch as popcorn threatens the rockets and how about those flying, squeeling pigs? This is a story with a romance that lends itself to a sadness and it creates a romantic tragedy type of film. I thought that this film would be a heap of junk but I was pleasantly surprised. It's nothing great but it's a fantasy type film where everything is certainly real to Dean Fredericks.

Ah, middling sci-fi. There's so much of it. This one features Richard Weber in a minor role as the hero's copilot delivering this stultifying line in the first act: "You know, every year I become more and more convinced that it's wisest and best to focus on the good and the beautiful." In the only other movie in which I've seen him act, 12 to the Moon, and in a much larger role, he again gets to deliver bad lines, but that movie is packed with bad lines. I don't think any other actor could have made Weber's lines come across as anything but idiotic, but being such a bad actor, they made his scenes memorable howlers in both movies.Otherwise, the acting in good enough. The movie has a wild and stupid story, cute young women, a fight over one such woman, and goofy-looking aliens, all seen in a number of films from the era. I think it all started with "Cat-Women of the Moon". I like it because of the women, it doesn't bore, nostalgia, and the inadvertent humor.If you can't see that sometimes what's bad in movies is funny, you have my pity as you'll never be able to fully appreciate what they have to offer. These things were funny to audiences at the time, and still are.